Allowed

Smt.M.Balamani and 3 Others v. K.Raju and Another

Telangana HC21 Dec 2017MACMA/1997/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal modifying the compensation awarded in a death case. The Court increased the deceased's income to Rs.15,000, applied a 40% future hike, and reduced personal expenditure. Total compensation was enhanced to Rs.29,05,000, exceeding the claimed amount, citing specific Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Award of compensation enhanced to Rs.29,05,000 with interest; apportionment to match Court below's proportions; claimants to pay differential court-fee.

Smt.M.Balamani and 3 Others Vs K.Raju and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

MACMA.No.1 9 9 7 of 2 0 1 1

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal is preferred by the appellants, who are the claimants before the Court below, assailing the judgment of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OP.No.795 of 2009 dated 16.03.2011 on the ground that the Court below did not award adequate compensation.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.

¶6

The deceased, in this case, is stated to be a mechanic running a shop and his income was claimed to be Rs.15,000/ - per month. The Court below, however, considering that there was no evidence with regard to the income, took Rs.3,000/ - per month as income of the deceased.

¶7

The counsel for the appellants now takes the help of the decision of the Supreme Court in SHI VAKUMAR M. v . BMTC¹ to contend that Rs.15,000/ - has to be taken as the income of the deceased, as the Supreme Court took the said income in respect of person, who is a painter. The Supreme Court held that the appellant therein made self-estimation of his income of Rs.15,000/ - to Rs.16,500/ - and observed that for a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work, it is difficult to get any evidence, since there is no employer.

¶8

1 (2017) 5 SCC 79

¶9

¶10

The deceased, being a mechanic, the present case stands on a better footing. Hence, Rs.15,000/ - has to be taken as the monthly income of the deceased.

¶11

The counsel also relied on a latest decision of the Supreme Court in NATI ONAL I NSURANCE CO. LTD. v . PRANAY SETHI [ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 and batch dated 31.10.2017] to contend that the future hike in the income is also to be considered and the deceased, being 38 years, the future hike has to be 40% as per the said decision.

¶12

If the future hike at 40% is added, the monthly income would come to Rs.15,000/ - + (Rs.15,000/ - x 40% = Rs.6,000/ -) = Rs.21,000/ - and the annual income would come to Rs.21,000/ - x 12 = Rs.2,52,000/ -. Since the claimants are four in number, 1/ 4^th has to be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v . DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATI ON² . Hence, after deducting 1/ 4^th , the income would come to Rs.2,52,000/ - - (Rs.2,52,000/ - x ¼ = Rs.63,000/ -) = Rs.1,89,000/ -. The age of the deceased, being 38 years, the multiplier relevant as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA’s case (1 supra) is ‘15’. Hence, the loss of future income to the claimants would come to Rs.1,89,000/ - x 15 = Rs.28,35,000/ -. Apart from the above, following the decision of the Supreme Court in PRANAY SETHI ’s case (supra) Rs.40,000/ - is awarded to the first claimant towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/ - is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/ - is awarded towards funeral expenses. Hence, in all, the claimants are entitled to total

¶13

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶14

¶15

compensation of Rs.28,35,000/ - + Rs.40,000/ - + Rs.15,000/ - + Rs.15,000/ - = Rs.29,05,000/ -. Though the compensation awarded exceeds the claim, now the law is well settled by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in RAJESH v . RAJBI R SI NGH³ , wherein it was held that the compensation has to be just and it can exceed the claimed amount. This Court also in ADAM I NDUR MUTEMMA v . RATHOD PEDDI TA⁴ held that the compensation amount can exceed claimed amount, subject to payment of court-fee.

¶16

Hence, the award of the Court below is modified as indicated above with proportionate costs. The claimants shall pay the differential court-fee. The apportionment of compensation shall be made in the same proportion as made by the Court below. The award shall relate back to the date of decree and the compensation awarded shall carry the interest at the rate and from the date specified by the Court below.

¶17

The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶18

__________ T. RAJANI, J

¶19

December 21, 2017 DSK

¶20

3 (2013) 9 SCC 54

¶21

4 2015(4) ALD 585 (LB)

Smt.M.Balamani and 3 Others v. K.Raju and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.M.Balamani and 3 Others v. K.Raju and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Gulab Singh and 3 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Perala Basava Purnamma, Vs Smt.Uma Lakshmi and Another

Kurakula Venkata Ramachandra Rao,Chandu and 2 Others Vs Gajavilli Santhamani and Anothers

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sd. Thahascin and 3 Others

Bolasu Subba Rao, West Godavari District Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyerabad and Anr.

Lancet Airways Ldt. 223,PRASHANT Nagar and Anothers Vs the Govt of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers