Partly allowed

Jabeen Begum v. Sri Shaik Abdul

Telangana HC4 Oct 2017MACMA/946/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court enhanced the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award by increasing the deemed income of the deceased from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 3,000 per month and adding Rs. 2,50,000 for funeral, consortium, and loss of affection based on preceding precedent.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal award enhanced to Rs. 6,57,000/- via increased income calculation and grant of head damages for funeral, consortium, and affection.

Jabeen Begum Vs Sri Shaik Abdul — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶2

CROSS-OBJECTIONS No. 44507 OF 2010

¶3

IN/AND

¶4

M.A.C.M.A.No. 946 OF 2008

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶6

Assailing the order and decree dated 28-11-2007 in O.P.No. 823 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'the Tribunal), the claimants therein preferred M.A.C.M.A.No. 946 of 2008 on the ground that the Tribunal did not award adequate compensation and respondent No. 2 – Insurance Company before the Tribunal filed cross-objections No. 44507 of 2010 questioning the compensation on the ground that there is no proof with regard to the income of Rs.2,500/- of the deceased as taken by it.

¶7

Heard both sides.

¶8

Learned counsel for the cross-objector contends that there is no proof with regard to the income of the deceased and hence notional income has to be taken. It is also contended by the said learned counsel that age proof of the deceased is also not brought on record. The deceased is said to be a commission agent. Since no evidence was adduced in support of the said plea,

¶9

the Tribunal, considering the deceased as a coolie, took Rs.2,500/- as his monthly income. The age of the deceased was 24 years. Any able-bodied person would be able to earn in the least Rs.3,000/- per month and the trend of decisions of the Apex Court is as such. Hence, Rs.3,000/- can be conveniently taken as the income of the deceased. With regard to the proof of the age of the deceased, this being beneficial legislation, strict rules of evidence need not be

¶10

TR, J. macma_946_2008

¶11

¶12

applied. The post mortem examination report and the inquest report would be helpful to assume the age of the deceased. The age mentioned in both the documents is 24. Hence, the same can be accepted. The income of the deceased having been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, 1/3^rd has to be deducted from the same towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, loss of monthly income to the claimants would be Rs.2,000/- and loss of annual income would be Rs.24,000/-. There is no dispute with regard to multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal. Hence, Rs.24,000/- x 18 comes to Rs.4,32,000/-.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal did not award adequate compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. By relying on the ruling in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh¹ , he urges that Rs.25,000/- has to be awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- should be awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1^st appellant and Rs.1,00,000/- should be awarded to the 2^nd appellant towards loss of love and affection. Following the said judgment, the above amounts are awarded and hence, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.6,57,000/-.

¶14

In the result, the award of the Tribunal stands enhanced by Rs.2,85,000/making the total award as Rs.6,57,000/-. M.A.C.M.A.No. 946 of 2008 is accordingly partly allowed with proportionate costs and cross-objections No. 44507 of 2010 are dismissed. The award shall relate back to the date of decree and the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate specified and from the time indicated in the award of the Tribunal.

¶15

1 2013 (9) SCC 54

¶16

TR, J. macma_946_2008

¶17

¶18

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these appeals shall stand

¶19

closed in consequence.

¶20

___________ T.RAJANI, J.

¶21

Date: 04-10-2017. JSK

Jabeen Begum v. Sri Shaik Abdul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabeen Begum v. Sri Shaik Abdul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Macharla Sunil Kumar Vs Tegala Sankara Rao

Katta Ravi Kishan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bodduluri Ramesh

S.Anjaneyulu Vs Md. Rafeek

C.Viswanatham (Died) Per Lrs 2 to 6) Vs Smt. S.Nalini Rani

C. Vishwanatham (died) Vs Smt. S. Nalini Rani