Partly allowed

Venna Aruna and 4 Others v. P. Srinivas and Another

Telangana HC4 Jun 2018CMA/3157/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing compensation from Rs.2,52,400 to Rs.3,42,000. It corrected the deceased's age to 28 years, fixed income at Rs.24,000 annually excluding agricultural earnings, and awarded Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,42,000 with 9% interest. Apportionment made among wife, two sons, and parents.

Venna Aruna and 4 Others Vs P. Srinivas and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER CI VI L MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3 1 5 7 of 2 0 0 4

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

Aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.2,52,400/ - by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity), vide order, dated 13.05.2004, passed in M.V.O.P.No.704 of 1999, as against the total claim of Rs.7,30,000/ -, the claimants preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for brevity) seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶4

2 . Heard the submissions of Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, Smt. I.Mammu Vani, learned Standing Counsel for New India Assurance Company Limited representing the 2^nd respondent and perused the record.

¶5

3 . The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would submit that the deceased-V.Srinivasa Reddy was 28 years old as on the date of accident and working in a dairy farm and earning Rs.2,000/ - per month as salary besides commission. He was also having four acres of agricultural land and was deriving agricultural income of Rs.20,000/ - per annum. There is oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The Tribunal erroneously took the annual income of the deceased as Rs.1,800/ - per month and did not take into consideration the income derived by the deceased from agriculture. Further, the Tribunal had taken the age of the deceased as 35 years as on the date of accident. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is very low and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

¶6

¶7

4 . On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for New India Assurance Company Limited representing the 2^nd respondent would submit that the Tribunal had taken all the relevant factors into consideration and awarded just and reasonable amount towards compensation. There is noting to take a different view and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶8

5 . It is not in dispute that the deceased-V.Srinivasa Reddy died in a road accident that occurred on 28.05.1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AAT-9968. There is ample evidence to substantiate the same. Thus, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants-claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased-V.Srinivasa Reddy, are entitled for enhancement of compensation.

¶9

6 . There is evidence of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, that the deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of accident and he was working for a dairy farm and earning Rs.2,000/ - per month as salary, besides commission. As per the criminal case records produced before this Court, the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 28 years. The Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for taking the age of the deceased as 38 years as on the date of accident, which is contrary to the evidence on record. Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to take the age of the deceased as 28 years as on the date of accident.

¶10

7 . There is evidence on record that the deceased was working in a dairy farm at Challagulla and was getting salary of Rs.2,000/ - per

¶11

¶12

month besides commission. Ex.A.7-Salary Certificate of the deceased reveals the said income. It is contended that the deceased was having four acres of agricultural land and was deriving Rs.20,000/ - per annum towards agricultural income. The land left out by the deceased can be cultivated by his parents and the other family members. Hence, this Court is not inclined to include the agricultural income of the deceased for awarding compensation. Thus, this Court is inclined to take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/ - per month, which comes to Rs.24,000/ - per annum. If 1/ 3^rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.16,000/ - per annum (Rs.24,000/ - minus 1/ 3^rd of it). As per the judgment of the Apex court in case between Sar la Ver m a v . Delh i Tr an spor t Cor por at ion¹ , the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased (28 years) is 17. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,72,000/ - (Rs.16,000/ - x 17). Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled for Rs.2,72,000/ - towards loss of dependency.

¶13

8 . It is apt to refer to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Nat ion al I n su r an ce Co. Lt d., Vs. Pr an ay Set h i an d ot h er s² , wherein, it was held as follows: -

¶14

“ Reason able figu r es on con ven t ion al h eads, n am ely , loss of est at e, loss of con sor t iu m an d fu n er al ex pen ses sh ou ld be Rs.1 5 ,0 0 0 / -, Rs.4 0 ,0 0 0 / - an d Rs.1 5 ,0 0 0 / - r espect iv ely . Th e afor esaid am ou n t s sh ou ld be en h an ced at t h e r at e of 1 0 % in ever y t h r ee y ear s.”

¶15

Taking into consideration the aforementioned decision of the Apex Court, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.40,000/ - to the 1^st appellant/ 1^st claimant (wife) towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/ - to the appellants-claimants towards loss of estate and another

¶16

1 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶17

2 2017 (6) ALD 170 (SC)

¶18

¶19

Rs.15,000/ - towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellantsclaimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,42,000/ - (Rupees three lakhs fourty two thousand only) (Rs.2,72,000/ - + Rs.40,000/ - + Rs.15,000/ - + Rs.15,000/ -). The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of petition till realisation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till realisation.

¶20

9 . Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order, dated 13.05.2004, passed by the Tribunal, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,52,400/ - to Rs.3,42,000/ - with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. On deposit of the compensation, the appellants-claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the accrued interest. The apportionment of compensation shall be as under:

¶21

1^stappellant (wife)	:	Rs.1,00,400/ - (including loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/-
2^ndappellant (son)	:	Rs.60,400/-
3^rdappellant (son)	:	Rs.60,400/-
4^thappellant (mother)	:	Rs.60,400/-
5^thappellant (father)	:	Rs.60,400/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.3 ,4 2 ,0 0 0 / -

¶22

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶23

______________________ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶24

04^th June, 2018 Bvv

Venna Aruna and 4 Others v. P. Srinivas and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venna Aruna and 4 Others v. P. Srinivas 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Baba Vs the State of Telangana

Sardhana Rajeeru Vs State of Telangana

Gujjula.Venkata Ramana Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Boya Mallikarjuna Vs M. Daurya Naik and Another

Boggarapu Lakshmi Kumari Vs R.Venkata Ramana

Kathi David Raju and Another Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P. and 2 Others