Smt.K.Sabitha And 4 ORS v. The Ap State Road Transport Corporation And ANR

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellants, who are the claimants before the Court below, assailing the judgment of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, dated 29.09.2011, on the ground that the Court below did not award adequate compensation and that Rs.3,000/- which was taken by the Court below as monthly income is low and it ought to have taken at Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased and that the Court below ought to have deducted 1/6th instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, as there were five persons, who are dependants on the deceased. 2.

Heard the counsel for the appellants and respondents. 3.

The counsel for the appellants contends that the approach of the Court below in taking Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of the deceased is not proper and that the Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited1 held that even for a coolie, Rs.4,500/- per month has to be taken as the monthly income. Hence, following the said judgment, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month.

4.

The counsel for the appellants also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 and batch dated 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236

TR, J 31.10.2017] to contend that the appellants are entitled for future prospects, which are assessed, by taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, which has to be @ 25%. The counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company did not dispute the said fact. Hence, if Rs.1,125/- (Rs.4,500 x 25%) is taken as future prospects of the deceased, then the monthly income would come to Rs.5,625/- (Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,125/-) 5.

The dependants are five in number. Hence, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th. Then, the loss of monthly income would be Rs.4,219/- and the loss of annual income would be Rs.50,628/- (Rs.4,219/- x 12). 6.

The multiplier that was adopted is '15'. But, the counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that the multiplier for the age group of the deceased, which is 42 years, is '14' as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Hence, Rs.7,08,792/- (Rs.50,628/- x 14) would be the loss of future income of the appellants. 7.

Apart from this, Rs.70,000/- is awarded towards the conventional heads, like loss of consortium, loss of estate and future prospects as held by the Supreme Court in Pranaya Sethi referred supra, on which the total compensation would be Rs.7,78,792/-, which can be rounded off Rs.7,79,000/-. The claim is only for Rs.6,00,000/-. But, the compensation granted can exceed the claim amount, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

TR, J Singh3, wherein it was held that the compensation has to be just and it can exceed the claimed amount. This Court also in Adam Indur Mutemma v. Rathod Peddita4 held that the compensation amount can exceed the claim amount, subject to payment of court-fee. The counsel for the appellants also relied on a ruling of the Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others5, wherein it was held that there is no restriction that the award compensation amount cannot exceed the claim amount, as the Courts have to award just compensation. Hence, the above arrived at compensation is awarded. However, the appellants shall pay the court fee on the differential amount.

8.

Hence, the award of the Court below is modified as indicated above, with proportionate costs. The appellants/claimants shall pay the differential court-fee. 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. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same proportion as per the award of the Court below. [9.

Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ____________ T. RAJANI, J 22nd June 2018.

mar 3 (2013) 9 SCC 54 4 2015(4) ALD 585 (LB) 5 (2003) 2 SCC 274