Smt.Shadeda Begum v. Mohammed Sadiq Khan
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.851 of 2013 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred challenging order dated 03.11.2012 in O.P.No.2000 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: Appellant herein filed claim petition contending that on 04.08.2010 the deceased Peer Mohammed @ Peer Ahmed was travelling in a trolley bearing No.AP 12 V 3804 along with fruits from Kothapet Fruit Market to Thandur via Vikarabad Ananthagiri hills and the driver due to rash driving of auto trolley could not control the vehicle, as a result trolley turned turtle and deceased Peer Mohammed as owner of goods sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Appellant No.1 is wife, appellant Nos.2 to 6 are children and appellant No.7 is mother of late Peer Mohammed.
They claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Peer Mohammed and trial Court on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence of both parties granted a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation and aggrieved by the quantum, claimants preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard arguments.
4. Advocate for appellants submitted the claims Tribunal erred in taking 1/4th of the annual income
towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of deducting 1/5th as the claimants are more than '4'. He further submitted that the claims Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month and even minimum earnings of a cooli was Rs.4,500/- per month. He also submitted that claims Tribunal has granted only Rs.10,000/- as consortium and it ought to have granted Rs.1,00,000/- atleast a minimum of Rs.60,000/-, therefore, the order of claims Tribunal has to be modified.
5. On the other hand, advocate for Insurance Company submitted that claims Tribunal has rightly taken the wages of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and the objection of appellants is not at all tenable. He further submitted that claims Tribunal has rightly fixed the compensation and that there are no grounds to interfere.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the order in O.P.No.2000 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is legal, proper and correct?
POINT :
7. There is no dispute with regard to accident so also the dependency of appellants herein.
Appellants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per
month on fruits business and he was contributing the entire money to the family, but the claims Tribunal has not accepted monthly income of Rs.6,000/- and fixed notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month. Admittedly, claimants have not produced any evidence in support of monthly income of the deceased except relying of self serving testimony of wife, who is examined as PW.1. When there is no positive evidence from the claimants in support of the claim of Rs.6,000/- towards monthly income, the finding recorded by the claims Tribunal with regard to annual income of the deceased cannot be interfered.
8. Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/4th of the annual income towards personal expenses. Now, the contention of appellants is that as per law laid down in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], 1/5th of the annual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses since claimants are '7' in number. Advocate for Insurance Company has not disputed this proposition. Therefore, to that extent, the deduction can be corrected.
9. The Claims Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium. Advocate for appellants contended that in view of decision of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others[2], it is reasonable to award atleast Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium. Considering the contentions and rival contentions of both parties and also age of the wife-PW.1 and the observation of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajesh's case, a sum of Rs.60,000/- would be appropriate and reasonable that can be fixed towards consortium and to that extent award of the claims Tribunal has to be modified. Claims Tribunal granted Rs.60,000/- towards love and affection to the children and mother, who are claimant Nos.2 to 7. As seen from the award besides granting Rs.60,000/- again a sum of Rs.28,000/- is granted under the same head by the claims Tribunal, therefore, additional grant of Rs.28,000/- has to be deleted and it has to be confined to Rs.60,000/- towards love and affection of claimant Nos.2 to 7. Further, claims Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- towards transport and medical expenses and another Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, which in my view is reasonable as per the material evidence available on record.
10. Now the compensation is to be calculated taking Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. Annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-, out of this, 1/5th is to be deducted towards personal expenses.
Applicable multiplier is '16'. If calculation is made income for the purpose of compensation comes to Rs.4,60,800/- (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 1/5 x 16). Added to this, claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.60,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transport and medical expenses. Thus, total comes to Rs.6,00,800/-, which can be rounded to
Rs.6,00,000/-.
11.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed enhancing compensation from Rs.5,50,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- with the same rate of interest as granted by the claims Tribunal and the difference amount together with interest shall be deposited within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J 22nd February 2016.
mar [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] 2013 ACJ 1403