Smt.Jatavath Gamsi And ANR v. P.Pundarikaksha Rao And ANR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD MACMA NO. 529 OF 2006 JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed by the claimants against the award and decree dated 09.09.2005 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Case-cum- Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal), in O.P.No.746 of 2003, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- on account of the death of the deceased - Jatavath Babu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.11.2002, as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. 2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the Tribunal.

3.

Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the notional income taken by the tribunal is very low, whereas, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v Lala and others1, notional income can be granted at Rs.30,000/- per annum and hence, prayed to enhance the just and proper compensation.

4.

There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and involvement of the vehicle. The 1st claimant is the mother and the 2nd claimant is the father of the deceased. The award passed by the tribunal is well considered except taking annual at 1 2013 ACJ 2594

Rs.15,000/- per annum. As per the decision of Kishan Gopal's case, the annual income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.30,000/-. Since the deceased unmarried, 50% of his personal expenses have to be deducted. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v Vipin Kumar Sharma2, though the deceased is a bachelor, multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased alone has to be taken into consideration for computing compensation. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER3, as per postmortem report for the age of 14 years, the relevant multiplier applicable is '15'. The loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.30,000/- minus 50% x 15). The claimants are also entitled for Rs.

30,000/- towards conventional head as per the decision of the apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi4 since the deceased bachelor. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram5, the mother and father of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each as filial. Thus, the claimants are entitled for Rs.3,35,,000/- (2,25,000/- + Rs.30,000/-+ Rs.80,000).

within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

The claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount soon after the deposit is made as per their proportionate share. In other aspects the order passed by the Tribunal holds good. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Though the claim is made for Rs.1,50,000/- in order to grant just and proper compensation for the reasons indicated above and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Nagappa v Gurudayal Singh6 the compensation awarded can be more than the claim, the present appeal needs to be allowed. The claimant has to pay deficit court fee on over and above the claim amount and if the deficit court fee not paid as per Rule 475 of the M.V. Rules before the Tribunal, the claimant cannot be permitted to execute for the enhanced amount.

5.

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD,J Date: 31.10.2019 kvrm 6 2003(2) SCC 274