IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE SIXTH OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO MACMA.No.268 of 2011 Between :
N. Masthan Bee, W/o.Abu Bakkar, Aged : 25 years, R/o.2/293, S.K.D. Nagar, R.T.C., Nullagutta, Piler Town, Chittoor District and others …Appellants/Petitioners Vs.
Mrs. S.Selvi, W/o.L. Sambath, Age not known, Owner of the lorry bearing No.TN 57-A-7677, Residing at D.No.2/43, Pillayar Koil Street, Konavattam, Vellore District, Tamilnadu and another.
…Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Sri P. Phalguna Rao The Court made the following : [order follows] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO MACMA.No.268 of 2011 JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.07.09.2007 in MVOP.No.380 of 2004 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge at Chittoor.
2. The appellants herein are the claimants in OP.No.380 of 2004. They are the wife, parents and sisters of deceased N. Abu Bakkar who died in a road accident which occurred on 18.07.2004 involving a lorry bearing No.TN 57-A/7677 insured by 2nd respondent and owned by 1st respondent. They claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
3. By judgment dt.07.09.2007, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- p.m., deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 12.79 based on the judgment reported in Bhagawan Das
[1]
v. Mohammad Arif , and awarded a sum of Rs.4,24,280/- as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
4. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low.
5. Heard Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, counsel for the appellants; and Sri P. Phalguna Rao, counsel for respondents.
6. The counsel for appellants contended that the salary of the deceased ought to have been taken at least as Rs.6,000/- p.m. since he was earning money by driving a vehicle/a jeep and that the amount of Rs.4,000/- taken by the Tribunal is too low. There is no material to prove that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- and, in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly taken the amount of Rs.4,000/- p.m. as the income of the deceased.
7. The deceased was aged thirty-five years at the time of his death, therefore the appropriate multiplier as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
[2]
another is 16 and not 12.79, as taken by the Tribunal.
8. Furthermore, in the same judgment the Supreme Court has held that if the dependents of the deceased are four or more like in present case, an amount of 1/4th should be taken towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal had erroneously taken a deduction of 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the net income would be Rs.3,000/- p.m.
9. In Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others
[3]
, the Supreme Court held that even in the case of self-employed persons, if the deceased was below forty years of age an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased should be made while computing future prospects. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,500/- is to be added to Rs.3,000/- which was the income of the deceased at the time of his death, thus arriving at Rs.4,500/-. Applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency would be Rs.4,500 x 12 x 16 = 8,64,000/-. Since the deceased had left behind 1st appellant as his wife, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium in addition to the above amount. Apart from these amounts, the appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the appellants would get a sum of Rs.9,99,000/-. From this amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/- paid under Section 140 of the Act vide order dt.14.11.2005 in I.A.No.248 of 2005 shall be deducted. So the appellants would get Rs.9,49,000/-.
10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The above sum of Rs.9,49,000/- shall be paid by respondents with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. The appeal is allowed as above. No costs.
11. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date : 06-06-2014 Ndr/*
[1] 1987 (2) Andhra Law Times 137
[2] (2009) 6 SCC 121
[3] 2013 ACJ 1403