HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3052
OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
This
appeal is filed by the claimants who are wife and major daughter of deceased
Giridhareshwaracharyulu, aged about 56 years as per Ex.A.4 post mortem report,
working as Junior Veterinary Officer at Mittapally Veterinary Hospital, who
died in the in the accident dated 18.09.2008 while he was proceeding on his
motor cycle bearing No.AP16 AC 5161 to go to Mittapally Veterianary hospital
near Kappenakuntlacheruvu, V.M.Banjara and a tanker bearing No.AP16 W 7455
belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd
respondent( in the claim petition as well as in the appeal) dashed from which
he sustained injuries and was succumbed, for the claim maintained under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for
short, ‘the Act’), in the in the claim petition
M.V.O.P.No. 105 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal–cum–District Judge, at Khammam, (for short, ‘Tribunal’), aggrieved by the award dated 27.07.2010 for
the claim of compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- since awarded Rs.10,75,000/- with
interest at 7.5% p.a., by taking into consideration the Ex.A.7 salary
certificate and evidence of P.W.3 therefrom the deceased was getting gross
salary of Rs.22,036/-, impugning
the said compensation as utterly low with the contentions in the grounds of
appeal that the tribunal gravely erred in deducting 1/3rd amount out
of the gross salary of deceased by taking Rs.14,000/- p.m. which is highly
meager and failed to take the total salary with any permissible deduction by
applying correct multiplier as laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1],
hence to allow the appeal as claimed before the tribunal. The learned counsel for
the insurer reiterated the same in the course of hearing.
2. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the insurer-2nd respondent to the appeal that the award
of the tribunal granting compensation of Rs.10,75,000/- itself is excessive but
for no cross-objections to reduce and the deceased was aged 57 years and was
going to retire within a span of one year from the State Government service as
Veterinary Officer and it is not the multiplier that is applicable to adopt but
for the split system actual earning salary for the period of service that is likely to be taken besides the pensionery
benefits at post-retirement, he will got nearly 40% of the salary or so and the
multiplier of 9 from the age of 58 to 60 has no application herein. Hence, to
dismiss the appeal.
3. Perused the material on
record. The parties hereinafter are
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the
appeal.
4.
Now the points
that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1.
Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal by its award dated 27.07.2010
in M.V.O.P.No.105 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal–cum–District Judge, at Khammam, is utterly low and unjust and requires
interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award if so what
is the just compensation and with what observations?
2. To what result?
POINT-1:
5.Undisputedly, the deceased was a State
Government employee. The age of retirement for the State Government employees
as on the date of accident was 58 years and it is so even today in the State of
Telangana to which he belongs and where he was serving as on the date of
accident. No doubt, post-retirement, he may get pensionery benefits which may
be between 40 to 50% of the gross salary and the pensionery benefits generally
not being taxed and even from the income tax out of his salary of Rs.22,036/-
with professional tax even give deduction of Rs.1,200/-, the net that is taken
into consideration is of Rs.20,800/- per month. Though he was to retire within
one year, now remaining whole of the life he will get pension more than 40 to
42% of the gross salary instead of 9 even 6 multiplier adopted as it is the
settled law where the multiplicand is on high side, the multiplier can be
reasonably reduced and the amount arrived therefrom besides Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant and Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate as held in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh[2],
and Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and treatment etc., it
comes to Rs.11,83,400/- to say what the tribunal awarded Rs.10,75,000/- requires
to enhance to Rs.11,83,400/-. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.
Point No.2:
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
by enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,75,000/- to Rs.11,83,400/-. In other
respects, the award of the tribunal holds good. There is no order as to costs. Consequently,
miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand
closed.
_____________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date:12.12.2014
Vvr
