Kothapally Aruna vs Chittaluri Nagalaxmi

The appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 27.02.2017, in MVOP.No.942 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal. The appellants are the claimant Nos.2 and 3 who are the parents of the deceased, Kothapalli Balakrishna. It is pertinent to mention that the 1st claimant in the OP is the wife of the deceased, who filed cross-objections in the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs.18,00,000/- from Rs.11,45,000/-.

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.

The Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, granted compensation to the claimants to a tune of Rs.11,45,000/-with future interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally and apportioned the amount amongst the claimants, as follows:

Claimant No.1/wife of the deceased - Rs.9,45,000/-

Claimant No.2/Father of the deceased - Rs.1,00,000/-

Claimant No.3/Mother of the deceased- Rs.1,00,000/-

Being aggrieved by the above apportionment made by the Tribunal, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 preferred the appeal. It is the specific contention of the appellants that the Tribunal have erred in granting meagre compensation to them and more compensation to the 1st claimant. It is further contended that the appellants are blessed with only one son i.e. the deceased Kothapalli Balakrishna and they were dependent on the earnings of their son and prayed to grant appropriate compensation to them.

On the other hand, the 1st claimant, being the wife of the deceased, filed X-Objections, seeking enhancement of compensation but did not oppose for the apportionment of compensation made by the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the 1st claimant in the X-Objections are that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.11,000/- and ought to have granted interest @ 12% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

On perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident and the pleadings disclose that he used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month as a private teacher in Montessori school at Narsampet apart from holding partnership in the said school. But, the Tribunal have given a finding that though PW-3 who is the Principal of the school was examined before the Tribunal, but he did not depose about the service certificate/Ex.A-10 to prove the income of the deceased, which was marked through PW-1/wife of the deceased, and even in the absence of any evidence as to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.5,000/- per month basing on the education certificates of the deceased covered under Exs.A-11 to A-18. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error or irregularity in the orders of the Tribunal so as to interfere with its findings with regard to the earnings of the deceased or the percentage of interest i.e. 7.5% granted by the Tribunal, as it is well settled that 7.5% interest has to be granted by the Tribunals in view of the case law in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403a. Therefore, the X-objections are liable to be dismissed.

As far as the apportionment is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that Claimant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the parents of the deceased are solely dependant on the earnings of the deceased, therefore, they are entitled for compensation on par with the wife of the deceased. Therefore, the apportionment of compensation made by the Tribunal, is modified as under:

Claimant No.1/wife of the deceased - Rs.6,45,000/-

Claimant No.2/Father of the deceased - Rs.2,50,000/-

Claimant No.3/Mother of the deceased- Rs.2,50,000/-

The claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation as per the above apportionment, along with costs and interest.

With the above modifications, MACMA.No.1697 of 2018 is partly allowed and X-Objection No.32 of 2018 is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.