0

COMPENSATION ENHANSED AT ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ACCIDENT CASE

Blog , , ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

GARLAPATI KUTUMBA RAO, GUNTUR. & ANO. vs J&R SUDHEEN @ SUDHEER, KARNATAKA STATE. & 3 ANO.

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A. No. 994 of 2009

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 10 MAY 2023

FACTS

The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. On 01/02.10.2004, the deceased was travelling in the Maxi Tempo bearing from Bangalore to go to Hasan. On the way, at about 2.00 a.m. when the vehicle reached near Hombalakoppa Gate, NH-48 BM road, the driver of the lorry bearing drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the tempo and thendashed another Maruti car. In that accident, the deceased G.Narasimharao and one Srinivas sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

The respondents 1(J&R SUDHEEN @ SUDHEER, KARNATAKA STATE), 2(The Divisional Manager) and 4(The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) filed written statements and denied the allegations made by the claim petitioners in the petition and pleaded that the claim petitioners are not entitled to any compensation.

As per salary certificate of the deceased, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.33,750/- per month as on 01.10.2004 at the designation of R&D Engineer.  After excluding Public Provident Fund, the income of the deceased was Rs.31,950/-. The conveyance allowance of Rs.800/-, telephone allowance of 1500/- and special allowance of Rs.8,650/- cannot be included in the income of the deceased and the same cannot be considered as a pay of the deceased. Therefore, from out of Rs.31,950/- an amount of Rs.10,950/- has to be deducted, therefore, monthly income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.21,000/- and his annual income was Rs.2,52,000/-. As per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 25 years by the date of the accident. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay- Sethi1, 40% of the income has to be added since the deceased was not a government employee i.e., Rs.2,52,000/- + Rs.1,00,800/- = Rs.3,52,800/-.

Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of income from out of the annual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. As such after deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution to the family is arrived at Rs.1,76,400 (Rs.3,52,800/- – Rs.1,76,400/-). The material on record shows that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. So the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ’18’, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. DelhiTransport Corporation and the loss of dependency comes to Rs.31,75,200/- (Rs.1,76,400/- x 18) and an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased and amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. In total an amount of Rs 32,45,200/- is awarded towards total compensation to the claimants.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that this appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal. The claimants are entitled to an amount of, Rs.32,45,200/- towards total compensation with interest thereon @7.5% p.a. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant No.1, father of the deceased is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and claimant No.2, mother of the deceased is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.22,45,200/- along with total costs and interest thereon.

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

0

optional for the aggrieved workmen either to accept reinstatement in service as helper with all arrears of compensation

Blog , ,

It is optional for the aggrieved workmen either to accept reinstatement in service as helper with all arrears of compensation, he may do so for the period commencing from the date from which his services as a Helper were terminated- Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court passed a judgment on 4th of April, 1995 in the case of Ghasi Khan vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ( (1997) IIILLJ 74 Raj, 1996 (1) WLC 379,1995 (1) WLN 588) presided by the Hon. Justice A Madan.

Facts of the case
The petitioner was employed by the respondent Corporation as a driver pursuant to an order dated January 9, 1976 (Annex-1), and in the year 1983, while carrying out official duties for the respondent Corporation, an accident occurred that caused the petitioner to sustain a head injury, leading to hospitalization. As a result, on January 26, 1984, the petitioner had sent a request to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer in Kota, asking to be relieved of his driving responsibilities in accordance with Annex 2. He also asked to be given lighter responsibilities because of his deteriorating health and the accident that prevented him from performing his driving responsibilities effectively.The Divisional Manager of Kota served the petitioner with a show-cause notice on May 10, 1988, asking him to respond as to why his employment should not be terminated in
accordance with Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner responded by submitting Annexure-7 as his supporting documentation. On July 25, 1989, the respondent-Corporation subsequently served a second show-cause notice on the petitioner. Despite the fact that the petitioner had supplied the Medical Board’s report, which also stated that the petitioner was unfit to perform his job as a driver, the respondent-Corporation paid no attention to it.

Judgment
As a result, the writ petition is granted, the contested order from January 20, 1990 (Annex-11) is revoked and set aside, and the respondents are further instructed to pay the petitioner compensation if they choose not to absorb the petitioner onto the post of helper while maintaining his seniority, pay, and allowances with effect from the date the petitioner’s
service was terminated, which is March 20, 1990. March 20, 1990, and the Corporation should compute the compensation amount in line with the Supreme Court’s instructions.Therefore the appeal was allowed.

Judgment reviewed by Dhruv Kalia

Ghasi_Khan_vs_Rajasthan_State_Road_Transport_on_4_April_1995

1 2 3 4