Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 718 (AP)

G. Varalakshmi v. A. P. S. R. T. C. , Hyderabad

2000-09-18

N.V.RAMANA

body2000
N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners in O. P. 229 /1991 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Rangareddy District. Appellant no. 1 is the wife and appellants 2 and 3 are the children of one G. Satyanarayana, who died in a road accident on 25-3-1991. ( 2 ) THE brief facts: On 25-3-1991 at about 10-30 a. m. , the deceased Satyanarayana was proceeding to his office as a pillion rider on the scooter bearing No. AHO 4918, driven by one M. Gururajachary. When the scooter reached near the electrical sub-station of g. S. I. Complex, one R. T. C. bus bearing no. AEZ 2134 came in the opposite direction and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which Satyanarayana and the driver of the scooter died on the spot. The appellants filed the O. P. in the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- under various heads. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, held that the accident took place due to 50% negligence of the driver of the RTC bus and 50% negligence of the driver of the scooter. The tribunal fixed the monthly dependency of the appellants at Rs. 1,000/-, taking into consideration the compassionate appointment given to appellant No. 1 by the geological Survey of India, and awarded rs. 1,74,000/- as pecuniary loss/damages to the appellants. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of consortium, and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards damage to the clothing and articles of the deceased. In all, the Tribunal arrived at the total quantum of compensation as under: Pecuniary damages (in rupees) 1,74,000 Non-pecuniary damages 30,000 Consortium to appellant No. l 2,500 Damage to the clothes and articles 2,500 2,09,000 ( 3 ) THE Tribunal rounded off the same to rs. 2,10,000/ -. The Tribunal passed decree in favour of the appellants,only to the extent of 50% of Rs. 2,10,000/- i. e. , for rs. 1,05,000/- as compensation payable to he appellants by the respondent-RTC since t took the view that the accident occurred iue to the composite negligence of the driver of the bus and the driver of the scooter. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the wife and children of the deceased filed this appeal. 2,10,000/- i. e. , for rs. 1,05,000/- as compensation payable to he appellants by the respondent-RTC since t took the view that the accident occurred iue to the composite negligence of the driver of the bus and the driver of the scooter. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the wife and children of the deceased filed this appeal. ( 5 ) SO far as the composite negligence part is concerned, in the very same accident the driver of the scooter Mr. Gururajachary also died. His dependents filed O. P. 348/91 in the Tribunal, and they also filed CMA 1538/93 in this Court dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 21-9-1995 confirmed the finding of the Tribunal that there was composite negligence on the part of both the drivers of the motor vehicles involved in the accident. Following the said judgment, I hereby confirm the finding of the Tribunal that accident took place due to 50% negligence of the driver of RTC bus and 50% negligence of the driver of the scooter. ( 6 ) THE first contention of the appellants counsel is that the Tribunal erred in granting a meagre sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of consortium to P. W. I instead of Rs. 15,000/- and in not granting any amount towards funeral expenses. The learned Counsel for the respondent did not oppose this contention seriously. Hence, keeping in view the age of P. W. I and the facts and circumstances, I hereby enhance the amount granted under the head of loss of consortium to P. W. I from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 15,000/ -. I also grant a sum of rs,5,000/- towards funeral expenses. I am not inclined to disturb the amount of rs. 30,000/- granted towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs. 2,500/- granted towards value of damaged articles of the deceased. ( 7 ) THE second contention of the appellants Counsel is that the Tribunal while passing the decree deducted 50% out of the amounts awarded under all the heads of compensation, whether it is under the head of pecuniary damages or under any other head. 2,500/- granted towards value of damaged articles of the deceased. ( 7 ) THE second contention of the appellants Counsel is that the Tribunal while passing the decree deducted 50% out of the amounts awarded under all the heads of compensation, whether it is under the head of pecuniary damages or under any other head. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that there should be deduction of 50% from out of the amounts awarded under all the heads because the accident took place due to the composite negligence of driver of the bus and the driver of the scooter. I do not agree with this contention of the counsel for respondent. In this case, the deceased is not the driver of the scooter. He is only a pillion rider. The scooter was driven by his friend Gururajachary, who also died on the spot in the very same accident. Hence, composite negligence cannot be attributed to the deceased, as he is only a pillion rider. In cases of this nature, 50% deduction should be made only from out of the amount of compensation granted under the head of pecuniary damages , and not from the amounts of compensation granted under the other heads like loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc. For the above reason, I hold that the appellants are entitled to 100% of the amounts awarded under the heads other than pecuniary damages as compensation, without any deduction. However, the appellants are entitled to only 50% of the amount awarded under the head of pecuniary damages . ( 8 ) THE third contention of the appellants counsel is that the Tribunal is not justified in fixing the monthly dependency of the appellants (monthly contribution of deceased to his family) only at Rs. 1,000/-, by wrongly taking into account the subsequent compassionate appointment given by the Geological Survey of India to p. W. 1. He contended that, basing on the judgment in General Manager, K. S. R. T. Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas and the division Bench decision dated 21-9-1995 in cma 1538/93, the monthly dependency of the appellants has to be arrived at by doubling the salary of the deceased, deducting one-third therefrom. In opposition, Ms. He contended that, basing on the judgment in General Manager, K. S. R. T. Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas and the division Bench decision dated 21-9-1995 in cma 1538/93, the monthly dependency of the appellants has to be arrived at by doubling the salary of the deceased, deducting one-third therefrom. In opposition, Ms. Nanda R. Rao, counsel for the respondent-RTC vehemently contended relying upon the decision in Helen C. Rebello vs. Maharashtra state Road Transport Corporation, submitting that both in Susamma Thomas case and in the Division Bench judgment in CMA no. 1538/93 no general principle is laid down to the effect that the monthly income of the deceased should be doubled for arriving at the monthly dependency that the compensation payable to the dependants of motor accident victims should be balanced and all benefits accrued to the appellants, including the compassionate appointment given to appellant No. 1, should be taken into account while fixing the monthly dependency. ( 9 ) IT is no doubt true that P. W. I got compassionate appointment. That does not mean that the future prospects of employment of the deceased, had he been alive, should not be taken into consideration. The deceased was aged 35 years as on the date of the accident. Had he been alive, he would have been in service for at least another twenty-five years, every year there would have been increase in his monthly emoluments and he may get promotions in future. All these things cannot be lost sight of. ( 10 ) IT may be noted that the loss caused to the dependents due to the death of a person in a motor accident cannot adequately be compensated in terms of money, however high the sum granted may be. ( 11 ) THE decision in Rebello s case (supra) relied on by the Counsel for the respondents, with great respect, is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In that case the supreme Court held that the amount received by the claimants therein from the life Insurance Corporation should not be deducted from compensation awarded. It was also held that the pecuniary advantages received by the claimant to be deductable should have correlation with the accidental death of the deceased. In that case the supreme Court held that the amount received by the claimants therein from the life Insurance Corporation should not be deducted from compensation awarded. It was also held that the pecuniary advantages received by the claimant to be deductable should have correlation with the accidental death of the deceased. ( 12 ) THOUGH in Susamma Thomas case (supra) no general principle is laid down that the monthly income should be doubled, having regard to the evidence on record in that case the monthly income of rs. 1,032/- was taken as Rs. 2,000/- per month. In this case also, we have got the evidence of P. W. 3 coupled with Ex. A-6, which indicate that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 2,741/- per month. Moreover, the Division Bench in CMA no. 1538/1993, which arose out of the very same accident, fixed the monthly dependency of the appellants therein (dependents of the driver of the scooter) by doubling his monthly salary. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants very rightly relied on a Division Monthly salary of deceased = Rs. 2,741/- (rounded off to Rs. 2,740/-) Monthly dependency = Rs. 2,740 x 2 = Rs. 5,480/- l/3rd of Rs. 5,480 x 1/3 = Rs. 1,826/- (Rs. 5,480 - Rs. 1,826) = Rs. 3,654/- Annual dependency = Rs. 3,654 x 12 = Rs. 43,848/- Loss of dependency (Pecuniary damages) - Rs. 43,848 x 14. 5 = Rs. 6,35,796/- 50% deduction (because of composite negligence) = 6. 35,796 x 1/2 = Rs. 3,17,898/ -. bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Veerabhadrappan vs. Virupaxappa Totappa bilebal, wherein it was held that simply because one of the family members was given employment in the place of the deceased on compassionate grounds, the loss of dependency would not be off-set against the income earned by the dependents from the appointment given to him/her on compassionate grounds, and that the income earned by the dependant would be for the services rendered by him/her independently of the loss to the estate caused due to the death of the deceased. ( 14 ) I am in respectful agreement with the said Division Bench decision of the karnataka High Court. Therefore, the contention of respondent s Counsel that the amount earned by P. W. I on compassionate appointment should be adjusted towards compensation cannot be accepted, and the same is rejected. ( 14 ) I am in respectful agreement with the said Division Bench decision of the karnataka High Court. Therefore, the contention of respondent s Counsel that the amount earned by P. W. I on compassionate appointment should be adjusted towards compensation cannot be accepted, and the same is rejected. Except Ex. A-3 postmortem report, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased was aged 35 years on the date of accident and the Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier of 14. 5. ( 15 ) FOR the above reasons, I hold that the tribunal erred in taking into account the compassionate appointment given to appellant No. 1 in fixing the monthly dependency only at Rs. 1,000/- and in not doubling the monthly income of the deceased. I accordingly modify the pecuniary damages as under: hence, the appellants would be entitled to the following amounts: Pecuniary damages = Rs. 3. 17,898-00 Non-pecuniary damages = Rs. 30,000-00 Loss of consortium (to appellant No. 1) = Rs. 15,000-00 Funeral expenses = Rs. 5,000-00 Damage to articles of deceased = Rs. 2,500-00 Rs. 3,70,398-00 though, the compensation payable is arrived at Rs. 3,70,398/-, I hereby grant only a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as the appellants have filed the O. P. claiming the compensation of only Rs. 3,00,000/ -. ( 16 ) NO specific reason is forthcoming for awarding interest from the date of closure of appellants evidence in the Tribunal. Hence, I hold that the appellants are entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the amount of compensation granted from the date of filing the petition for compensation till deposit/realization and also the costs. ( 17 ) THE Tribunal apportioned the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- granted as under: First appellant = Rs. 47,000 Second appellant = Rs. 43,000 Third appellant = Rs. 43,000 Total: Rs. 1,05,000 ( 18 ) OUT of total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- now granted, the appellants would be entitled to the following amounts:- First appellant Rs. 1,10,000 Second appellant Rs. 95,000 Third appellant Rs,95,000 Total : Rs. 3,00,000 ( 19 ) IN addition to the above amounts, the appellants are entitled to interest at 12% p. a. from the date of filing of O. P. in the lower court till date of deposit/realization and also the entire costs in the Tribunal. ( 20 ) THE appeal is allowed accordingly. 95,000 Third appellant Rs,95,000 Total : Rs. 3,00,000 ( 19 ) IN addition to the above amounts, the appellants are entitled to interest at 12% p. a. from the date of filing of O. P. in the lower court till date of deposit/realization and also the entire costs in the Tribunal. ( 20 ) THE appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.