Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 320 (AP)

Utla Brahmarambha v. Brunda Satyanarayana

2003-02-28

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2003
GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) AS the point involved in these two appeals is common, this Court disposed of these two appeals by this common judgment with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on either side. ( 3 ) THE unfortunate children of late Utla mahalakshmi and Rama Linga Kota mallikarjuna Rao are the appellants herein,. who were declared as majors in C. M. P. No. 13231 of 2003. The facts that led to filing of these appeals are; that their parents by name Utla Mahalakshmi and Rama Linga kota Mallikharjuna Rao (hereinafter referred to as the deceased Nos. 1 and 2) met with an accident on 31-10-1989 at about 6. 30 a. m. , while they were going on a scooter bearing no. ADP 8753 from Rajahmundry to machilipatnam to see the aged parents of the 2nd deceased. On their way, after having darshan of a Durga near Durgamba temple and were proceeding towards Duddukuru, the vehicle bearing No. AHW 456 - an oil tanker driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter and dragged the scooter and the deceased to a distance of about 50 feet and stopped there. Consequently, the deceased died on the spot and the scooter was completely damaged and on account of the said accident, the appellants herein filed o. P. No. 23 of 1990 claiming a total compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the death of their mother Mahalakshmi (1st deceased) and O. P. No. 24 of 1990 for the death of their father Utla Rama Linga Kota Mallikharjuna rao (2nd deceased) claiming a total compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. The court-below on appraisal of the evidence, has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 5 lakhs for the death of the 2nd deceased and Rs. 92,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 2 lakhs for the death of the 1st deceased. Not satisfied with the quantum, these two appeals are filed by the children of the deceased (appellants herein ). ( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-Smt. Jayashree saradhi is that is computing the income of the father i. e. , the 2nd deceased (Utla Rama linga Kota Mallikharjuna Rao), the court- below having assessed his income at rs. ( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-Smt. Jayashree saradhi is that is computing the income of the father i. e. , the 2nd deceased (Utla Rama linga Kota Mallikharjuna Rao), the court- below having assessed his income at rs. 20,000/-, wrongly held that his contribution to the family would be rs. 10,000/- and thus deducted an amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. According to the learned counsel, the said calculation towards contribution to the family is not correct. ( 5 ) SIMILARLY, the learned counsel laid emphasis stating that the figure of rs. 500/- arrived at by the court-below towards pecuniary loss suffered by the appellants on account of accidental death of the mother-1st deceased is erroneous and placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court reported in Latha Wadwa v. State of Bihar (II (2001) ACC 316 (SC ). ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants stating that although the second deceased is an income-tax assessee as per the records, he never paid anything towards income tax and as such the court below is justified in fixing the compensation at rs. 1,30,000/- towards the loss of income and it deserves no interference by this Court. Similarly, in respect of the compensation granted for the death of the 1st deceased, his contention is that she is only a house wife and the amount of Rs. 500/-as arrived at by the court below is just and reasonable and as such the appeals are liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) IN the light of the rival contentions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the point for consideration in these two appeals is; whether the court- below is justified in granting the amount of compensation. ( 8 ) AT paragraph 19 of the judgment, the court-below discussed at length about the income of the second deceased i. e. , the father and after taking into account the various factors including Exs. A-5 to A-7 (income-tax returns) came to the conclusion that the net income of the second deceased was rs. 20,000/- per annum and after deducting half of the said earnings towards his personal expenses, the court-below fixed the contribution to the family at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. A-5 to A-7 (income-tax returns) came to the conclusion that the net income of the second deceased was rs. 20,000/- per annum and after deducting half of the said earnings towards his personal expenses, the court-below fixed the contribution to the family at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. ( 9 ) THE question is whether the court- below is justified inducting half from out of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Normally, the Statute prescribes the standard deduction of one third from out of the total income towards personal expenses. The Courts have also interpreted in number of judgments that the standard deduction towards the personal expenditure could be only 1/3rd of the total income. Therefore, the approach of the court below in deducting 50% of the total net income towards personal expenses, in our considered view, is erroneous. Accordingly, we hold that deduction of one third from out of the total income is to be made towards the personal expenditure of the deceased and the balance shall be treated as the contribution to the family. If 1/3rd is deducted from out of the total income of the deceased towards personal expenses which works out to rs. 6,666/-, the contribution to the family would works out to Rs. 13,334/- (Rs. 20,000/- ------Rs. 6,666/- ). So far as the multiplier is concerned, the Insurance Company did not dispute the same. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the court below is justified in adopting the multiplier 13. Thus, the pecuniary loss works out to Rs. 1,73,342/- (Rs. 13,334/- x 13 ). The Court below granted rs. 1,30,000/- under this head, which needs to be enhanced. Further, the court below granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under other heads, which is quite reasonable. Thus, in all the amount works out to Rs. 1,93,342/- and this court is inclined to grant total compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the death of the father i. e. , the second deceased. ( 10 ) NOW, coming to the question of grant of compensation for the death of the mother mahalakshmi i. e. , the first deceased is concerned, the court below taking into consideration the fact that then children were deprived of the services of their mother, assessed the loss of the family at Rs. 500/- per month or Rs. ( 10 ) NOW, coming to the question of grant of compensation for the death of the mother mahalakshmi i. e. , the first deceased is concerned, the court below taking into consideration the fact that then children were deprived of the services of their mother, assessed the loss of the family at Rs. 500/- per month or Rs. 6,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 12, assessed the total pecuniary loss at Rs. 72,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 12 ). No doubt, unlike male members, the family members do not have any earnings and as such no data in respect of their earnings is available. But, the services rendered by them as housewives cannot be ignored. Courts, have, therefore, assessed the pecuniary loss in the event of death of housewives, on the basis of the services rendered by them to the family and fixed some reasonable amount towards pecuniary loss to the family. In the above said reported case, similar approach was adopted by the apex Court. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:"so far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives are not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at rs. 12,000/-perannum in cases of some and Rs. 10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore should be recalculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore should be recalculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs. 36,000/- and thereafter applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- given under the report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs. 10,000/- per annum and multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs. 10,000/- per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to rs. 20,000/- per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be redetermined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs. 20,000/- per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter adding Rs. 50,000/- towards the conventional figure. " ( 11 ) WHEN the said analogy is applied to the case on hand, the pecuniary loss to the family on account of the death of the mother i. e, the first deceased can be fixed at rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36,000/- per annum. When the multiplier 12 applied by the court below, (which is not challenged by the Insurance Company), it works out rs. 4,32,000/ -. As the claim is restricted to rs. 2 lakhs, this Court is inclined to award compensation at Rs. 2 lakhs under the head of pecuniary loss. The other amount of rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the court below is not disturbed. Thus, the, appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- in total for the death of the mother (first deceased ). ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY these two appeals are allowed. The appellants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- for the death of their mother (first deceased) and Rs. 2 lakhs for the death of their father (2nd deceased ).