Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 912 (AP)

P. Eshwari Balarajaiah v. Md. Riyas

2003-07-22

B.S.A.SWAMY, ELIPE DHARMA RAO

body2003
( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order in A. A. O. No. 1238 of 1996 dated 26-6-2001 of the learned single Judge of this Court. The above A. A. O. arise out of the order and decree in O. P. No. 742 of 1992 dated 5-2-1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangareddy, which was filed by the claimants, being the legal heirs of one P. Venkavva @eshwari against the respondents seeking a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- alleging that the said Venkavva @ Eshwari died in a road accident on 20-8-1992 at Chandampet due to rash and negligent driving of the ( 2 ) A. P. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 3413 of Medak Depot. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R. T. C. bus and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 77,600/- (i. e. , Rs. 57,600/- being loss of future earnings + Rs. 15,000/- towards paid and suffering and loss of expectation of life and amenities of life + Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium) While allowing the appeal in part, the learned single Judge of this Court granted a total compensation of Rs. 1,16,400/- (i. e. ,rs. 86,400/- being pecuniary damages + Rs. 7,500/- for pain and suffering + Rs. 7,500/- for loss of expectation of life + Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium) with proportionate costs. The learned single Judge granted interest on the enhanced compensation at 9% p. a. from the date of filing of the O. P. till realization. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED at the Judgment of the learned single Judge in A. A. O. 1238 of 1996, this Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the claimants. The only question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is - whether the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge of this Court have rightly arrived at the earnings of the deceased person?. ( 4 ) THE case of the claimants is that the deceased was doing business, but they could not produce any evidence to prove their case. Ultimately, the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge of this Court treated the deceased as a coolly and fixed the remuneration at Rs. ( 4 ) THE case of the claimants is that the deceased was doing business, but they could not produce any evidence to prove their case. Ultimately, the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge of this Court treated the deceased as a coolly and fixed the remuneration at Rs. 15/- per day. We feel that the earnings of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge of this Court, as above, is grossly inadequate. In view of the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act, a minimum wage of Rs. 50/- per day has to be paid to an unskilled labour. Since minimum wage was fixed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for an unskilled labour, we have to necessarily follow the same, though the claimants are not able to bring this fact to the notice of this Court to do substantial justice to the parties. After deducting 1/3rd of the wages for her personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 33/- per day. On this basis, the loss of dependency per year works out to Rs. 11,880/- ( i. e. , Rs. 33/- x 30 days x 12 months) Since the multiplier was correctly applied by the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge of this Court, we do not want to interfere on that aspect. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,90,080/- towards loss of dependency. ( i. e. , Rs. 11,880/- x 16 = Rs. 1,90,080/-) ( 5 ) AT this stage, Mr. Harnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that since the accident has taken place in the year 1992, the proper multiplier would be 14 but not 16. We need not go into this controversy since there is no appeal filed by the respondents on that point. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 6 ) MR. Harnath, learned counsel then contended that the Courts cannot award more compensation than the compensation claimed by the claimants. This contention is no more res Integra. On this issue the Supreme Court held that the Courts are having inherent powers to grant more compensation than what was sought for by the claimants in the interest of justice. Harnath, learned counsel then contended that the Courts cannot award more compensation than the compensation claimed by the claimants. This contention is no more res Integra. On this issue the Supreme Court held that the Courts are having inherent powers to grant more compensation than what was sought for by the claimants in the interest of justice. Though the decisions of the Supreme Court are otherwise, since the claimants in this case have not filed any application seeking enhancement of compensation before this Court, we are constrained to limit the compensation claimed by them. ( 7 ) WITH regard to the multiplier applied in this case, the learned counsel for the appellants contend that the multiplier 20 is to be applied in this case following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in TARA KAKATI vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. We have perused the said Judgment. Nowhere it is stated what the deceased was doing at the time of death. Further, this Judgment cannot be taken as a precedent in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPORATION vs. TRILOK CHANDRA wherein the Supreme Court held that the multiplier to be applied shall not exceed 18. Further, in this Judgment, no reasons were also given for the guidance of the High Courts. Therefore, instead of following this Judgment in KAKATI s case (supra 1),we would like to follow the Judgment in TRILOK CHANDRA s case (supra 2 ). Accordingly, we hold that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge is correct. ( 8 ) IN the result, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation amount under the head of loss of dependency from Rs. 86,400/- to Rs. 1,90,080/ -. The compensation amounts awarded by the learned single Judge under the remaining heads shall stand confirmed. However, the entire compensation amount payable to the claimants shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p. a. from the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.