Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 913 (AP)

Shahazadi Bee v. Managing Director

2003-07-22

B.S.A.SWAMY, ELIPE DHARMA RAO

body2003
B. SRI ATCHUTANANDA SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order in A. A. O. No. 1373 of 1996 dated 6-7-2001 of s learned Single Judge of this Court. The above A. A. O. arose out of the order and decree in O. P. No. 506 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, which was filed by the claimants, who are the legal heirs of one Shaik Jaffar, against the respondents claiming a compensation of Rs. /- 3,00,000/- alleging that the said Shaik Jaffar died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on 29-5-1994 near the A. P. S. R. T. C. Bus Station, Nizamabad due to the rash and negligent driving of the R. T. C. bus AP 9z 5032 by its driver. ( 2 ) ON a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tibunal awarded Rs. 1,20,100/- towards loss of dependency; Rs. 5,000/- each towards loss of consortium and for pain and suffering, besides a sum of Rs. 100/- towards damages to the clothes of the deceased. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded and seeking enhancement of the same, the claimants in O. P. No. 506 of 1994 filed the above A. A. O. 1373 of 1996. ( 3 ) WHILE allowing the appeal in part, the learned single Judge granted a total compensation of Rs,2,02,900/- (i. e. , pecuniary damages of Rs. 1,72,800/- + Rs. 100/- being damages to clothes + Rs. 15,000/- being loss of estate + Rs. 5,000/- being funeral expenses and loss of love and affection + Rs. 10,000/- being loss of consortium to the first appellant therein) with proportionate costs in the O. P. The learned single Judge also granted interest at 12% p. a. on the compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- originally granted by the Tribunal from the date of filing of O. P. till realization and further granted interest at 9% p. a. on the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 72,800/- from the date of filing of O. P. till realization and confirmed the rest of the directions issued by the Tribunal. ( 4 ) DISSATISFIED with the Judgment of the learned single Judge in A. A. O. 1373 of 1996 dated 6-7-2001, this Letters Patent Appeal is preferred. 72,800/- from the date of filing of O. P. till realization and confirmed the rest of the directions issued by the Tribunal. ( 4 ) DISSATISFIED with the Judgment of the learned single Judge in A. A. O. 1373 of 1996 dated 6-7-2001, this Letters Patent Appeal is preferred. Two issues arose for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal, apart from the preliminary objection taken by Sri K. Harnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that this appeal is not maintainable. The issues are - (1) As the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of death, what is the multiplier to be applied in awarding compensation? And (2) whether the Courts below are right in awarding compensation of only Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium?. ( 5 ) AS far as maintainability is concerned, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless the Letters Patent Appeals filed are admitted, they cannot survive merely on the ground that they are presented before the amendment came into force. This argument is no more res intergra in view of the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in S. SHIVA RAJA REDDY AND OTHERS vs. S. RAGHU RAJ REDDY1, wherein it was held that all the letters patent appeals presented or filed before 1-7-2002 are maintainable whether they have been admitted or not. What is prohibited is filing of the letters patent appeals after 1-7-2002 i. e. , after the new Act come into force. To put it aptly, the Division Bench held that all letters patent appeals presented in the Registry before the amendment will survive inspite of the amendment. This view received the approval of a Full Bench of this Court in GANDLA PANNALA BHULAXMI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER. Accordingly, in view of the above judgments, we reject the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of this appeal. ( 6 ) WITH regard to second issue, it is not in dispute that the accident took place in the bus station premises at Nizamabad while the driver was taking reverse of the vehicle the deceased, who is a scavenger working in the depot, fell under the rear wheels of the vehicle and died after two hours. ( 6 ) WITH regard to second issue, it is not in dispute that the accident took place in the bus station premises at Nizamabad while the driver was taking reverse of the vehicle the deceased, who is a scavenger working in the depot, fell under the rear wheels of the vehicle and died after two hours. The Tribunal, having fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1800/-, deducted 1/3rd for his personal expenses and assessed the loss of dependence at Rs. 1200/-per month. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 12 and fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,72,800/ -. The Tribunal further observed that if the said amount of Rs. 1,72,800/- is invested as fixed deposit in any bank, it would fetch about Rs. 1,700/- per month being interest and that as the loss to the estate of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 1200/- per month, if an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is invested in any bank it would fetch an amount of Rs. 1200/- per month towards interest and therefore, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of dependency/pecuniary damages. Ultimately, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs. 1,30,100/- to the claimants. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal, the claimants preferred A. A. O. 1373 of 1996 on the file of this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated 6-7-2001, while setting aside the lumpsum deduction from the pecuniary damages arrived at, confirmed the Judgment of the Tribunal on other aspects by following the judgment of this Court inbhagwandas v. MD. ARIF, the multiplier to be applied for a deceased of the age of 40 years should be 12. ( 8 ) QUESTIONING the order of the learned single Judge in A. A. O. 1373 of 1996, the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the claimants. After Bhagavan Das s Case much water has flown and the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions applied the multiplier of even 18 and 20 to the boys who died at the age of 20 years. Further, The Motor Vehicles Act was amended and Section 163-A was introduced by Amending Act 54 of 1994 and the same came into force on 14-11-1994. As per the said section, the claimants need not prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Further, The Motor Vehicles Act was amended and Section 163-A was introduced by Amending Act 54 of 1994 and the same came into force on 14-11-1994. As per the said section, the claimants need not prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It is sufficient if he proves that the accident has taken place while the vehicle is being used on road. Under second schedule to the said section, the multiplier to be applied for the deceased persons, whose age is above 35 years but not exceeding 40 years, is 16 and above 40 years but not exceeding 45 years, the multiplier to be applied is 15. When the compensation payable to the deceased on mere user of the vehicle is much more higher than the multiplier arrived at in Bhagwandas case (supra 3), we feel it unreasonable to apply the multiplier that was arrived at by the learned single Judge way back in 1987. ( 9 ) FURTHER subsequently in GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM vs. SUSAMMA THOMAS, their Lordships of the Supreme Court having observed "that the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case; and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. " Ultimately, their Lordships, having relied on English Courts, observed that usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. . This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependants, whichever is higher) goes up and fixed the maximum multiplier to be applied in accident cases at 16. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, in U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSKPORT CORPORATION vs TRILOK CHANDRA, A full Bench of the Supreme Court commented on the table fixing the multiplier as follows:"we must at once point out that the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, in U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSKPORT CORPORATION vs TRILOK CHANDRA, A full Bench of the Supreme Court commented on the table fixing the multiplier as follows:"we must at once point out that the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects. For example, in item No. 1 for a victim aged 15 years, the multiplier is shown to be 15 years and the multiplicand is shown to be Rs. 3,000/ -. The total should be Rs. 3,000/- x 15= Rs. 45,000/- but the same is worked out at Rs. 60,000/ -. Similarly, in the second item the multiplier is 16 and the annual income is Rs. 9,000/-; the total should have been Rs. 1,44,000/- but is shown to be Rs. 1,71,000/ -. To put it briefly, the Table abounds in such mistakes. Neither the Tribunals nor the Courts can go by the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items. What we propose to emphasize is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as Courts and Tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies case, (supra)" ( 11 ) ULTIMATELY, their Lordships of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the multiplier shall not exceed 18 ordinarily. As on today, the above decision holds the field. Following the above Judgment, if the multiplier to be applied is 18 for deceased boy of 15 to 20 years; for deceased person of 35 to 40 years, the multiplier works out to 14. Following the above Judgment, we hold that the multiplier to be applied in this case should be 14, but not 12. Following the above Judgment, if the multiplier to be applied is 18 for deceased boy of 15 to 20 years; for deceased person of 35 to 40 years, the multiplier works out to 14. Following the above Judgment, we hold that the multiplier to be applied in this case should be 14, but not 12. The compensation payable shall be worked out by applying the multiplier 14 on the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,200/- per month. If it is worked out as such, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,01,600/- (i. e. , Rs. 1200/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 2,01,600/-) As far as compensation payable for loss of consortium, the Courts held in a catena of decisions should be Rs. 15,000/ -. But the learned single Judge enhanced the compensation payable for loss of consortium from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- only without assigning any reasons. This also needs modification. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs/-15,000/- as compensation for loss of consortium. ( 12 ) IN the result, this Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount under the head of loss of dependency from Rs. 1,72,800/- to Rs. 2,01,600/- and under the head of loss of consortium from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/ -. 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.