Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 401 (AP)

Safia Sulthana v. Sudhakar Polymers Limited

2007-04-13

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2007
Judgment :- 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10-5-2002 in O.P.No. 1190 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,01,600/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. The appellants filed claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased Samad Razvi husband of the 1st claimant and father of claimants No. 2 to 5 who died in motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14-4-2000. According to the claimants on the fateful day of the accident the deceased and his friend were going for morning walk at Deverkonda-Nalgonda Road and at that time a lorry bearing No. AP-24-T-6675 F came from behind driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 48 years, and was working as Senior Assistant in AMR Project & Irrigation Wing Department, Nalgonda and earning Rs. 11,261/-per month. 3. 1st respondent owner of the lorry did not file any counter. 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter before the Tribunal opposing claim denying the liability to pay the compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-24-T-6675-F? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation. If so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 5. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-8 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked. 6. On consideration of the evidence on record the Tribunal gave a finding on point No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver and on point No.2 held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 4,01,600/-. Accordingly, the award was passed for the said amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition. 7. Not satisfied with the award the claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 8. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 9. 4,01,600/-. Accordingly, the award was passed for the said amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition. 7. Not satisfied with the award the claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 8. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the salary of the deceased only at Rs.8,000/- though, according to salary certificate Ex.A-6, the take home salary of the deceased was Rs.11,261/- and thereby awarded a lesser amount towards loss of dependency. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that Ex.A-6 has not furnished the details of deductions and the net salary of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted a sum of Rs.3,000/- as per the evidence of PW-3 towards deductions and took the net salary of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month for the purpose of estimating the loss of dependency. 11. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver is not assailed by way of appeal and the said finding has become final. The only question that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation of Rs.4,01,600/-awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced. 12. According to the 1st claimant-PW-1 the deceased was working as Senior Assistant in SLBC Office in Nalgonda and was aged 48 years and was getting a salary of Rs.11,261/- per month. She filed Ex.A-6-salary certificate and also examined PW-3 Junior Assistant Pay and Accounts office, S.L.B.C. Nalgonda. PW-3 also corroborated the contents of Ex.A-6 by deposing that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.11,261/-. In the cross-examination PW-3 admitted that total deductions from the salary of the deceased to a tune of Rs.3,200/-. But, he stated that the said deductions were towards savings. At the time of hearing the appeal the learned counsel for the appellants produced salary and service certificate issued by Pay and Accounts Officer, AMR Project, Nalgonda showing that total recoveries from the salary of the deceased was Rs.4,386/- and net salary was Rs.6,875/-. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the contents of said salary certificate produced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the contents of said salary certificate produced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The amount of net salary taken by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- per month is higher than the amount of Rs.6,875/- shown as net salary in the salary certificate produced at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal however, applied a multiplier of 6. The deceased was aged 51 years by the date of death as borne out by the record. The date of birth of the deceased is stated to be 1-10-1948 as per the service register-Ex.A-8. The accident occurred on 14-4-2000. As per the guidelines set out in Bhagwan Das Vs. Mohd. Arif (1987 ACJ 1052) the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 6. 13. The Tribunal has estimated the income of deceased at Rs.8,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses the Tribunal estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.3,81,600/-by applying the multiplier 6. However, in view of the admission of PW-3 in the cross-examination that the remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- was also towards the savings the said amount is also to be taken into consideration while estimating income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency. Any amount deducted towards contribution to the GPF or any other fund under any savings scheme is only a deferred income. Had the deceased been alive he would have continued to contribute the said amount by way of subscriptions towards Provident Fund or any other scheme and on his retirement he would have received the said amount of contribution back with interest. If the amount contributed by the deceased towards provident fund or any other savings scheme is not reckoned as part of the income and is deducted, the claimants would be certainly deprived of the benefit to that extent. What is saved by the employee from out of his salary is an asset in some other form but not a charge or liability. Hence, whatever amount goes out of the salary towards savings, it whatever be the nature and mode of savings has to be necessarily treated as part of the income and reckoned as such for purpose of computing the loss of dependency. In S. Narayanamma Vs. Hence, whatever amount goes out of the salary towards savings, it whatever be the nature and mode of savings has to be necessarily treated as part of the income and reckoned as such for purpose of computing the loss of dependency. In S. Narayanamma Vs. Secretary to Government of India ( 2002 ACJ 2040 ) this court held in para 17 as under: "According to me, the contributions made by the deceased employee towards Employees 'Provident Fund, life insurance (LIC), group insurance and the deductions shown in the salary certificate of the deceased employee towards the vehicle loan installment, the benefit fund, and also the amounts received by the deceased employee towards interim relief, special pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, need not be deducted from the gross salary of the deceased for ascertaining the income, because the contributions or deductions made towards EPF , LIC, group insurance and benefit fund would be beneficial to the family of the deceased employee and it would be the estate of the deceased." 14. In the present case also in view of the evidence of PW-3 that amount of deduction in a sum of Rs.3000/- is towards savings, the said amount cannot be taken out of reckoning by assessing the income of the deceased. It is not disputed that the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs.3,011/- towards GPF and the said amount is certainly part of the income of the deceased. Had he been alive he would have continued to contribute the same till the said amount would have certainly benefited his retirement and the family of the deceased. On account of the sudden and tragic death of the deceased in the accident while in service the contribution towards GPF abruptly came to an end and if the same is taken out of consideration while estimating the income of the deceased, it would be a loss to the claimants to that extent. It is therefore, just and proper that the said amount of Rs.3,000/- contributed by the deceased from out of the salary towards savings in the form of GPF is also treated as part of the income of the deceased and loss of dependency is accordingly estimated. 15. It is therefore, just and proper that the said amount of Rs.3,000/- contributed by the deceased from out of the salary towards savings in the form of GPF is also treated as part of the income of the deceased and loss of dependency is accordingly estimated. 15. Thus, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month as borne out by Ex.A-6 and also the evidence of PW-3, and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family can be estimated at Rs.7335/- and the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,28,000/- The appellants-claimants are also entitled for loss of estate in a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The first claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,58,000/- . 16. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,58,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal and @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal. The award dated 10-5-2002 passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.1190 of 2000 is modified accordingly. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. No order as to costs.