Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1300 (AP)

A. Suguna @ K. Suguna v. A. P. S. R. T. C.

2010-12-22

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, P.DURGA PRASAD

body2010
Judgment Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.8.2006 passed in O.P.No.2739 of 2004 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, at Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the O.P in part and granted compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- together with interest at 7.5% P.A from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount. 2. The appellants are the claimants in O.P.No.2739 of 2004. They filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,70,000/- for the death of A.Ramulu in a road accident that occurred on 29.6.2004. A.Ramulu was Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Dispensary, Malakpet. On 29.6.2004, at about 5.30 PM., while he was crossing the road near Pallavi Gardens, Chinthalakunta, Vanasthaipram, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11Z-2287 came in high speed on wrong side of the road and dashed him and as a result, he sustained head injury, for which he succumbed. A case in Crime No.365 of 2004 came to be registered against the driver of the APSRTC bus by the Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram P.S. After due investigation, the driver of the RTC bus came to be challaned for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The widow and children of Ramulu filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,70,000/-. According to them, Ramulu was drawing salary of Rs.24,306/- per month and was aged 54 years as on the date of the accident and he was contributing his entire earnings to the family. The respondent-Corporation being the owner of the crime bus is liable to pay compensation. 3. The Respondent-Corporation filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants. The Corporation denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and disputed the entitlement of the claimant to claim compensation for the death of A.Ramulu. The Corporation also denied the earnings of A.Ramulu and his contribution to the family. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- “1) Whether accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11Z-2287 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 4. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- “1) Whether accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11Z-2287 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 4. On behalf of the claimants, four witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 4 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, one witness was examined as Rw-1 and no document was marked. 5. The tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11Z-2287 and that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and that the Corporation being the owner of the bus is liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the O.P came to be allowed in part, by judgment dated 28.8.2006. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the M.V.Act. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the tribunal failed to take note of future earnings of the deceased and thereby, committed serious error in arriving at the loss of dependency of the claimants because of the untimely death of Dr.A.Ramulu. He would also contend that the multiplier taken by the tribunal is incorrect, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Learned counsel laid much emphasis on paras 20 and 21 of the cited judgment, which read as hereunder:- “Tribunals/Courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. He would also contend that the multiplier taken by the tribunal is incorrect, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Learned counsel laid much emphasis on paras 20 and 21 of the cited judgment, which read as hereunder:- “Tribunals/Courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra (set out in column 3 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (set out in column 4 of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in the second column of the Table in the Second Schedule to MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the Table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the Table above). For example, if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column 2 of the Second Schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable. 21. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable. 21. We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 year, M-9 of 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years”. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that the deceased was aged 54 years as on the date of his death and even if he was alive, he would have been in service only for four more years since the age of superannuation being 58 years, and therefore, the tribunal was justified in adopting the multiplier ‘five’ for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency. 10. The only issue that calls for adjudication in this appeal is: What is the proper multiplier to be applied to arrive at the total loss of dependency of the claimants because of the untimely death of their Bread earner? 11. POINT: The Supreme Court has taken note of the multiplier scale as envisaged in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas (1994 ACJ 1 (SC)) case, multiplier table as adopted in U.P.State Road Trans. Corpn. 11. POINT: The Supreme Court has taken note of the multiplier scale as envisaged in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas (1994 ACJ 1 (SC)) case, multiplier table as adopted in U.P.State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra’s (1996 ACJ 831 (SC)) case as clarified in New India Assurance Co Ltd. v. Charlie’s (2005 ACJ 1131 (SC)) case and multiplier given in the second column of the table in the Second Schedule to MV Act, and observed that multiplier ‘18’ would be operative for the age group of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years and the multiplier would be reduced by one unit for every five years up to the age of 50 years and thereafter, reduced by two units for every five years. The maximum multiplier to be adopted would be 18 and the minimum multiplier would be five as per the cited judgment. The deceased in the case on hand was near around 55 years. Therefore, proper multiplier applicable as per the multiplier table approved in Sarala Verma’s case (1 supra), would be ‘9’. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,46,259/-. The tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The amounts granted under those heads are quite reasonable and we are not inclined to disturb the same. In all, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,73,259/-. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,10,000/- to Rs.10,73,259/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants as follows:- i) 1st appellant : Rs.5,23,259/- ii) Appellants 2 to 4 : Rs.1,50,000/- each iii) 5th appellant : Rs.1,00,000/- Out of the compensation amount awarded, appellant-claimant No.1 is permitted to withdraw initially a sum of Rs.1,23,259/-and balance share of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years. The amounts awarded to the claimants 2 to 4 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit initially for a period of three years renewable from time to time till they attain majority. The appellant No.1 is permitted to withdraw interest accrued on the deposits. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs.