Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 227 (AP)

Chavva Tanuja v. Habeeb and five

2010-03-19

B.PRAKASH RAO, R.KANTHA RAO

body2010
JUDGMENT B. Prakash Rao, J. 1. The appellant-wife of the deceased filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the award dated 25.08.2006 passed in O.P. No. 412 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 25.10.2004 at 10.30 pm when the deceased was coming on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 13 D 5688 and when reached near NFCI Cross Road, Road No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, one Tata Indica Car bearing No. AP 29 D 2727 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed in the opposite direction, lost control and dashed the Motor Cycle of the deceased due to which the deceased fell down and received fatal injuries. He was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 26.10.2004. Police registered a case in crime No. 789 of 2004. 3. According to the appellant, the deceased was aged about 29 years, did B.Sc., Computers and doing job in marketing research in TNSPVTLTD, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, since 7 years and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 9,500/-. Further, the deceased was an income tax assessee. Hence, the total claim was made for an amount of Rs. 28,00,000/-. The appellant is the wife and respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. 4. Contesting the claim, the case of the third respondent-Insurance Company was that of total denial as to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Indica Car and that the claim also being arbitrary and on higher side. 5. The Court below framed issues and both the parties went into trial. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced. Considering the aforesaid evidence and material on record, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs. 6,56,550/- towards loss of dependency and also on other grounds. Hence, the appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced. Considering the aforesaid evidence and material on record, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs. 6,56,550/- towards loss of dependency and also on other grounds. Hence, the appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the only question that arises for consideration is with regard to the mode and method of assessment while arriving the quantum of compensation. 7. There is no serious dispute at this stage especially in regard to the very factum of the accident that occurred on 25.10.2004 and as a result of the injuries received, the deceased died. There is also no dispute to the fact that the deceased was a Computer Degree Holder and doing job and was getting Rs. 9,500/- per month. The same was proved under Ex.A4-Stipend Certificate. P.W.1 gives, not only account of the extent but also the nature of work, which the deceased was doing. The other witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined on behalf of the appellant and their evidence gives the details about the employment and the accident. There being no dispute in regard to the findings given by the Court below as to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, which need not be gone into once again, the ultimate question is only in regard to the manner in which the amount of compensation has been arrived. 8. The Court below arrived at the amount of compensation by taking salary at Rs. 5,000/- per month instead of taking it as Rs. 9,500/- per month and by applying multiplier 18', fixed the loss of dependency at Rs. 7,20,000/-. It is this aspect being attacked by the appellant. Several contentions sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant so as to why Rs. 9,500/- per month should not be taken into account. Ex.A8-copy of the agreement is of temporary natured and not a permanent one and the amount of Rs. 9,500/- is only stipend but not a regular salary. But we are of the view that in the nature of the employment, whether we call salary or stipend, it is the money, which the deceased was earning and contributing to the family. Ex.A8-copy of the agreement is of temporary natured and not a permanent one and the amount of Rs. 9,500/- is only stipend but not a regular salary. But we are of the view that in the nature of the employment, whether we call salary or stipend, it is the money, which the deceased was earning and contributing to the family. The salary and stipend represent the remuneration for the service, at different stage, cannot be taken out of the purview of the income. For the purpose of assessment of the quantum, the money which one gets, in whatever form, constitute the constituent for mode of measurement. The income, therefore, cannot have a restricted meaning. Nor, any such form of income is not excluded from the definition or meaning as known to the law. Therefore, it can safely be taken for arriving at compensation. Therefore, from out of Rs. 9,500/-, instead of taking it as 5,000/-, it can safely be taken by deducting 1/3rd i.e., Rs. 6,334/- and by calculating the annual income by addition of 18' multiplier, the total amount would come to Rs. 6,334/- x 12 x 18 = Rs. 13,68,144/-. After deducting 10%, the total amount comes to Rs. 12,31,330/- {Rupees twelve lakh thirty one thousand three hundred and thirty only}. In view of the same, we are of the view that the Court below erred in awarding Rs. 6,56,550/- as compensation and it should be Rs. 12,31,330/-. As per the other amounts of heads granted by the Court below i.e., Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate, they are remained as they are. 9. Though an attempt has been made by the appellant in regard to the apportionment in respect of respondents 4 and 5, who are the parents of the deceased, having regard to the fact that the Court below apportioned the compensation justifiably, we do not see warrant to interfere with the same. Accordingly, we confirm the apportionment as well. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. It is needless to mention that claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No costs.