Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 80 (AP)

APSRTC, Hyderabad v. P. Suvama

2013-02-08

K.G.SHANKAR

body2013
JUDGMENT The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) filed this appeal assailing the award dated 31.10.2003 in OP No.2467 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court; Hyderabad, under which compensation was awarded at Rs.9,21,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. 2. The deceased-P. Sangaiah was working as a sub-staff in Andhra Bank. He was drawing a gross salary of Rs.7,538/-, vide Ex.A6-salary certificate. While he was travelling on 19.6.2000 at about 9.40 a.m., on his scooter bearing registration No.AP 9S 1358 towards Ravindra Bharathi side, APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 7311 dashed the scooter. The deceased sustained serious injuries in the accident. He was immediately shifted to CDR Hospital and was later shifted to Osmania General Hospital. The deceased, however, died about one hour after the accident while undergoing treatment at Osmania General Hospital. Considering that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus the wife of the deceased alongwith her three minor children and parents of the deceased preferred the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation at Rs.9,50,000/-. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-APSRTC contended that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the compensation worked out mutatis mutandis is liable to be reduced to the extent of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 4. PW3 is an eye-witness for the accident. PW3 was a passenger in the offending bus. He claimed that he witnessed the accident and that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. The appellant did not choose to examine anyone to contradict the evidence of PW3. The First Information Report, the Case Diary and the Charge Sheet, certified copies of which are Exs.A1, A2 and A5, show that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. The appellant did not choose to examine anyone to contradict the evidence of PW3. The First Information Report, the Case Diary and the Charge Sheet, certified copies of which are Exs.A1, A2 and A5, show that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. The overwhelming evidence adduced by the claimants has not been contraverted by the appellant In view of the evidence of PW3, coupled with Exs.A1, A2 and A5, I agree with the contention of Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants that the accident was indeed due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. I consequently reject the contention of the learned standing Counsel for the appellant-APSRTC that it is a case of contributory negligence and that the compensation payable should be determined with reference to the quantum of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 5. The deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.7,538/- per month. The claimants did not adduce any evidence regarding the net salary of the deceased. The learned Counsel for the claimants, however, contended that it is the gross salary, which deserves to be computed for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency. He placed reliance upon Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh, 2011 (4) ALD 109 (SC) = 2011 ACJ 1441 , in support of his contention. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and Medical Allowance shall be taken into consideration while calculating the income of the deceased. The Supreme Court in fact deducted the other statutory deductions from the gross income to determine the income of the deceased for the purpose of loss of dependency. I, therefore, consider that it is the net income, which alone shall be taken into consideration to determine the loss of dependency. The trial Court determined the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Where the claimants failed to produce the details as to the gross income and net income of the deceased, it would be just and proper to determine the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month after statutory deductions. The annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation consequently would be Rs.72,000/-. 6. It may be noticed that the deceased was working as a sub-staff in Andhra Bank. The annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation consequently would be Rs.72,000/-. 6. It may be noticed that the deceased was working as a sub-staff in Andhra Bank. Thus, he was holding a permanent employment. In view of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) = 2009 ACJ 1298 , the income of the deceased deserves to be mathematically increased as a thumb rule taking the future prospects into consideration. In accordance with Sarla Verma, where the deceased was 44 years old at the time of his death, it would be appropriate to increase the notional income by 30%. As the notional loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.72,000/- per annum, 30% of it at Rs.21,600/- deserves to be added to the notional loss of dependency by taking note of the future prospects. The annual loss of dependency, consequently, has become Rs.93,600/-. 1/4th of the same deserves to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses, as there are four dependents. The loss of dependency for the purpose of calculation, consequently, is Rs.70,200/- per month after deducting Rs.23,400/-, being 1/4th of Rs.93,600/- from the gross annual loss of dependency. 7. The multiplier applicable for the present case is 14', as the deceased was 44 years old at the time of his death. If the net annual loss of dependency at Rs. 70,200/- is multiplied by 14', the amount would be Rs.9,82,800/-. The claimants accordingly are entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency, loss of income and future expectancy of life at Rs.9,82,800/-. 8. The trial Court awarded compensation at Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The claimants are entitled to both the amounts. 9. The learned Counsel for the claimants drew my attention to the fact that the trial Court did not award any compensation towards loss of estate. I deem it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants are also entitled for compensation at Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges. 10. The claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation at (a) Compensation towards loss of dependency, loss of income and future expectancy of lift … Rs.9,82,800/- (b) Compensation towards loss of estate … 10,000/- (c) Compensation towards loss of consortium in favour of the first claimant … 15,000/- (d) Compensation towards funeral expenses … 2,000/- (e) Compensation towards transport charges … 1,000/- Total … Rs.10,10,800/- 11. The trial Court granted interest at 9% per annum. As the accident occurred in 2000, I deem it appropriate to maintain the same rate of interest, as awarded by the trial Court. 12. The claimants sought for compensation at Rs.9,50,000/-. The amount of compensation that the claimants would otherwise have been entitled to is more than the claimed amount. I consider that where the claimants themselves considered that just compensation is Rs.9,50,000/-, it would not be justified to award compensation beyond the claimed amount. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to award compensation at Rs.9,50,000/- as sought for by the claimants. 13. Accordingly, the claimants are awarded compensation at Rs.9,50,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. Out of the awarded amount, claimants 2 to 4, who are minor children of the deceased, and claimants 5 and 6, who are parents of the deceased, shall be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each. As claimant No.5 is no more, 6th claimant shall be entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-. The first claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, shall be entitled to Rs.4,50,000/-. Each of the claimants is entitled to interest over their respective shares of the awarded amount. 14. The appellant-APSRTC shall deposit the awarded amount before the trial Court within one month from today. After such deposit, the claimant No.6, who is a senior citizen, is entitled to withdraw the whole amount of compensation awarded in her favour together with interest. 15. The first claimant shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- at the first instance. The balance shall lie in fixed deposit. The first claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the balance in instalments once in two years at Rs.1,00,000/- on each instalment. As the last instalment, the first claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the balance together with accrued interest. 16. The amounts of compensation which fell to share of the claimants 2 to 4 shall lie in fixed deposit till they attain majority. Each of the claimants 2 to 4 shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.50,000/- each at the first instance on each of them attaining majority. The balance due to each of them shall lie in fixed deposit for a period of two years at the end of which, the claimants 2 to 4 shall be entitled to withdraw the balance together with accrued interest. The balance due to each of them shall lie in fixed deposit for a period of two years at the end of which, the claimants 2 to 4 shall be entitled to withdraw the balance together with accrued interest. In the event of any urgency for withdrawal beyond the terms provided, the claimants may approach the trial Court. The trial Court shall dispose of such application if so files. 17. Thus, the civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of granting compensation at Rs.9,50,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in the appeal.