Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1038 (AP)

Lachugari Vittal v. Shaik Mahmood

2014-08-20

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2014
Judgment 1) Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in O.P.No.687 of 2003 for the death of deceased— L. Santosh Kumar, the claimants who are his father, mother and sister filed the instant MACMA. 2) Factual side, on 28.03.2003 at about 3:45 pm, when the deceased—Santosh Kumar and his friend Narsimha Reddy were proceeding on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 9 A 1055 from Gummadidala village to Narsapur and when they reached near turning of Kondapur village shivar, one lorry bearing No.AAT 5321 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. Thereby, the deceased died on the spot and the said Narsimha Reddy died while shifting to hospital. Hence the claimants filed O.P.No.687 of 2003 against respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending lorry and claimed Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 1st respondent remained ex parte and 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim denying all the material averments and urged to put the claimants in strict proof. After trial, the Tribunal basing on the evidence on record awarded Rs.2,64,000/- with costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. Hence the appeal by claimants. 3) Heard arguments of Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/claimants. Notice to Respondent No.1/ owner of the vehicle was unserved. However, as he remained ex parte and suffered decree before the Tribunal, his absence will not have any effect in this appeal in the light of decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others ( 2002 ACJ 828 = 2001(1) ALT 485). Though Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel filed vakalat for respondent No.2/Insurance Company but did not address any arguments despite granting sufficient time. Hence, it is treated as heard and the matter was posted for judgment. Though Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel filed vakalat for respondent No.2/Insurance Company but did not address any arguments despite granting sufficient time. Hence, it is treated as heard and the matter was posted for judgment. 4 a) Impugning the award as inadequate and not considered certain parameters provided in the precedential law for computation of compensation, learned counsel for appellants firstly argued that the Tribunal grossly erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-despite the claimants produced the documentary evidence through Ex.A.6 showing that the deceased was a Class-V contractor and entitled to tender the Government contract works up to a limit of Rs.2,00,000/- and by doing such contract works he was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. b) Secondly, he would argue that future income prospects should also be taken into consideration and added to the present earnings of the deceased. In this aspect, he relied upon Raj Rani and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others (2009) 13 SCC 654 ). c) Thirdly, learned counsel would argue that the Tribunal erred in taking mother’s age for selection of multiplier. Relying upon Apex Court’s decision reported in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2012 (2) An.W.R. 291 (SC), he submitted that incase of death of a bachelor, his/ her age rather than the age of his parents or other dependants is relevant for selection of multiplier. d) Fourthly, he argued that the Tribunal failed to award compensation under certain statutory heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate etc., and so suitable compensation may be awarded under those heads. e) Finally, he submitted that the Tribunal/ court in the process of awarding just and reasonable compensation may grant higher amount than claimed. On this aspect, he relied upon K. Ramana vs. K. Thirumala Reddy and another (2013 ACJ 1633 (AP). 5) In the light of above arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs enhancement?” 6) POINT: The accident, involvement of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 9 A 1055 and lorry/ tractor bearing No.AAT 5321 and the death of deceased are not in dispute. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel and on perusal of the evidence on record, I am of the view that compensation needs to be spruced up by following certain parameters setup by the precedential law. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel and on perusal of the evidence on record, I am of the view that compensation needs to be spruced up by following certain parameters setup by the precedential law. 7) Sofaras the income is concerned, though PW.1 deposed that his son was doing PWD project contract works and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m, except filing Ex.A.6—contract registration certificate issued by Executive Engineer, R & B, Sangareddy, did not produce any documentary proof showing the number of contract works executed and income earned by him. Ex.A.6 would only depict that the deceased was registered as Class-V Contractor to do civil works up to a limit of Rs.2,00,000/- and this registration certificate was issued on 31.07.1999 whereas the deceased died in the accident on 28.03.2003. So it is not known how much volume of civil contract works executed by him during those four years and how much income was earned by him. Documentary evidence would be certainly available because the bill amounts would be paid in the form of cheques by the Government Departments. As there is no cogent evidence regarding the earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal, in my opinion, rightly fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- p.m. To this extent, the Tribunal cannot be found fault. However, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future income prospects of the deceased. It may be noted that the Supreme Court in a number of decisions like the Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others (2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) and also in Raj Rani’s case (2 supra) held that future prospects should be taken into consideration not only in respect of the salaried persons but also the self-employed persons died in the accident. Therefore, in the instant case reasonable amount has to be added towards future prospects. Normally, 50% of the earnings can be added towards future prospects. However, as there is no cogent evidence regarding the actual earnings of the deceased and as the notional income of the deceased was taken for computation, an amount of Rs.500/- can only be added as future prospects. Thus, the total monthly earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.3500/- (Rs.3000 plus Rs.500). The annual income of the deceased which will serve the purpose as multiplicand comes to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.3500 x 12). Thus, the total monthly earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.3500/- (Rs.3000 plus Rs.500). The annual income of the deceased which will serve the purpose as multiplicand comes to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.3500 x 12). From this 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased following the principle laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 = AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) then the net annual contribution comes to Rs.21,000/-. 8) Now a suitable multiplier has to be selected. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased’s mother for selection of multiplier since the deceased was a bachelor. However, the Apex Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali’s case (3 supra) has observed that multiplier has to be selected on the basis of the age of the deceased but not of the dependants. The said decision was followed by a Division Bench of this High Court in N.Surender Rao and others v. B.Swamy and another ( 2014 (1) ALT 512 (DB). Therefore, the age of the deceased—L.Santosh Kumar is relevant for selection of multiplier. Ex.A.8—memorandum of marks of the deceased would show that he completed B.Com II year during March, 2001. He died in the year 2003. Therefore, it can be said that he was aged about 22 to 23 years by the time of his death. For his age ‘18’ is provided as multiplier in the multiplier table suggested by Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (6 supra). Thus by multiplying the net annual contribution with ‘18’ we will arrive at the loss of dependency which comes to Rs.3,78,000/-(Rs.21,000 x 18). So, the claimants deserve the said amount. 9) It is seen that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation for funeral expenses and loss of estate which are statutory heads. Hence, I am inclined to award Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/-towards loss of estate. Thus the total compensation payable to the claimants under different heads is as follows: Loss of dependency Rs.3,78,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.3 The compensation is enhanced by Rs.1,29,000/- (Rs.3,93,000/- minus Rs.2,64,000/-). 10) In the result, this MACMA is partly allowed and ordered as follows: a) The compensation is enhanced by Rs.1,29,000/- with proportionate costs and the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing this appeal till the date of realization. 10) In the result, this MACMA is partly allowed and ordered as follows: a) The compensation is enhanced by Rs.1,29,000/- with proportionate costs and the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing this appeal till the date of realization. b) The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. c) No order as to costs in the appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.