Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 122 (AP)

Jami Nirmala v. Chavali Mary Rani

2019-07-10

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This MACMA is arising out of OP No. 453 of 2002, which was partly allowed by way of Common Order dated 17.2.2007 in OP Nos. 501, 316, 318, 453 and 475 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. OP No. 453 of 2002 has been filed by the wife and children of the deceased-Janti Krishna Rao, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 5.6.1999, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their Counter before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record i.e., PWs. 1 to 3 and RWs. 1 to 3 and Exs. A1 to A11 and Ex. B1-Policy, has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- to the petitioners alongwith costs and interest at 7.5% per annum under different heads as follows: 1 Loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- 2 Loss of estate Rs. 5000- 3 Loss of Consortium Rs. 15,000/- 4 Loss of estate Rs. 5000- 5 Loss of dependency Rs.1,32,000/- Total Rs.1,52,000/- 5. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Counsel for appellants and Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500/- per month, whereas, the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing cashew nut business. 8. In this regard, PW 3, who is the wife of the deceased, deposed that her husband was doing cashew nut business and thereby earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of PW 3 and fixed notional income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500/- per month. However, the basis on which the Tribunal arrived at the notional income of Rs. 1,500/-, is not stated in the order. 9. In catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that notional income can be taken into consideration when there is no proof of income. The Apex Court, in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , has taken the notional income as Rs. 3,000/- per month for a person in any unorganized sector. 10. The Apex Court, in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , has taken the notional income as Rs. 3,000/- per month for a person in any unorganized sector. 10. In Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2014 (2) ALD 133 (SC) : (2014) 2 SCC 735 , notional income was taken at Rs. 6,500/- per month for a vegetable vendor on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, in the instant case, considering the evidence of PW 3-wife of the deceased, that the deceased was doing cashew nut business, his notional income can be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month for calculating the compensation. His annual income would come to Rs. 36,000/-. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was aged about 50 years as per the Post-Mortem Certificate. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased, as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra), is "13". As per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (6) ALD 170 (SC) : 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), as held in Para No. 42 of the Judgment, the Multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is "M13". The Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier as "11" to the age of the deceased. Therefore, the multiplier applicable in this case is "M13". After deducting. 1/3rd from the annual income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to his family would be Rs. 24,000/- and after multiplication with the multiplier "M13", the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,12,000/-. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. He further submits that Tribunal did not grant any amount towards funeral expenses. The Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), referred above, held in Para No. 61 Clause (viii), that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. 13. In view of the ratio laid down in the above judgment, in the instant case also, the loss. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. 13. In view of the ratio laid down in the above judgment, in the instant case also, the loss. of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be at Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation payable to the appellants under different heads can be detailed as below: 1 Loss of estate Rs. ,12,000/- 2 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 3 Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- 4 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000- Total Rs.3,82,000/- 14. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others, 2003 (1) ALD 1 (SC), the Apex Court observed that there is no bar to award compensation in excess of what is claimed, particularly when the evidence which is brought on record is sufficient to pass such award. Therefore, it was held that the claimant though does not claim the compensation under various heads, it is open to him/her to claim compensation on the grounds not stated earlier, which were not specified in the application. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,52,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 3,82,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed the amount within Eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw their respective share, as fixed by the Tribunal. The appellants are directed to pay the Court Fee on the enhanced compensation amount. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.