Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 123 (AP)

Kummari Jayamma v. Meka Sambasiva Rao

2019-07-11

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 13.2.2006 passed in MVOP No. 844 of 2001 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (IX Additional District Judge), Guntur (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner No. 1 is the mother, petitioner No. 2 is the father and petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are younger sisters of the deceased-Sunil Kumar. On 20.5.2001 at about 8.30 p.m., while the deceased was going on the cycle as a pillion rider from Thummalapalem Village to reach Pepsi Company on left side of NH5 road and when they reached near LRR Poultry farm quarters, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 7T 990 belongs to respondent No. 1 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn, dashed against the deceased from his behind, as a result, the deceased fell down from the cycle and the lorry ran over him, and on the way to hospital, he succumbed to injuries. A case in Crime No. 34/2001 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur, was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years, hale and healthy and working as filling operator in Pepsi Company, Boayapalem, Guntur District on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,600/- and contributing some amount to the appellants/petitioners. Since the appellants/petitioners lost dependency and love and affection due to the death of the deceased, they claimed petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- against the respondents jointly and severally to pay the compensation. 3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 4. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company filed written statement denying their liability, alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. They disputed the age and earning capacity of the deceased, and the appellants are put to strict proof of the same. At the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence, valid permit and valid registration certificate for the offending vehicle, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants/petitioners. 5. Based on the above averments, the Tribunal framed issues and on behalf of appellants/petitioners, PWs. At the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence, valid permit and valid registration certificate for the offending vehicle, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants/petitioners. 5. Based on the above averments, the Tribunal framed issues and on behalf of appellants/petitioners, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs. A1 to A6 were marked, and on behalf of respondents, none were examined and documents Exs. X1 to X3 were marked. 6. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,74,600/- to the petitioners, payable by respondents jointly and severally with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of presentation of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. Challenging the same, the petitioners/appellants preferred the present appeal. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. 8. Inspite of several opportunities and even after posting the matter under the caption 'for dismissal' there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the subject accident due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1-driver of the offending lorry. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed. 10. The Tribunal based on the evidence of PW 3 coupled with Ex. A6, Exs. X1 to X3 assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 2524/- p.m. and Rs. 30,300/- per annum and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The contribution of the deceased to his family was assessed at Rs. 20,200/- p.a. Considering the age of PW 1 as per deposition (mother of the deceased) the Tribunal applied multiplier 13' and worked out the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,62,600/-. 11. As per the decision in hatha Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, and after considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the income of the deceased can be taken into consideration at Rs. 3,000/- p.m., which amounts to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 12. 2,62,600/-. 11. As per the decision in hatha Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, and after considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the income of the deceased can be taken into consideration at Rs. 3,000/- p.m., which amounts to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (6) ALD 170 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Para 39 referring to sub-para (32) that the deceased was survived by parents and siblings. Though the appellant was a bachelor, 50% towards his personal and living expenses, need not be deducted. "32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." 13. In the instant case, the deceased has a mother, father and 3 sisters, who are aged about 18, 20 and 21 respectively. The sisters are unmarried and also unemployed. The contention of the petitioner is that the sisters are dependants on the income of the deceased as they were unemployed and unmarried. 14. In view of the above ratio laid down with regard to the expenditure of the deceased, as there are more dependants in the family, 1/3rd living expenses of Bachelor to be deducted instead of 50% and the remaining 2/3rd shall be contribution to the family. 15. In the light of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) : AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the age of the deceased only has to be taken into consideration. 16. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 25 and the multiplier applicable to his age is 18' as per the ratio in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Hence, the notional income of the deceased is Rs. 3,000 x 12 = Rs. 36,00/- and' after deducting 1/3rd it comes to Rs. 16. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 25 and the multiplier applicable to his age is 18' as per the ratio in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Hence, the notional income of the deceased is Rs. 3,000 x 12 = Rs. 36,00/- and' after deducting 1/3rd it comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 18' then it comes to Rs. 24,000 x 18 = Rs. 4,32,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate. 17. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Though it is more than their claim, as per the decision in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others, 2003 (1) ALD 1 (SC), the appellants/petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation under various heads. 18. The compensation awarded under various heads is as follows: Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. Compensation awarded by this Court Rs. Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. Compensation awarded by this Court Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 2,62,600.00 4,32,000.00 2 Funeral expenses 2,000.00 15,000.00 3 Loss of estate 10,000.00 15,000.00 2,74,600.00 4,62,000.00 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,74,600/- to Rs. 4,62,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Sixty Two Thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellants shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amount over and above the claim amount within four weeks from the date of the order. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.