Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 177 (AP)

M. Narayana v. M. Saidulu

2019-08-07

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the decree and order dated 28.6.2006 passed in OP No. 266 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Ongole. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal representatives of the deceased for compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a motor accident occurred on 18.1.2003 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The deceased alongwith her husband and other family members proceeding in a car bearing No. AP 9S 5599 to Hyderabad, and reached near Sambasivaraopeta, a lorry bearing No. AAG 993 came in opposite direction and dashed against the car. The deceased received injuries in the accident and died on the spot. The husband of the deceased committed suicide later. A case in Crime No. 17 of 2003 was registered against the driver of the lorry. The deceased was doing saree business and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by the date of the accident. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the grandparents of the petitioners 3 to 5 and they filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending lorry had remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent had filed written statement alleging that at the time of accident, the offending lorry was insured with it. The deceased was a housewife. There is no documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased at the time of accident to show that the deceased was doing saree business and that she was an employee in Andhra Cement Company. Therefore sought for dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal based on oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceased died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of lorry and car and awarded compensation. 5. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- as there was no proof of income. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards her personal expenditure out of the annual income of Rs. 18,000/- and the contribution to the family would be Rs. 12,000/-. As per Exs. 5. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- as there was no proof of income. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards her personal expenditure out of the annual income of Rs. 18,000/- and the contribution to the family would be Rs. 12,000/-. As per Exs. A2 and A3, the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and hence, the Tribunal applied the multiplier 15'. The Tribunal under all heads granted compensation of Rs. 1,84,500/-. Since the petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurance company of the car, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to only half of the amount i.e., Rs. 92,250/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellants. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal without there being any corroborative evidence erred in coming to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles. He submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased and granted lesser compensation. He, therefore, sought for enhancement of compensation as claimed. 8. As regards the aspect of contributory negligence is concerned, the material evidence available on record reveals that the husband of the deceased is the driver of the Maruti Zen Car and the lorry was driven by its driver. That the manner in which the accident took place shows that both the drivers of the vehicles went wrong and both are responsible for the accident. The lorry driver could have averted the accident by sticking to the left side of the road and the car driver also could have stopped the car when the lorry was coming towards right side of the road or he could have taken the car to the extreme left of the road to avoid the accident. In that view of the matter the findings of the Tribunal do not require any interference. The reasons given by the Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence do not require any interference. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that though the deceased was a house wife and used to do sarees business and getting monthly income of Rs. In that view of the matter the findings of the Tribunal do not require any interference. The reasons given by the Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence do not require any interference. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that though the deceased was a house wife and used to do sarees business and getting monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-, the Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of the deceased at 12000/- p.a. He relied upon a decision in Arun Kumar Agrawal and another v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2010 (6) ALD 123 (SC) : (2010) 9 SCC 218 , which refers the role of house wife. The -relevant Para 57 of the decision reads thus: "57. Various aspects of the nature of a homemaker's job have been described in Para 11 which are very relevant and are extracted below: 11. The role of a housewife includes managing budges, coordinating activities, balancing accounts, helping children with education, managing help at home, nursing care, etc. One formula that has been arrived at determines the value of the housewife as, value of house wife=husband's income-wife's income+value of husband's household services, which means the wife's value will increase inversely proportionate to the extent of participation by the husband in the household duties. The Australian Family Property Law provides that while distributing properties in matrimonial matters, for instance, one has to fact in the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of a homemaker or parent." 10. It is highly unfair and unjust and inappropriate to award inadequate compensation to the deceased house wife due to lack of proof of income. The evidence is clear to the effect that the services of a women in a family is also valuable. In the instant case there is no proof of income. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is to be taken at Rs. 3,000/- per month for the purpose of granting compensation. The notional annual income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum, after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards her personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased would be Rs. 24,000/-. The appropriate multiplier is 15' for her age. The total compensation is arrived at Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. 24,000 x 15). 3,000/- per month for the purpose of granting compensation. The notional annual income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum, after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards her personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased would be Rs. 24,000/-. The appropriate multiplier is 15' for her age. The total compensation is arrived at Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. 24,000 x 15). Apart from that, the appellants are entitled for compensation under conventional heads as per the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (6) ALD 170 (SC). An amount of Rs. 15,000/- can be awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. 11. The total compensation awarded under various heads is as follows: Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. Compensation awarded by this Court Rs. 1 Compensation 92,250.00 3,60,000.00 2 Loss of estate - 15,000.00 3 Funeral expenses - 15,000.00 92,250.00 3,90,000.00 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 92,250/- to Rs. 3,90,000/- with proportionate costs along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit remaining compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective share as fixed by the Tribunal. No order as to costs. 13. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending, shall stand closed.