Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 144 (AP)

A. Srinivasulu v. Challa Srinivasulu

2020-02-20

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
JUDGMENT : M. Venkata Ramana, J. This is a claimants' appeal. 2. The appellants are the sons of Smt.Alpuri Venkamma, who died in a motor accident when she was travelling in a Jeep AP 21 V 5244 of the first respondent on 27.06.2003 near Gulladurthi village. A claim for Rs.2,00,000/- was made by the appellants under various heads on the premise that the deceased was 58 years old at the time of accident, who was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month attending to agriculture. They also stated that she owned Ac.40.00 cents of land. 3. The second respondent alone contested the claim denying its liability on the ground that there was violation of policy of insurance and that the claim being excessive. 4. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: "1. Whether the accident occurred on 27-06-2003 at 2.00 a.m. was due to rash or negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP-21-V-5244 by its driver belonging to first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as claimed. If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief?" 5. Considering the evidence of the 5th respondent as P.W.1, basing on Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and evidence let-in by the second respondent through one of its officers being R.W.1 as well as Ex.B1 and B2, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- with proportionate costs thereon and with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. 6. Not satisfied with the award, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal did not consider the material on record properly, misdirected itself in failing to award compensation as claimed. Thus, a request is made to revaluate the evidence on record particularly having regard to changed legal position now basing on SMT.SARLA VARMA AND ANOTHER v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS, 2009 ACJ 1298 . 8. Now, the point for determination is: - "Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as requested?" 9. There is no material that the respondents have preferred any appeal against the award so passed against them. 8. Now, the point for determination is: - "Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as requested?" 9. There is no material that the respondents have preferred any appeal against the award so passed against them. In as much as the present appeal is from the claimants, in the circumstances, the question relating to rash and negligent driving of the offending Jeep AP 21 V 5244 and being responsible for accident, need not be considered. 10. The material placed by the appellants at the trial makes out that the deceased was 58 years old. Income of the deceased was considered by the Tribunal at Rs.1500/- per month. The Tribunal also considered 8' multiplier basing on table in second schedule of M.V.Act. Thus, basing on such parameters, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as stated above. 11. However, having regard to income arrived at by the Tribunal, it is rather difficult to accept. Not only that the deceased was attending to her family affairs but also taking care of agriculture, since the family had owned sufficient landed property. If Rs.3,000/- per month is taken in this context, it would be appropriate. 12. The appropriate multiplier as per SMT.SARLA VARMA, it shall be taken at 9' considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident being 54 years. In such an event, the annual income of the deceased stands at Rs.36,000/-. Though there are number of claimants, the sons and daughters, who are parties to this case, the factum of dependency on her, by all of them, is questionable. Parameters are stated in SMT.SARLA VARMA in this regard as to deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased out of the income. However, in given facts and circumstances of the case when the appellants are all grown up while respondents 3 to 6 being married daughters of the deceased, it is desirable to consider it at 1/3rd as her annual income. Thereby, possible contribution which the deceased would have made to the family stood at Rs.24,000/- per annum. Multiplying the same with 9' being the factor applicable, it stands at Rs.2,16,000/-. This amount reflects the possible contribution of the deceased would have made to the family, in the facts and circumstances. 13. The claimants have also sought funeral expenses at Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal held it at Rs.3,000/-. Multiplying the same with 9' being the factor applicable, it stands at Rs.2,16,000/-. This amount reflects the possible contribution of the deceased would have made to the family, in the facts and circumstances. 13. The claimants have also sought funeral expenses at Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal held it at Rs.3,000/-. Since the instance related to this case is of the year 2003 and in given facts and circumstances, the claim so made by the appellants shall be permitted. 14. The claim of the appellants further towards pain and suffering as well as future loss of earnings did not stand nor there is any possibility to grant towards loss of earnings, since the deceased died instantaneously. 15. Thus, on a consideration of the material, the compensation that can be awarded stands at Rs.2,16,000/- on account of the death of the deceased, payable to the appellants. When appellants 1 to 4 being sons and 5th appellant being daughter are the legal heirs along with respondents 3 to 6, all of them are entitled for a share each in the compensation amount. There cannot be a differentiating factor between sons and daughters. The sons are also grown up having their own earnings and living with their respective families. Similar is the situation of the daughters. There is no justification for the Tribunal to deny a share in compensation, which in fact represents the estate of the deceased, to the daughters. 16. Therefore, since the 5th appellant has also questioned the award of the Tribunal, being the daughter of the deceased, while respondents 3 to 6 are similarly placed like her, their claim need to be considered in this appeal. Thus, all of them are entitled for compensation. 17. Thus, this point is answered. 18. Point No.2:-The contention of the second respondent appears, as seen from the award is that, it is not liable to satisfy the claim of the appellants, since the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the offending Jeep. The evidence shows that she along with other family members were returning from pilgrimage to Tirupati in the offending Jeep. The Tribunal was also conscious of this fact and hence, relying on NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS, 2004 ACJ 1 the second respondent was directed to pay the awarded amount, along with that of the first respondent joint and severally. 19. The Tribunal was also conscious of this fact and hence, relying on NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS, 2004 ACJ 1 the second respondent was directed to pay the awarded amount, along with that of the first respondent joint and severally. 19. Though this is a case, where the deceased was an unauthorised passenger at the time of the alleged accident and which in fact offends the terms of the policy in Ex.B1, the Tribunal decided the matter against the second respondent. No appeal has been preferred as stated above against the findings by the second respondent-insurer apparently being satisfied with the award so passed. Therefore, the findings so recorded need not be disturbed in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. This case since decided on its own facts, cannot be a precedent for any purpose. 20. Thus, this point is answered. 21. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is allowed directing enhancement of compensation to Rs.2,16,000/- with proportionate costs thereon and with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the credit of the O.P. in the Tribunal below. On such deposit, the appellants (petitioners 1 to 5) and respondents 3 to 6 (respondents 3 to 6 in OP) shall apportion the amount so deposited in equal shares. All of them shall open savings bank accounts in nationalized banks, as per their convenience and the amount to be paid as per this order to all of them shall be invariably credited to their savings bank account. After the amount is deposited, they are permitted to withdraw their respective shares out of this amount. Advocate's fee Rs.10,000/- is fixed in this appeal. No costs. All pending petitions, stand closed. The appellants are directed to pay additional Court fee in this Court on appeal memo if any and also in the Tribunal, on enhanced compensation.