Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 225 (AP)

Kuppamma v. D. Niroop Kumar

2020-03-11

KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman, MACT cum I Additional District Judge, Chittoor in MV OP No.382 of 2001 dated 04.04.2006 in awarding compensation of Rs.2,84,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a., the claimants therein filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The appellants are the claimants, 1st respondent is the owner of the tractor-trailer and the 2nd respondent is the Insurer of the tractor-trailer. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-for the death of Doraswamy Naidu in a motor vehicle accident, that took place on 14.07.2001 at about 05.00 p.m. (i) Case of the petitioners is that, on the date of the accident at about 5.00 p.m., when the deceased Doraswamy Naidu was travelling in a moped near Iruvaram bridge, Yadamarri road, Chittoor, the driver of the 1st respondent tractor bearing No.AP 24 C 1706 attached with Trailer bearing No.AP 24 T 1707, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the moped of the deceased, due to which he sustained grievous injuries; immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor and from there to CMC Hospital, Vellore for better treatment, where he succumbed to injuries on the next day; (ii) Yadamari PS, registered a case in Cr.No.192 of 2001 against the driver of the 1st respondent-tractor and was charge sheeted before the court in CC No.192 of 2001. (iii) petitioners spent an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards medical expenses at CMC Hospital, Vellore; at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 51 years, working as Supervisor in Cooperative Sugar Factory, Chittoor, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,900/-; 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Doraswamy Naidu. (iv) The 1st respondent is the owner of the tractor and trailer and the 2nd respondent is the insurer and hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 4. (iv) The 1st respondent is the owner of the tractor and trailer and the 2nd respondent is the insurer and hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 4. Both the respondents filed written statements separately before the Tribunal, denying the allegations of the claim petition and contending that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party; the 1st respondent further contended that the his vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and the insurance policy was in force by the date of accident; if the petitioners are entitled for any amount, it is for the 2nd respondent to pay the same. 5. Basing on the said pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues. On behalf of claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents. 6. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, coupled with the contents of Exs.A.1-FIR, A.2 post-mortem certificate and A.3 charge sheet, recorded a finding on issue No.1 that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent; on issue Nos.2 and 3, the Tribunal held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,84,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization and accordingly, directed the respondents to deposit the same. 7. Heard Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Bhaskar Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/-per month though he was getting Rs.5900/-per month as per Ex.A.4. He further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and other conventional amounts. 9. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation basing on the material available on record and needs no interference by this Court. 10. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of 1st respondent tractor. 9. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation basing on the material available on record and needs no interference by this Court. 10. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of 1st respondent tractor. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and PW.2 (eye witness to the accident) coupled with the contents of FIR, post-mortem certificate and charge sheet, clearly show that the police registered a case against the driver of the 1st respondent and he was charge sheeted before the criminal Court. The 2nd respondent has not disputed the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent and thus, it became final, as no appeal is filed by the respondents. 11. Coming to the claim, case of the claimants is that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 51 years, was working as Supervisor in Cooperative Sugar Factory, Chittoor and getting salary of Rs.5900/-per month. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that though the petitioners filed Ex.A.4 salary certificate of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-per month and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, though the number of dependents on the deceased is four. He further contended that recently in ‘National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others, 2017 ACJ 2700 ’, the larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has framed the guidelines for awarding compensation under various heads in the accident cases and prays to award the amounts as per the above decision. 12. A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,64,000/-towards loss of earnings by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-per month and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, by applying the relevant multiplier ‘11’. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards consortium and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate, in all Rs.2,84,000/-as compensation. 13. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a permanent employee in a Cooperative Sugar Factory, Chittoor working as Supervisor and getting salary of Rs.5,900/-per month. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards consortium and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate, in all Rs.2,84,000/-as compensation. 13. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a permanent employee in a Cooperative Sugar Factory, Chittoor working as Supervisor and getting salary of Rs.5,900/-per month. In support of their case, petitioners filed Ex.A.4 salary certificate issued by the Cooperative Sugar Factory, which shows that the petitioner was getting salary of Rs.5900/-per month. As per the guidelines of the Pranay Sethi’s case, while determining the income of the deceased, an addition of 15% of actual salary has to be added towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was aged between 50 to 60 years. In the present case, the deceased was a permanent employee in a Cooperative Sugar Factory and was getting Rs.5900/-per month towards salary as per Ex.A.4. Therefore, as per the above guidelines, if 15% is to be added towards future prospects. If that is added, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.5900/-+ Rs.885/-(15%) = Rs.6,785/-per month or Rs.71,685/-per annum. The claimants being the wife and children, in all four, are the dependents of the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)6 SCC 121 ’, where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-fourth (1/4th) where number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. In the case on hand, the deceased is having wife and three children and hence, as per the above decision, to determine the loss of earnings and future prospectus of the deceased, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which comes to (out of Rs.71,685/--1/4th is Rs.17,921) = Rs.53,764/-per annum. As the deceased was aged 51 years as per Ex.A.2 post-mortem certificate, which is not disputed by the 2nd respondent, the relevant multiplier is ‘11’ as per Sarla Verma’s case. So the actual loss of earnings comes to Rs.5,91,404/-(Rs.53,764/-x 11). Apart from that, as per the guidelines in Pranay Sethi’s case, the claimants are entitled for compensation towards 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 claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/-under the above heads. So the actual loss of earnings comes to Rs.5,91,404/-(Rs.53,764/-x 11). Apart from that, as per the guidelines in Pranay Sethi’s case, the claimants are entitled for compensation towards 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 claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/-under the above heads. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of 6,61,404/-(Rs.5,91,404/-+ Rs.70,000/-) with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. 14. Admittedly, there is no appeal by the insurance company disputing the coverage of policy and hence, the finding of the Tribunal that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, needs no interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is, allowed in part, directing the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.6,61,404/-(Rupees six lakh, sixty one thousand, four hundred and four only) towards compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. This amount is inclusive of the amount, which is already granted by the Tribunal. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.70,000/-awarded under conventional heads and all the petitioners are directed to share the balance amount in equal shares and are permitted to withdraw the same. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.