Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 227 (AP)

Pulichetla Siva v. S. Valli

2020-03-11

A.V.SESHA SAI

body2020
JUDGMENT: Seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity), in the Award dated 20.06.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.330 of 2004, claimants are before this Court in the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company. 3. Appellants herein/claimants, consequent upon death of their mother Pulachetla Narasamma, approached the Tribunal by way of filing M.V.O.P. No.330 of 2004, claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte in the M.V.O.P.. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed written statement opposing the claim made by the claimants. 4. In order to substantiate the case of the claimants, claimant No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2, on their behalf, and Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent No.2. 5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following points for trial. “(a) Whether the deceased Pulachetla Narasamma died in a motor vehicle accident on 16.3.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of mini lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-04-U-2232 by its driver? (b) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ? (c) To what relief ?” 6. While answering point No.1, the Tribunal held that the subject accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry. While answering point No.2, as regards to entitlement of compensation, the Tribunal quantified the annual family contribution of the deceased towards her family as Rs.15,000/-per month, and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards living expenses of the deceased and by applying multiplier ‘16’, quantified the compensation amount towards loss of dependency at Rs.2,40,000/-. The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, transport charges and mental agony and suffering due to sudden and accidental demise of the deceased. Totally, the tribunal granted a compensation Rs.2,55,000/-. 7. Broadly, four submissions are made by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in the present appeal. The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, transport charges and mental agony and suffering due to sudden and accidental demise of the deceased. Totally, the tribunal granted a compensation Rs.2,55,000/-. 7. Broadly, four submissions are made by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in the present appeal. They are: (i) the Tribunal ought to have quantified the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month i.e. Rs.36,000/-per annum; (ii) the Tribunal ought to have granted additional 40% of established income of the deceased towards future prospects, as the deceased was below 40 years of age at the time of her death; (iii) since number of dependants are ‘4’, the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards living and personal expenses; and (iv) the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.70,000/-towards conventional heads, instead of Rs.15,000/-. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & others, AIR 2007 SC 5157 and Chameli Devi & others v. Jivrail Mian & others, 2019 ACJ 3011. 8. It is a settled law that the minimum income which needs to be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of dependency is Rs.36,000/-per year. As per the aforesaid decisions, when the dependants are ‘4’ in number, 1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Further, as per the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & others (1 supra), additional 40% of established income of the deceased has to be taken into consideration towards future prospects, while assessing the loss of dependency, when the age of the deceased is below 40 years at the time of the accident. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, if 1/4th is deducted from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased, her contribution towards dependants would come to Rs.27,000/-per annum. If 40% thereof is added towards loss of future prospects, the total loss of contribution of the deceased towards the dependants comes to Rs.37,800/-per annum. The appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104 case, is 15. If 40% thereof is added towards loss of future prospects, the total loss of contribution of the deceased towards the dependants comes to Rs.37,800/-per annum. The appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104 case, is 15. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.37,800/-x 15 = Rs.5,67,000/-. 9. Further, it is clear from the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & others (1 supra) that the appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/-towards conventional heads viz. Rs.40,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses. In the instant case, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.15,000/-under the conventional heads. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.70,000/-. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellants/ claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,37,000/-. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellants/ claimants from Rs.2,55,000/-to Rs.6,37,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appellants/claimants are entitled to share the compensation amount equally. On deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. 11. The appellants/claimants shall pay deficit court fee on the compensation amount awarded over and above the amount claimed in the claim petition. No order as to costs of the appeal. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.