Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 396 (AP)

C. Nagappa v. Jai Bir Singh

2020-05-28

NINALA JAYASURYA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This is an Appeal filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.571 of 2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool (herein after referred to as Claims Tribunal), whereunder the Claims Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,77,000/-as against a claim of Rs.3,00,000/-made by the claimants. 2. The brief facts that lead to the filing of the present Appeal are as follows; 3. The claimants/appellants filed M.V.O.P.No.571 of 2004 seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-for the death of one Chakali Nagaraju who died in a road accident on 10.12.2002, while travelling in an auto due to rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing No.HR 46A 4447. 4. In support of their claim the claimants/appellants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. However, the second respondent/insurance-company, filed a written statement and contested the matter. 5. The Claims Tribunal after considering the rival submissions by its judgment and decree, dated 06.02.2006 allowed the claim petition partly by awarding a sum of Rs.1,77,000/-with proportionate costs and interest there on @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred seeking enhancement of the compensation. One of the grounds raised is that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased @ Rs.1,500/-per month, whereas, the evidence on record adduced by the appellants discloses that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.3,000/-by doing washermen and coolie works. It is also urged that the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken multiplier of Rs.17’ instead of Rs.12’ as per the amended Act, 1988 under Section163-A of Motor Vehicles Act as the accident took place in the year 2002. 7. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent insurance-company submits that the Award of the Claims Tribunal is well considered, suffers from no infirmity and the amount awarded towards compensation is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel in all fairness submits that if at all, the claimants/appellants would be entitled to some more amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. 8. The learned counsel in all fairness submits that if at all, the claimants/appellants would be entitled to some more amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. 8. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is “Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs to be enhanced on the basis of the material available on record?” 9. As seen from the averments in the claim petition, the deceased was doing Dhobhi work and also coolie work in agricultural lands and was earning Rs.3,000/-per month. In support of the said claim, P.W.2 was examined who categorically deposed that the deceased was doing washerman work and coolie work and he was also washing the clothes of his employer. However, the Claims Tribunal discarded the evidence with regard to the income of the deceased on the ground that there is no documentary proof. Such a conclusion of the Claims Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not correct or tenable. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 6 ALD 75 (SC) and the relevant portion as follows; 14: In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.3,000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz., in the year 2004, was Rs.100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. Secondly, the appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4,500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs.4,500/-. 10. In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, took into consideration the monthly income of a coolie @ Rs.4,500/-per month for arriving at compensation in respect of an accident which took place in the year 2004. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2002 and monthly income of Rs.3,000/-as claimed is reasonable and not exorbitant. 11. Therefore, keeping in view of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the monthly income of the deceased can reasonably taken and fixed @ Rs.3,000/-per month, which comes to Rs.36,000/-per annum. For the purpose of arriving at loss of dependency after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, Rs.24,000/-should be taken as amount towards contribution to the family. Adopting the multiplier of Rs.12’ the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,88,000/-. Apart from the above said amount, the appellants are also entitled to Rs.40,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses. Thus, the in all the appellants are entitled to Rs.3,55,000/-. 12. Adopting the multiplier of Rs.12’ the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,88,000/-. Apart from the above said amount, the appellants are also entitled to Rs.40,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses. Thus, the in all the appellants are entitled to Rs.3,55,000/-. 12. Though the appellants restricted their claim to Rs.3,00,000/-, keeping in view that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the claimants are entitled to compensation which is just and reasonable, the appellants are awarded Rs.3,55,000/-as assessed above. 13. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,77,000/-to Rs.3,55,000/-with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. The second respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares in terms of the decree and judgment of the Claims Tribunal. The appellants/claimants shall pay deficit Court on the compensation amount awarded over and above the amount claimed within Six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The Appeal is accordingly allowed as indicated above. 14. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed.