Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 290 (AP)

Vyasaraju Jyothi, W/o. Mohana Rao Raju v. Vijaya Kalavathi, W/o. Seetharam

2021-04-29

NINALA JAYASURYA

body2021
ORDER: The appellants, who are claimants in M.V.O.P. No.42 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court (FTC), Srikakulam, instituted the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation granted vide orders dated 03.5.2005. 2. In the said O.P., the claimants averred that their son-Sunil Kumar while going to attend school in Auto bearing No.AP 30T 4957 met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of another Auto bearing No.AP 30T 5511 coming in the opposite direction and as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. They claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-towards compensation against the respondents. In support of their case, they examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. The respondents filed their respective counters, but did not adduce any oral evidence. However, Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B.1. The Tribunal framed as many as six (6) issues and after considering the rival contentions and material on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,57,000/-towards compensation together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, in view of the opinion expressed by it that there is a collective contributory negligence, the Tribunal fixed the liability 50% -50% on the respondent Nos.1 & 3 and respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed this appeal. 3. Heard Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Mr.M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for New India Assurance Company Limited. 4. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Companies have not filed any appeal with regard to fixation of the liability on them. Therefore, this Court is not required to dwell into other aspects, except enhancement of compensation sought for by the claimants/ appellants. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contends that the Tribunal erred in not granting in the compensation in toto. While contending that the appellants in fact are entitled for more compensation than the amount claimed, he would point out that the income of Rs.12,000/-per annum and multiplier of ‘11’ as adopted by the Tribunal are not correct and without valid basis. While contending that the appellants in fact are entitled for more compensation than the amount claimed, he would point out that the income of Rs.12,000/-per annum and multiplier of ‘11’ as adopted by the Tribunal are not correct and without valid basis. He submits that the father of the deceased is doing business and had the deceased is alive, he would have earned at least Rs.3,000/-per month and the Tribunal should have taken the multiplier as 18. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 he further submits that the appellants are entitled for Rs.70,000/-under conventional heads. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is well considered, just and reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 7. On hearing the rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration by this Court is whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case? 8. As seen from the order of the Tribunal and material on record, it is not in dispute that the deceased boy was aged about 14 years and studying 8th class at the time of the accident that took place on 24.9.2000. The Tribunal while mentioning that in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), the modalities with regard to the fixation of compensation in case of children is evaluated, categorically observed that though the parents (in the present case) cannot be said to be financially well settled, it cannot be ruled out the possibility of good education to the child. The Tribunal by taking the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.12,000/-per annum applied a multiplier of ‘11’ and determined the compensation at Rs.1,32,000/-and awarded Rs.10,000/-and Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering and loss of estate respectively. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.1,57,000/-was awarded. The Tribunal by taking the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.12,000/-per annum applied a multiplier of ‘11’ and determined the compensation at Rs.1,32,000/-and awarded Rs.10,000/-and Rs.15,000/-towards pain and suffering and loss of estate respectively. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.1,57,000/-was awarded. It may be pertinent to observe here that in Latha Wadhwa case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while determining the compensation payable in respect of an accident involving children of employees of the Tata Iron and Steel Company in the age group of 5 to 15 years observed to the effect that in so far as the children of age group between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of VI to X Class and contribution of deceased child taken as Rs.12,000/-appears to be on the lower side and held that the contribution of such children should be Rs.24,000/-per annum. Therefore, the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, is not justified in granting the contribution of the deceased aged about 14 years to the family at Rs.12,000/-per annum. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal vs. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 while dealing with the case of compensation in respect of a child of 10 years old reversed the judgment of the High Court affirming the dismissal of the claim petition by the Accidents Tribunal, followed the legal principle laid down in Latha Wadhwa case and determined the compensation. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads thus: 38. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. 39. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. 39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000 and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15=4,50,000 and 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000 under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants. 10. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation, though not in the lines submitted by the counsel for the appellants. 11. Accordingly, the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.30,000/-and considering the age of the mother who was about 33 years old at the time of accident, multiplier of ‘16’ in terms of decision in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 is adopted to arrive at loss of dependency which comes to Rs.4,80,000/-. In addition to the same, the appellants are also entitled to Rs.50,000/-under conventional heads as discussed in paragraph 39 of Kishan Gopal case extracted above. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled to Rs.5,30,000/-which shall carry interest at 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. In addition to the same, the appellants are also entitled to Rs.50,000/-under conventional heads as discussed in paragraph 39 of Kishan Gopal case extracted above. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled to Rs.5,30,000/-which shall carry interest at 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The liability to pay compensation of 50% by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 and 50% by respondent Nos.2 and 4 as fixed by the Tribunal remain unaltered. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced compensation within eight (8) weeks after giving credit to the amounts already deposited and the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same equally on such deposit. 12. Though the appellants/claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, keeping in view the object of the Motor Vehicles Act which is a beneficial and welfare legislation and in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding payment of just compensation rendered in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, Ramla vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 2 SCC 192 , the compensation which is reasonable has been determined as set out above. The appellants/ claimants shall pay deficit court fee on the compensation amount awarded over and above the amount claimed within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 13. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.