Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 797 (AP)

Tegacherla Pullamma v. M. Sudhakar Reddy

2022-08-25

V.SUJATHA

body2022
JUDGMENT V. Sujatha, J. - This Appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved with the award dated 25.04.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore in Original Petition No. 618 of 2004 granting compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 2. The claimants, who are wife, children and parents of one Tegacherla Venkataramaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), filed the above claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. On 09.01.2004, the deceased and other villagers boarded a tractor bearing No. A.P.26/U-194 to attend a meeting at Podalakur and after the meeting, while they were waiting at the gate, the driver of the tractor, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the compound wall of the gate, resulting which, the compound wall fell on the deceased and the deceased received injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 30 years and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as Maistry as on the date of accident. Hence the claim petition. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the contents of the petition and disputed the accident, earning capacity of deceased and dependency. Further contended that as the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent, he is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. The 2nd respondent also filed counter denying rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of the tractor and disputed the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the nature of the accident. Further contended that the claim of compensation is excessive and untenable, hence he is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No. A.P.26/U-0194 of respondent No. 1? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs-1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs. A1 to A3. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, however Ex. B1 was marked. 7. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs-1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs. A1 to A3. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, however Ex. B1 was marked. 7. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs. A1 and A2, came to the conclusion that the deceased received injuries and died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,200/- per month, as there was no proof about his earning capacity, and thereby fixed the contribution to the family at Rs. 9,600/- per annum after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal has applied multiplier 16' as the age of the deceased was 30 years on the date of accident and arrived at Rs. 1,53,600/- towards loss of dependency. In addition to that, the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 15,000/- each towards non-pecuniary damages and loss of consortium. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,83,600/-, which was rounded off to Rs. 1,85,000/- towards compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum, payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal are as follows: 8. Heard Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the claimants and Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and ought to have taken the income of deceased as Rs. 2,810/- per month as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16' instead of 17' as per the Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, as the age of the deceased was 30 years on the date of the accident and the Tribunal has also failed to award compensation under other conventional heads. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company made her submissions in support of the impugned award. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company made her submissions in support of the impugned award. She contended that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and awarded a just compensation and the award under appeal needs no interference. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor, on account of which the deceased received injuries and died on the spot, became final and needs no interference, as the same is not challenged either by the owner or the insurer of the offending vehicle. 12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,810/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and as claimed by the claimants. Further, as per the decision in Sarla Verma case (referred supra), if the dependants of the deceased are in between 4 to 6, the deduction would be 1/4th. As in the present case, there are four dependents, therefore, 1/4th shall be deducted from the income of the deceased which comes to Rs. 2,108/- per month and the annual contribution to the family of the deceased would come to Rs. 25,296/- (Rs. 2,108/- x 12). Further, as per the decision in Sarla Verma case (referred supra), the appropriate multiplier 17' is applicable to the age of deceased, as he was 30 years by the date of accident. Hence, the loss of dependency would be arrived at Rs. 4,30,032/- (Rs. 25,296/- x 17). In addition thereto, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, wherein it is held that in case of claims relating to death, the claimants are also entitled for grant of compensation of Rs. 70,000/- under conventional heads such as Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, the Tribunal already granted Rs. 15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. In all, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 5,15,032/- (Rs. 4,30,032/- + 70,000/- + 15,000/-). 70,000/- under conventional heads such as Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, the Tribunal already granted Rs. 15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. In all, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 5,15,032/- (Rs. 4,30,032/- + 70,000/- + 15,000/-). Even though the compensation claimed by the claimants before the Tribunal is Rs. 5,00,000/-, in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274 , there is no restriction under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act that the compensation should be awarded only up to the claim made by the claimants. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,85,000/- to Rs. 5,15,032/-. 13. For the sake of convenience and for easy understanding of the amounts now awarded under different heads are as follows:- 14. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,85,000/- to Rs. 5,15,032/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The rest of the findings given by the Tribunal in respect of apportionment remain unaltered. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.