Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1087 (AP)

Beduduri Sharadamma v. B. Srinivasa

2023-07-17

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. M.A.C.M.A.No. 3337 of 2014 is filed by the claim petitioners and M.A.C.M.A.No. 729 of 2015 is filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company in M.V.O.P.No. 482 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa. 2. Since both the appeals arose from out of one decree and order passed in M.V.O.P.No. 482 of 2010, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition. 4. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 476 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Beduduri Suryanarayana Reddy, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of the 4th petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 12.05.2010. 5. Facts germane to dispose of the present appeals may briefly be stated as follows: On 12.05.2010 when the deceased and another were standing on the left side of the road near Gaddam Konaiah fields on Pulivendula - Nallapureddipalli main road, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 21T 3474 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from Pulivendula side and dashed the deceased, due to that, the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over him resulting in his instantaneous death. The Police, Pulivendula P.S. registered a case in crime No. 92 of 2010 against the driver of the offending lorry. The 1st respondent being owner and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 6. The 1st respondent remained set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the accident caused because of negligence of the deceased, there was no fault on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. It is pleaded that the accident caused because of negligence of the deceased, there was no fault on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No. AP 21T 3474 belonging to R.1 resulting in the death of the deceased B. Suryanarayana Reddy? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what extent, and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.23 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked. 9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting compensation of Rs.10,72,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. against both the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the claim petitioners filed M.A.C.M.A.No. 3337 of 2014 for enhancement of compensation, while the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No. 729 of 2015 questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 11. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of compensation? (2) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The material on record reveals that the Police, Pulivendula P.S. registered a case in crime No. 92 of 2010 against the driver of the offending lorry and after completion of investigation into the accident, they filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending lorry. On considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.4- certified copy of charge sheet, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent. On considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.4- certified copy of charge sheet, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 13. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,72,000/-. The material available on record shows that the deceased owned Acs.10.60 cents of agricultural land and he used to raise paddy, banana and other seasonal crops in the said land and cultivating the said land personally by engaging coolies by ploughing the land by supplying manures. The contention of the petitioners is that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. To support their contention, the petitioners relied on Exs.A.5 to A.20. On considering the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,00,000/- and also fixed the age of the deceased as 43 years. I do not find legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. To the annual income of the deceased, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , 25% from out of annual income has to be added towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of accident. If it is so added, the annual income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/-). The dependents on the deceased are four in number. So, 1/4th from out of the annual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Having deducted as such, the annual contribution to the family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.93,750/- (Rs.1,25,000/- - Rs.31,250/-). As stated supra, the deceased was aged about 43 years as on the date of accident. The relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is “14”, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (4) SCJ 91 and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.13,12,500/- (Rs.93750/- x multiplier ‘14’). Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.13,12,500/- towards loss of dependency. 14. The relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is “14”, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (4) SCJ 91 and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.13,12,500/- (Rs.93750/- x multiplier ‘14’). Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.13,12,500/- towards loss of dependency. 14. Further, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,000/- under conventional heads i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra), the maximum amount to be awarded under conventional heads is Rs.70,000/- only. In view of the same, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads are very low. Therefore, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased. In total, a sum of Rs.13,82,500/- is awarded towards compensation to the petitioners. 15. It is not in dispute that the offending lorry was owned by the 1st respondent and it was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1-policy and the policy was also in force by the date of accident. Therefore, there are no violations in Ex.B.1-policy and both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 16. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No. 3337 of 2014 filed by the petitioners is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.13,82,500/- and the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,10,500/-. Both the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,10,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to withdraw Rs.80,000/- each along with interest thereon and the 4th petitioner is entitled to withdraw Rs.70,500/- along with interest thereon. M.A.C.M.A.No. 729 of 2015 filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company is dismissed. No order as to costs. 17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.