Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1581 (AP)

Bagantri Appalamma v. Balla Srinivasa Rao

2023-12-14

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

body2023
JUDGMENT: B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. This is an appeal filed by the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.484/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam, against the common order and decree dated 26.05.2006. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants in MVOP 484/2001 who are the appellants herein is that one B.Kondaiah as a pillion rider was travelling on the motor cycle of P.Krishna Rao, while P.Krishna Rao driving the motor cycle; they reached a place near Jamiya Mosque on N.H.5 road near Narasannapeta; a lorry came in opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle; as a result, Kondaiah and Krishna Rao sustained grievous injuries; they were shifted to Government Hospital, Narasannapeta; Krishna Rao died in the hospital; Kondaiah was shifted to Government Hospital, Srikakulam; He also died on 30.03.2001; Hence, claim petition filed before the learned Tribunal U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of B.Kondaah, against the owner of the lorry and insurer of the lorry. 4. The dependants of other deceased also filed petition claiming compensation in MVOP 471/002. The learned Tribunal delivered a common order on 26.05.2006 holding that the claimants in the present appeal are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,49,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, the present appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement. 5. The contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal is that the claim is excessive, and the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. 6. The owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month at the time of accident, but the learned Tribunal notionally fixed the income of deceased at Rs.60/- per day only, which is on a lower side; and further, the learned Tribunal did not award proper amounts under the conventional heads; and thereby failed to award just compensation. 8. No arguments were submitted on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. 9. In the light of above contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. 8. No arguments were submitted on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. 9. In the light of above contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal in MVOP 484/2001 warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 10. POINT No.1: The main contention of the appellants/claimants is that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation. The case of the claimants was that the deceased B.Kondaiah was earning Rs.2,500/-per month during the period of accident in the year 2001. The learned Tribunal considered him as a mason and fixed the income at Rs.60/-per day, and accordingly arrived the monthly income at Rs.60 x 30 = Rs.1,800/-. No specific and tangible evidence was placed by the claimants establishing that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month, as mason. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal on that aspect. 11. However, the leaned Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3 income of the deceased towards personal expenses, though there are four dependants in the case. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma’s case, ¼ of the income of deceased be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.1,800 – 450 = Rs.1,350/-per month, and the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.1,350 x 12 = Rs.16,200/-. 12. The age of deceased was fixed by the learned Tribunal, as 35 years. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable to arrive loss of dependency for the age group of ‘31 to 35 years’ is ‘16’. Thus, the loss of dependency will be Rs.16,200 x 16 = Rs.2,59,200/-, but not Rs.2,30,400/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 13. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- only towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,000/- only towards loss of estate. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Thus, the loss of dependency will be Rs.16,200 x 16 = Rs.2,59,200/-, but not Rs.2,30,400/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 13. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- only towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,000/- only towards loss of estate. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses, total comes to Rs.30,000/-. 14. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 the 1st claimant being wife of deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, claimants No.2 and 3 being the minor children of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium, and thus, the claimants 1, 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- under loss of consortium. 15. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,59,200 + 30,000 + 1,20,000 = Rs.4,09,200/-towards just compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,49,000/- only towards compensation. Therefore, the contention of the appellants/claimants that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation is having force. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court. 16. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734 held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734 held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimant sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.3,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable to be awarded is Rs.4,09,200/-. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Tribunal in MVOP 484/2001 is liable to be modified. 18. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court case, the Court shall award just compensation, even if it exceeds the amount claimed by the claimants, subject to payment of court fee. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to Rs.4,09,200/- towards just compensation. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed only in respect of order and decree passed in MVOP 484/2001. Accordingly, the point is answered. 20. POINT No.2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal is allowed in respect of order and decree passed in MVOP 484/2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed only in respect of MVOP 484/2001, out of the common order, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam, by holding that the claimants in MVOP 484/2001 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,09,200/- (Rupees Four Lakhs, Nine Thousand and Two Thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.2,49,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellants/claimants. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellants/claimants. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.4,09,200/- (Rupees Four Lakhs, Nine Thousand and Two Hundred), along with accrued interest thereon, within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company had already deposited some amount, the said amount be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within eight (08) weeks from the date of judgment. 23. On such deposit, the 1st Appellant/1st claimant being the wife of deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 24. The Appellants No.2 to 3 being the children of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 25. The 4th Appellant/4th claimant being the mother of deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.79,200/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand and Two Hundred only) and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. 26. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.