Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 79 (AP)

M. Sreedevi v. A. Nagaraju

2023-01-06

T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.151 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Anantapur, (for short “the tribunal”), the claimants preferred this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. It is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V Rules claiming compensation for an amount of Rs.8,10,000/-for the death of M. Thirupathi Naidu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.10.2004. The said M.Thirupathi Naidu will hereinafter be referred to as “the deceased”. 4. It is not in dispute that the deceased is the husband of the 1st claimant, father of 2nd claimant and the son of 3rd claimant. 5. The claimants’ case is that on 22.10.2004 the deceased along with claimants 1 and 2 and his brother’s son by the name Radhaiah were all going in a motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-G-8620 to go to his house at Maddannagaripalli to attend for Dasara festival. The deceased was riding the motorcycle and was proceeding on the road leading from Tadpatri so, the TATA Sumo vehicle is bearing (hereinafter be referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) – Kadapa. While No.AP-09-P-5265 belongs to Police Department, Kurnool District, was driven by 1st respondent coming from Kadapa’s side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased and pillion riders fell on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries; they were shifted to Government hospital, Tadpatri and from there to Appollo hospital, Anantapur. The deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital. 6. The 1st respondent, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, filed written statement, contending that the accident occurred due to careless driving of a motorcycle by the deceased. 1st respondent is in no way responsible for the accident. In any event, respondents 2 to 4 are only liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. The 3rd respondent filed written statement, adopted by respondents 2 and 4, contending that the claimants are put to strict proof of the manner and mode of the accident, age and earnings of the deceased. The offending vehicle is allotted to Kurnool District. In any event, respondents 2 to 4 are only liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. The 3rd respondent filed written statement, adopted by respondents 2 and 4, contending that the claimants are put to strict proof of the manner and mode of the accident, age and earnings of the deceased. The offending vehicle is allotted to Kurnool District. The offending vehicle’s driver is not at all responsible for the accident. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. Hence, 3rd respondent is not a proper and necessary party to the petition. 8. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues. Before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 9. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver i.e., 1st respondent and awarded compensation Rs.3,18,000/-at 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 towards, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Claim against 3rd respondent is dismissed. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties. 11. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants contends that the tribunal ought to have award the total claim based on the deceased’s income. The Tribunal ought to have seen that, as per Ex.A10, the deceased was running a lorry on lease basis; the Tribunal ought to have noticed that the claimants suffered mental agony due to the un-exceptive death of deceased. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the tribunal. 13. Now the point for determination is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and it requires modification? POINT: 14. As seen from grounds of appeal and contentions raised by the learned counsel for appellants/claimants, it can be seen that the tribunal’s finding, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver, i.e., respondent No.1 is not disputed by either of the parties. The said finding has become final and attained finality. POINT: 14. As seen from grounds of appeal and contentions raised by the learned counsel for appellants/claimants, it can be seen that the tribunal’s finding, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver, i.e., respondent No.1 is not disputed by either of the parties. The said finding has become final and attained finality. The finding of the tribunal that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident is not in dispute, and it is established by Ex.A1-certified copy of F.I.R, Ex.A2-certified copy of postmortem certificate of deceased, and Ex.A4-certified copy of charge sheet. In view of the same, since the manner of the accident is not disputed, it is unnecessary to refer to the facts relating to the accident in question. 15. According to the case of the appellants/claimants, the deceased was aged 36 years by the date of the accident. To prove the age of the deceased, claimants relied on Ex.A6-Original SSC certificate pertaining to the deceased, which shows the date of birth of the deceased as 05.06.1968. Basing on the documents, the tribunal observed that the age of the deceased can safely be taken as 36 years by the date of the accident. 16. As per claimants, the deceased used to do lorry business and he owned Ac.20-00 agricultural lands and thereby earned Rs.20,000/-per month. There is no specific evidence with respect to the agricultural lands and income of the deceased. In a case like this, where there is no specific evidence as to the income of the deceased, the Apex Court in Lakshmi Devi and others Vs. Mohammad Tabber, 2008 ACJ 488 held that, in today’s word, even common labour can earn Rs.100/-per day. Based on the above principle, this court can safely assess the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. But the tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.18,000/-per year. 17. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 270, wherein it is held in case the deceased was self-employed, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The finding of the Tribunal that the age of the deceased is 36 years as of the date of the accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the age of the deceased is 36 years as of the date of the accident is not disputed. Given the same, the annual earnings of the deceased, including a future prospectus, can be assessed at Rs.3,000/-+ 40% = Rs.4,200/-. 18. Since the deceased was married and the claimants are dependents upon the earnings of the deceased, and considering the size of the dependents i.e., 3 in number and in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 , this court views that 1/3rd of the earnings of the deceased to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After the deduction of 1/3rd of the earnings as observed above, the monthly earnings, including the future prospectus of the deceased after deducting personal expenses, would arrive at Rs.2,800/-(i.e., Rs.4,200/-(-) Rs.4,200/-(x) 1/3). 19. To assess the loss of earnings, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case, in which the Apex Court provided the table of the multiplier to be considered for the claims made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the multiplier for the persons aged between 36 to 40 is provided as ‘15’. Hence, the loss of dependency can arrive at an amount of Rs.5,04,000/-(Rs.2,800/-x 12 x 15). 20. In Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 , at paragraph 8, the Apex Court held that: "(8.6)…the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award 'just compensation, irrespective of whether any plea on that behalf was raised by the claimant. (8.7) A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (S.C.), dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is the loss of consortium. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', parental consortium', and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.). The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.). The parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. The filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensate in the case of the accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit." 21. The judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case was rendered in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a 10% enhancement of conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as detailed below: Towards loss of dependency Rs.5,04,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- spousal consortium Rs.44,000/- Parental consortium Rs.44,000/- Filial consortium Rs.10,000/- Total: Rs.6,35,000/- 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part without costs, enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.3,18,000/- to Rs.6,35,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand only), with interest at 7.5% per annum as awarded by the tribunal against the respondents 1, 2 and 4. The claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation amount. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, excluding the amount deposited, if any, within two months of receiving a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced compensation amount, the 1st claimant is entitled to 50% of the enhanced compensation with cost and accrued interest on the entire enhanced compensation, the 2nd claimant is entitled to 35% of enhanced compensation, and 3rd claimant is entitled to 15% of the enhanced compensation amount. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares on filing appropriate applications before the Tribunal as per the Tribunal’s award. 23. Consequently, in this appeal, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.