Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 391 (AP)

Muttineni Naga Kalyani, W/o Mallikharjuna Rao v. Potineni Subba Rao, S/o Mohana Rao

2024-03-26

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2024
JUDGMENT : A.V.Ravindra Babu, J. Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 12.04.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.516 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with the claim of compensation made by the petitioners for Rs.46,00,000/- on account of the death of one Muttineni Mallikharjuna Rao (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 27.03.2014 at 5-40 p.m., awarded compensation of Rs.34,95,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and apportioned the said compensation as that of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of first petitioner being the wife, Rs.7,50,000/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3 being minor daughters, Rs.2,95,000/- in favour of fourth petitioner being mother and Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of fifth petitioner being the father of deceased. 2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal is as follows: (i) The first petitioner is wife, second petitioner is minor son, third petitioner is minor daughter and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. The first respondent is the owner, second respondent is the insurer and the third respondent is rider of motorcycle bearing No.A.P.07-AR-8748 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”). (ii) On 27.03.2014 at about 5-40 a.m., while the deceased along with the deceased was proceeding on left side of Guntur – Pedanandipadu Road from Varagani Village side towards A.B. Palem side, the third respondent while riding the offending motorcycle with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn dashed against the deceased from his behind, when he was coming from Varagani side. As a result, the deceased fell down on road margin and received fatal injuries to his head and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.28 of 2014 under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the third respondent in Pedanandipadu Police Station. (iii) The deceased was aged about 40 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of his death. A case in Crime No.28 of 2014 under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the third respondent in Pedanandipadu Police Station. (iii) The deceased was aged about 40 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of his death. He was working as Regional Manager in Bheema Cements Limited at Tirupati Region and he was paid Rs.40,000/- per month as a salary. The petitioners are the dependants of the deceased. So, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.46,00,000/- to the petitioners. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte. 5. The second respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is very excessive and exorbitant and the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation and that the petitioners have to prove that the rider of motorcycle was having valid and effect driving license. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trail: (1) Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle A.P.07-AR-8748? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from whom? (3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.8 were marked. Respondents did not let in any evidence on their behalf. 8. The Tribunal on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.34,95,000/- towards compensation as above. Feeling that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and it is not sufficient, the petitioners filed the present MACMA, seeking to enhance the claim of compensation. 9. As against the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due rash and negligent riding made by the rider of the offending vehicle, there are no Cross Appeal or Cross Objections filed either by the rider or owner of the offending vehicle or by the insurance company. So, the scope of the present MACMA is only to look into as to whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. 10. So, the scope of the present MACMA is only to look into as to whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. 10. Hence, in deciding the present MACMA, the simple question that falls for consideration is whether the award, dated 12.04.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.516 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, in awarding compensation of Rs.34,95,000/- as against Rs.46,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT:- 11. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as per the grounds of appeal is that the petitioners are eligible towards love and affection to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the salary of the deceased was not considered reasonably, but, during the course of hearing, the arguments of Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the Tribunal considered the law prevailing as on the date, awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium and considered the net drawings of the deceased. His thrust of the contention in MACMA is that the Court may consider the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(16) SCC 680 so as to award future prospects to the deceased, as the deceased was an employee working by paying income tax, etc. His submission is that the Court may consider to grant future prospects. 12. Contention of Smt.A. Jayathi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, is that the Tribunal awarded just compensation and if the petitioners are eligible for future prospects, it is a matter of appreciation in view of the settled legal position. 13. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, who was no other than the wife of the deceased, she put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. She examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 also. P.W.2 was the witness to the occurrence. P.W.3 was the Deputy General Manager in Bheema Cements Limited, who testified the income of the deceased. According to him, the deceased worked as Regional Manager for Tirupati Region from 2007 till his death and Ex.X.1 was the set of three pay slips for the month of January, February and March, 2014 and his gross salary was Rs.40,000/- and net salary was Rs.37,880/- and Ex.X.2 was the attendance register for the months of January, February and March, 2014. He also produced the appointment order of the deceased and revised salary structure of the deceased which were Ex.X.3 and Ex.X.4. He further filed revised salary certificate of the deceased which was Ex.X.5 and promotion orders of the deceased under Ex.X.6 to Ex.X.8. According to P.W.3 services of the deceased was not permanent and he can be terminated at any time, if his performance is not satisfactory. So, it is a case where the deceased was working on fixed salary which is not in dispute. According to salary certificate, gross salary of the deceased was Rs.40,000/- per month. Out of gross salary, basic salary was Rs.16,000/-, H.R.A. was Rs.6,400/-, Transport Allowance was Rs.800/-, Educational Allowance was Rs.400/- and the Special Allowance was Rs.16,400/-. P.W.3 did not disclose the particulars of the special allowance. The Tribunal considered that in March, 2014, an amount of Rs.12,280/- was deducted towards income tax. The Tribunal considered to deduct 10% of the net amount towards income tax and further deducted Rs.4,092/- towards travelling expenses. The exercise made by the Tribunal to fix up the net salary as Rs.30,000/- per month was on reasonable basis. The Tribunal considered the fact that petitioners 4 and 5 are parents of the deceased, who were solely not dependants on the deceased and considered the fact that the petitioners 1 to 3 are the sole dependants and deducted a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- out of annual income of Rs.3,60,000/- and considered the amounts as Rs.2,40,000/- which the deceased could have spent towards his family members. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 41 years as per the evidence available on record. Following the dictum in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 ACJ 1298 , the Tribunal multiplied Rs.2,40,000/- x 14, thereby arrived at the figure Rs.33,60,000/- as the multiplicand. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 14. It is to be noted that in view of the dictum in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the compensation under conventional heads i.e., consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate should be Rs.70,000/-. 15. As this Court already pointed out the deceased was working on fixed salary. In view of dictum laid down in Pranay Sethi’s Case (supra), future prospects can be awarded even to persons who were self-employed and those who were on fixed salary. 15. As this Court already pointed out the deceased was working on fixed salary. In view of dictum laid down in Pranay Sethi’s Case (supra), future prospects can be awarded even to persons who were self-employed and those who were on fixed salary. There is no dispute that the deceased was working as an employee in Bheema Cements Limited, Tirupati and he was on fixed salary. As on the date of judgment of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.516 of 2014, the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was not there. Subsequently, it was rendered. As the appeal is pending as on the date, the principle in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) can be applied.Considering the same, as the deceased is aged about 41 years and he was on fixed salary, the petitioners are entitled 25% of the multiplicand towards future prospects. Considering the same, Rs.33,60,000/- x 25% = Rs.8,40,000/-. Thus, the compensation which the petitioners are eligible is as follows: Towards loss of contributions which the deceased would have made towards family members which he had been alive Rs.33,60,000-00 Future prospects Rs. 8,40,000-00 Conventional Heads Rs. 70,000-00 16. In view of the above, the petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.42,70,000/-. Hence, the compensation is liable to be enhanced. 17. In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part with costs enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from that of Rs.34,95,000/- to Rs.42,70,000/- holding that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same and directing the respondents to deposit the difference enhancement compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and further the respondents shall deposit the entire compensation within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. The enhanced compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- should be apportioned as Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of first petitioner; Rs.1,50,000/- each in favour of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3; Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of fourth petitioner and Rs.75,000/- in favour of fifth petitioner. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.