Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rao Ranuka Madhavi 4 Ors vs G.Munuswamy 6 Ors on 25 February, 2021
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao, B Krishna Mohan
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
M.A.C.M.A.No.2337 of 2011
JUDGMENT: (Per UDPR,J)
Though in this appeal, which is filed against the award
in M.V.O.P.No.436 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, East
Godavari at Kakinada, several grounds were raised, the main ground
urged before us by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Sri E.
Sambasiva Pratap, is that the Tribunal failed to add suitable amount
towards future prospects of the deceased, while computing his income
for fixing compensation. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court
in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others1, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would
strenuously urge before us that though the deceased was a contractor
and thus a self employed person, still as per the dictum laid down
earlier in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another2 and presently in Pranay Sethi case (1 supra), a suitable
percentage of increment has to be made to his income to compute the
compensation, which, the Tribunal failed to consider. He thus prayed
to consider this aspect and grant just and reasonable compensation.
1
MANU/SC/1366/2017=AIR 2017 SC 5157
2
MANU/SC/0606/2009=(2009)6 SCC 121
UDPR,J & BKM,J
MACMA No.2337 of 2011
2
2. Award shows, the deceased Rao Venkata Jagga Rao was aged
50 years one month and 15 days by the date of his death as per Ex.A.7
which is his SSC certificate. Considering the same, the Tribunal has
accepted '11' as multiplier. Then, so far as the income of the
deceased is concerned, considering the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal observed that the deceased was a special grade
contractor recognized by the Government authorities and he was
doing contract works along with his partners. Then having regard to
the income tax returns produced under Exs.A.8 to A.11 for the
relevant period, the Tribunal has calculated the average income of the
deceased from the aforesaid income tax returns and arrived his annual
income at Rs.1,18,153/-. Then, having regard to the five dependants
i.e., wife, two children and parents of the deceased, the Tribunal
deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased
following Sarla Verma case (2 supra). Thus, the Tribunal arrived the
net income of the deceased at Rs.88,615/-. Multiplying the said
amount with multiplier '11', it arrived the loss of dependency at
Rs.9,74,765/- (Rs.88,615/- x 11). To this figure, the Tribunal added
Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of consortiums and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate and arrived at the total compensation of Rs.10,09,765/-
(Rs.9,74,765/- + Rs.35,000/-).
3. As can be seen, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the
UDPR,J & BKM,J
MACMA No.2337 of 2011
3
future prospects of the deceased, probably in view of the fact that in
Sarla Verma case (2 supra), future prospects were not provided for a
self employed person. However, that is not the end of the matter.
Pending this appeal, a five-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi case (1 supra) reviewed its earlier decisions in the
context of arriving at a just compensation in motor vehicle accident
claims. So far as the future prospects of a self employed person is
concerned, in Pranay Sethi case, the Apex Court observed thus:
"Paragraph No.61 (iv) - In case the deceased was self
employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10%
where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years
should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.
The established income means the income minus the tax
component."
So, going by the above ratio, in the instant case, necessarily suitable
amount has to be taken up towards future prospects. As observed
supra, the Tribunal arrived the net annual income of the deceased, at
the time of his death, at Rs.1,18,153/-. This income was arrived at by
considering the income tax returns of the deceased. Going by the
Pranay Sethi case, 10% addition has to be made to the aforesaid
income, having regard to the fact that the deceased was in the age
group of 50-60 years by the time of his death. Thus, the annual
income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,29,968/- (Rs.1,18,153/- +
Rs.11,815/-). From this amount, 1/4th has to be deducted towards
personal living expenses. Thus, the net contribution of the deceased
UDPR,J & BKM,J
MACMA No.2337 of 2011
4
to his family comes to Rs.97,476/- (Rs.1,29,968/- minus Rs.32,492/-).
Then, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,72,236/- (Rs.97,476/- x
11). Hence, the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is
as follows:
i) Loss of dependency Rs.10,72,236/-
ii) Transportation & funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
iii) Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/-
iv) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
-------------------
Total compensation Rs.11,07,236/-
-------------------
4. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and compensation is
enhanced from Rs.10,09,765/- to Rs.11,07,236/- with proportionate
costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization. Respondent Nos.1,3,6 and 7 are directed to deposit the
compensation amount within two months from the date of this order,
failing which, the appellants are entitled to take out execution against
them. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for
consideration shall stand closed.
_________________________
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
______________________
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J
25th February, 2021
cbs
UDPR,J & BKM,J
MACMA No.2337 of 2011
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
M.A.C.M.A.No.2337 of 2011
25th February, 2021
cbs
