Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Veera Venkata Satya Krishna ... vs Putchala Venkateswara Rao 2 Ors on 18 June, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2663 of 2007
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao)
Challenging the order dated 16.03.2007 in O.P.No.1175/2006 passed
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West
Godavari, Eluru granting compensation of Rs.6,11,400/- against their claim
of Rs.30,00,000/-, the claimants filed the instant M.A.C.M.A.
2. On 25.07.2006 at about 10.30 A.M., one Maddula Veera Venkata
Nageswara Rao of Kovvur in West Godavari District while proceeding on
his motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 R 669 from Kovvur to Rajahmundry and
passing on the road-cum-rail bridge, Kovvur, a Swaraj Mazda van bearing
No.AP 35T 9398 came in the opposite direction and in the process of
overtaking its front vehicle, the van driver drove his vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the deceased causing his instantaneous death.
It is averred that the deceased was aged 34 years and was a member of HUF
and running rice and kirana wholesale business and earning Rs.20,000/- per
month and due to his sudden demise and due to the unfortunate death of his
wife on the following day, his minor son became a destitute. It is further
averred that the accident was occurred due to the fault of van driver. On
these pleas, the claimants who are the minor son and parents of the deceased
filed O.P. No.1175/2006 against the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver,
owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The respondents
filed counters and opposed the claim mainly contending that the accident
was occurred due to the fault of deceased himself.
During trial, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A20 were
marked on behalf of the claimants. RW1 was examined on behalf of the
respondents.
The Tribunal having regard to the oral and documentary evidence held
that 1st respondent was responsible for the accident and granted
compensation of Rs.6,11,400/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. and proportionate
costs as follows:
Loss of dependency 5,92,400
Loss of love and effection 15,000
Transport charges 2,000
Funeral expenses 2,000
Total (in Rs.) 6,11,400
Hence, the MACMA is filed by the claimants challenging the
compensation as abysmally low and inadequate.
3. Heard the arguments of Sri K.Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel
for appellants, and Sri Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for 3rd
respondent/insurance company.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for appellants that
compensation awarded is quite inadequate inasmuch as, the lower Tribunal
has taken the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.5,000/- despite the
fact that he was a member of Hindu Undivided Family and running the
family business of wholesale rice and kirana shop and earning Rs.20,000/-
per month. It is further contended that the deceased was young and aged 34
years and despite the same the Tribunal has not added any amount to his
income towards future prospects and thereby, the compensation for the loss
of dependency was drastically cut short. The compensation under other
heads is also paltry. He thus prayed to suitably enhance the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for 3rd respondent Sri Naresh Byrapaneni
argued that the family business stands in the name of 2nd petitioner and there
is no record to show that the deceased was earning any income exclusively.
Therefore, the Tribunal has taken a reasonable amount of Rs.5,000/- per
month as income of the deceased and accordingly, calculated the
compensation which by all means just and reasonable. He would submit that
compensation awarded by the Tribunal was already deposited by the
insurance company and hence, the appeal may be dismissed as there are no
merits in it.
6. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether compensation
awarded by the lower Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of
law and requires enhancement?
7. Point: We gave our anxious consideration to the pleadings, evidence
and contentions raised by both sides. At the outset, our considered view is
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and not
assessed by following the principles laid down in a catena of decisions
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and different High Courts.
Admittedly, the deceased M.V.V. Nageswara Rao was aged about 34
years by the date of the death in accident i.e., on 25.07.2006 as Ex.A12-SSC
marks list shows his date of birth as 26.08.1972. So far as avocation and
income of the deceased are concerned, it is the plea of the petitioners in the
O.P. that they belong to Vaishya community and theirs is a Hindu undivided
family and they are pursuing the family business i.e., 'Sri Veerabhadra Rice
& General Stores' which is run by the deceased and his elder brother.
Further, the deceased was also running the business stands in the name of his
sister-in-law and in all he was getting Rs.20,000/- per month. In proof of the
income, the petitioners filed Ex.A5-Turnover Tax Registration (TOT)
certificate and Ex.A10-Income Tax returns. A perusal of Ex.A5-Form TOT
003 Registration Certificate shows that Sri Veerabhadra Rice and General
stores was registered as TOT under Section 17(7) and Rule 10(C) & 12 of
the A.P. VAT Act. The said store is said to belong to the HUF of 2nd
petitioner and his sons, wherein the deceased was one of the members. Then
Ex.A10-Form 2D returns for the Assessment Year 2006-07 submitted by the
2nd petitioner shows that the total income under all heads roughly comes to
Rs.2.00 lakhs. No doubt the returns are submitted in the name of 2nd
petitioner. However, since returns were submitted on behalf of HUF, the
same can be taken into consideration to determine the probable income of
the deceased for computation of compensation. It is an admitted fact that the
2nd petitioner has three sons including the deceased. So the income shown in
Ex.A10 can be presumed to be generated by the father and his three sons as
HUF. It is the case of petitioners that the deceased used to take major role in
running the family Kirana business. In fact, Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A4-charge sheet
and Ex.A6-Inquest Report would show that on the date of accident the
deceased was proceeding from Kovvur to Rajahmundry on his motorcycle to
purchase kirana articles for his shop. Hence, it can be believed that the
deceased used to take active role in running the family business. In that
view, we consider that the Tribunal fixed a low monthly income of the
deceased. Having regard to the nature of the business the deceased engaged
in, his contribution being substantial one, we fix his monthly income as
Rs.7,000/-.
Then, in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, towards
future prospects, certain percentage of addition was made to the salary of the
deceased and this addition was confined to salaried persons only. However,
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2, the Apex
Court found no rationale in confining this benefit to only salaried persons
and not to self-employed or fixed income persons. Accordingly, the Apex
Court directed that an addition should be made in case the deceased was
self-employed or fixed salaried; an addition of 40% if he was aged below 40
years; 25% if he was aged between 40 to 50 years; and 10% where he was
between the age of 50 to 60 years. Applying this rule to the instant case and
as the deceased was aged 34 years, 40% of increment is granted. Thus, the
total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.9,800/- [7000+2800].
The annual income of the deceased which serves the purpose as multiplicand
comes to Rs.1,17,600/- [9800 x 12]. From this, 1/3rd has to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the net annual
income comes to Rs.78,400/-. Multiplier is concerned, in Sarla Verma (1
supra), the Apex Court approved multiplier '16' for the deceased persons in
the age group of 31 to 35 years. In that view, the total compensation for the
loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,54,400/- [78,400 x 16].
In Pranay Sethi (2 supra), the Supreme Court directed to grant
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively under the conventional heads viz.,
loss of estate and funeral expenses. The same is followed in this case. Thus,
the total compensation payable to the petitioners is as follows:
MANU/SC/0606/2009 = 2009 ACJ 1298
MANU/SC/1366/2017 = AIR 2017 SC 5157
Loss of dependency 12,54,400
Loss of estate 15,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Transport charges 2,000
Loss of love and effection 15,000
Total (in Rs.) 13,01,400
8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and compensation is
enhanced from Rs.6,11,400/- to Rs.13,01,040/- with proportionate costs and
interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization
against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The respondents are
directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the
date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for
consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
______________
J. UMA DEVI, J
18.06.2021
MVA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2663 of 2007
18th June, 2021
krk
