Paladugu Bharathi And 2 Others vs N.Venkateswarlu And 5 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2073 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
                             AND
               HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
                         M.A.C.M.A. No.2767 of 2012

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao)

      Challenging the compensation of Rs.21,40,210/- awarded by the Motor

Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West

Godavari, Eluru for the death of one P.Dattatreya in a lorry accident as low and

inadequate, the claimants filed the instant MACMA.

2.    On 13.09.2006 at about 6.50 A.M. on Kodumuru-Kurnool Road near

Mango garden of Nallreddy when the deceased P.Dattatreya was proceeding

along with his family members in Qualis bearing registration No.AP 27 AB

7000, a SRMT lorry bearing registration No.KA 01 B 6991 being driven by 1st

respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed the

Qualis. In the resultant accident the deceased died on the spot and the

petitioners sustained injuries. It is alleged that the accident was occurred due to

the fault of the lorry driver. It is further averred that the deceased was young

person of 24 years and earning about Rs.90,000/- while working in Computer

Sciences Corporation India Private Limited and due to his sudden demise the

petitioners, who are his parents and brother, lost their dependency.

MVOP.No.101/2008 came to be filed by the petitioners against the respondents

1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending SRMT lorry, and

the respondents 4 to 6, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the Qualis, and

Rs.50.00 lakhs was claimed as compensation. The respondents 1, 4 & 5

remained ex parte. The respondents 2 & 3 contended that the accident was

occurred due to the fault of the driver of Qualis vehicle and hence, they are not

liable for the claim. Per contra, 6th respondent in his written statement

contended that the accident was occurred due to the fault of lorry driver and

hence, the respondents 1 to 3 alone are liable for the claim.

During trial, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and exhibits A1 to A20 and X1

to X5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW1 was examined and

exhibits B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held

that the accident was occurred due to the fault of 1st respondent, who was the

driver of the offending lorry. Then regarding compensation, the Tribunal

taking into evidence of PWs 1 to 3, held that the deceased was working in

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited. Then by taking Ex.X2-

bunch of pay slips which contain the last pay drawn by the deceased in the

month of August 2006 before his death, the Tribunal fixed his monthly salary

at Rs.38,850/-. It arrived his gross annual income at Rs.4,66,200/-. From this,

it deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was a

bachelor. From the remaining amount of Rs.2,33,100/- the Tribunal deducted

30% towards income tax and held that the net annual contribution of the

deceased to his family was Rs.1,63,170/-.

Then taking the age of the 1st claimant, who is the mother of deceased,

the Tribunal selected '13' as multiplier and arrived the loss of dependency at

Rs.21,21,210/- (1,63,170 x 13). Then it granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate and Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded

total compensation of Rs.21,40,210/- with proportionate costs and interest @

7.5% p.a. from the date of O.P. till the date of realization against the

respondents 1 to 3. Eventually the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. against the

respondents 4 to 6.

Hence, the M.A.C.M.A.

3. Heard the arguments of Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants, and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the insurance

company-3rd respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly argued that the Tribunal has

not taken the correct earnings of the deceased in spite of the cogent oral and

documentary evidence; the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the

salary of the deceased; it deduced ½ instead of 1/3rd from the gross earnings of

the deceased; it took mother's age instead of the age of deceased for selection

of the multiplier and due to all the aforesaid errors, the compensation was

drastically reduced. He further argued that the Tribunal awarded low amount

of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of estate. He contended that the rate of interest was

also low. The learned counsel relied upon a number of decisions and prayed

the Court to reassess the compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company-3rd respondent Sri

Naresh Byrapaneni while fairly admitting that the compensation awarded under

certain heads was not in accordance with the accepted principles of law and

guidelines rendered in various decisions, urged this Court to consider the latest

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1 and reassess the compensation suitably.

6. We gave our anxious consideration to the above respective arguments.

At the outset, we agree that the Tribunal has committed certain mistakes in

evaluation of compensation under different heads. We adverted them as

follows:

MANU/SC/1366/2017 = AIR 2017 SC 5157

(i) Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 28 years and he was a

bachelor. So far as his employment and salary are concerned, the oral evidence

of PWs 2 & 3, who are the Deputy Manager in Computer Sciences Corporation

India Private Limited, Hyderabad and Assistant Manager of Indore Branch

respectively coupled with the documentary evidence such as exhibits A8, A9

and X1 to X5 would show that the petitioner was working in Computer

Sciences Corporation India Private Limited. So far as the salary is concerned,

the Tribunal noted down that as per the exhibits A8 & A9 the salary of

deceased was Rs.44,900/- per month from July 2006, but in the month of

August 2006 the deceased received salary of Rs.38,850/- as per Ex.X2 pay slip.

So the Tribunal has taken into consideration the last drawn salary of the

deceased as Rs.38,850/- for computation of compensation. So far as the claim

of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.89,000/- is concerned, the

Tribunal did not give much preference to the oral evidence of PW4, who is a

co-employee in view of the recorded evidence showing a different amount.

We do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal in accepting the monthly

salary of the deceased at Rs.38,850/-. However, in our view the Tribunal

committed a blunder in not adding any amount to the earnings of the deceased

towards future prospects. In Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), a five Judge Bench

of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while determining the income,

addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future

prospects where the deceased had permanent job and was below the age of 40

years should be made. Since the deceased in this case was less than 40 years

and was a salaried employee, following the said decision, 50% addition should

be made towards future prospects. The monthly salary of the deceased is

Rs.38,850/- and by adding 50% to it towards future prospects, the gross

monthly salary comes to Rs.58,275/- (38850 + 19425). Since the deceased was

a bachelor, following the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2 50% has to be deducted towards personal and living

expenditure. Thus, the net monthly salary of the deceased comes to

Rs.29,137/-. The gross annual income of the deceased comes to 29,137 x 12 =

3,49,644. After deducting 30% towards income tax, the net annual

contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.2,44,750/-.

(ii) Then selection of multiplier is concerned, as stated supra, the

Tribunal going by the age of PW1, who is the mother of deceased, selected

'13' as multiplier. Obviously such selection is wrong inasmuch as in Pranay

Sethi (1 supra) as well as in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company

Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagiri Goud3 and in Kunjan Sadana v. Mahesh

Kumar4, the Apex Court held that the age of deceased should be the basis for

applying the multiplier.

Following the aforesaid ratio and as the age of the deceased was 28

years, '17' is taken as multiplier as provided in the table given in Sarla Verma

(2 supra). Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.41,60,750/- (2,44,750 x

17).

(iii) Nextly, the appellants contended that the Tribunal awarded a

paltry amount under the heads loss of estate and funeral expenses. Considering

the same and following the guidelines in Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), while

confirming Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, we grant another Rs.15,000/-

towards funeral expenses.

MANU/SC/0606/2009 = 2009 ACJ 1298

MANU/SC/0507/2019 = AIR 2019 SC 1825

2020 ACJ 812

(iv) It should be noted that the appellants claimed higher rate of interest

than awarded by the Tribunal, but there is no such claim in the grounds of

appeal and as the interest of 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal is found to be a

reasonable one, we do no consider the said claim of the appellants. Thus, the

total compensation payable to the petitioners is as follows:

              Loss of dependency             41,60,750
              Loss of estate                    15,000
              Funeral expenses                  15,000
                    Total (in Rs.)           41,90,750

7. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and compensation is enhanced

from Rs.21,40,210/- to Rs.41,90,750/- 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 1 to 3 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 22nd June, 2021 MVA

NOTE:- Issue C.C by 23.06.2021.

(B/o) KRK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

M.A.C.M.A.No.2767 of 2012

22nd June, 2021 MVA