Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Utukuri Rajinamma 2 Ors vs The Ap State Road Transport ... on 25 August, 2022
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3415 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by
the award dated 02.02.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore in Original
Petition No.426 of 2005 granting compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-
as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as
they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
2. The claimants, who are mother and brothers of one Utukuri
Vijaya Kumar (hereinafter referred as 'deceased'), filed the above
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the
deceased. On 17.05.2005 at about 9.00 p.m., while the deceased
and his brother-in-law were coming to their house from V.R.
College ground, when they reached Telugu Ganga Office, the
driver of R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP.11/Z-873, drove it in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle of the
deceased, resulting which, the deceased received injuries and
died on the spot. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged
about 18 years and was studying. Hence the claim petition.
3. The respondent filed counter denying the contents of the
petition and disputed the rashness and negligence attributed to
the driver of the bus, denied the age and avocation of the
deceased and nature of the accident. Further contended that
there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, as he is
driving the bus slowly due to traffic, hence the respondent-
Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the
following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor
vehicle bearing Registration No.AP.11.Z-873 of the respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation? If so
to what amount?
5. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs-1 and 2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the
respondent, RW-1 was examined and no documents were
marked.
6. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW-2 coupled with
Exs.A1 and A5, came to the conclusion that the deceased received
injuries and died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the bus. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal
has fixed the income of the deceased as a labourer at Rs.1,200/-
per month, since he was unmarried, the contribution to the
family was fixed at Rs.600/- per month after deducting 50%
towards his personal expenses, thereby fixed the annual
contribution to the family at Rs.7,200/- (Rs.600/-x12). Further,
the Tribunal has taken into account the age of mother of
deceased and applied multiplier '15' and arrived at Rs.1,08,000/-
towards loss of dependency to the family. In addition to that, the
Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary
damages. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,23,000/- rounded
off to Rs.1,25,000/- towards compensation along with interest at
7.5% per annum. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal are as
follows:
S.No. Head of claim Amount Amount
claimed awarded
1. Loss of dependency --- Rs. 1,08,000/-
2. Non-pecuniary --- Rs. 15,000/-
damages
Total Rs.3,00,000 Rs.1,23,000/-
rounded off to
Rs.1,25,000/-
7. Heard Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the
claimants and Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent-APSRTC.
8. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the
Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation of
Rs.1,25,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- and ought to
have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,220/- per month
as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Further submits that the
Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of '16' instead of '18'
as per the Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another1, as the age of the deceased was 18
years on the date of the accident and the Tribunal has also failed
to award compensation under other conventional heads.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC
made his submissions in support of the impugned award. He
contended that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion
and awarded a just compensation and the award under appeal
needs no interference. He further contended that since the
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121
deceased is a bachelor, the claimants are not entitled for
consortium.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the
record, this Court found that the finding of the Tribunal that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending bus, on account of which the deceased
received injuries and died on the spot, became final and needs no
interference, as the same is not challenged by the respondent.
11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, considering the
submission of the learned counsel for the claimants, this Court is
inclined to fix the income of the deceased as Rs.2,220/- per
month as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and as claimed by
the claimants. Further, as per the decision in Sarla Verma case
(referred supra), in case of bachelor's death, 50% is to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. As in the present case,
the deceased was a bachelor, after deducting 50%, the income of
the deceased would come to Rs.1,110/- per month and the
annual contribution to the family of the deceased comes to
Rs.13,320/- (Rs.1,110/- x 12). Further, as per the decision in
Sarla Verma case (referred supra), the appropriate multiplier
'18' is applicable to the age of deceased i.e. 18 years as per the
oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the loss of dependency
would be arrived at Rs.2,39,760/- (Rs.13,320/- x 18).
12. In addition thereto, as per the Judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (referred supra), wherein
the Honourable Supreme Court framed certain guidelines for
awarding compensation under various heads in the accident
cases. Therefore, as per the said decision, the claimants are also
entitled for grant of compensation of Rs.70,000/- under
conventional heads such as Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal already awarded an
amount of Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages.
13. During arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-
APSRTC raised objection with regard to consortium payable to the
claimants. However, this Court relied upon a Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company
Limited v. Sowmati and others2, wherein it was held as
follows:-
"58. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an 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 and
affection, and their role in the family unit.
59. Modern jurisdictions world over have
recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case
of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to
be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the
death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the
compensation for loss of love and affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
60. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial
legislation which has been framed with the object of
providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial
consortium."
(2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 644
Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the above
Judgment, the 1st claimant is entitled for filial consortium. Hence
the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-
APSRTC is unsustainable and an amount of Rs.40,000/- is
granted towards filial consortium.
14. Therefore, in all, the appellants-claimants are entitled for
an amount of Rs.3,24,760/- (Rs.2,39,760/- + 70,000/- +
15,000/-). Even though the compensation claimed by the
claimants before the Tribunal is Rs.3,00,000/-, in view of the
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Nagappa v.
Gurudayal Singh and others3, there is no restriction under the
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act that the compensation should be
awarded only up to the claim made by the claimants. Hence, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.3,24,760/-.
15. For the sake of convenience and for easy understanding of
the amounts now awarded under different heads are as follows:-
S.No. Head of claim Amount now awarded
1. Loss of dependency Rs.2,39,760/-
2. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 40,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
5. Non-pecuniary damages Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.3,24,760/-
(2003) 2 SCC 274
16. Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion, the Appeal is
allowed enhancing the quantum of compensation from
Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.3,24,760/- along with interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
The rest of the findings given by the Tribunal in respect of
apportionment remain unaltered. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 25-08-2022
ARR
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3415 of 2008
DATED : 25-08-2022
ARR
