Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pernati Lakshmi Devi And 2 Others vs Sri Ravi Kaleswari Lorry Service, ... on 25 August, 2022
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3936 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved
with the award dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore in Original
Petition No.73 of 2004 granting compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- as
against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as
they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
2. The claimants, who are wife and children of one Pernati
Venkataiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), filed the above
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the
deceased. On 07.12.2003, while the deceased was going to his
village Biradawada at about 7.45 a.m., the driver of the lorry
bearing No.A.P.16/W-1488, drove it in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the deceased, resulting which, the
deceased received injuries and died on the spot. The deceased
was aged about 28 years and used to earn Rs.130/- per day as a
mason as on the date of the accident. Hence the claim petition.
3. While the 1st respondent remained ex parte, the 2nd
respondent filed counter denying rashness and negligence
attributed to the driver of the lorry and disputed the age, earning
capacity of the deceased and also dependency. Further
contended that the claim of compensation is excessive and
untenable, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any
compensation.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the
following issues for trial:
1. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor
vehicle of respondent No.1?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to
what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
5. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs-1 to 3 were
examined and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the
respondents, no oral evidence was let in, however Ex.B1 was
marked.
6. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence of PWs-1 and 2
coupled with Exs.A1 and A3, came to the conclusion that the
deceased received injuries and died due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the lorry. With regard to quantum of
compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased
as Rs.1,200/- per month, as there was no proof about his earning
capacity, and thereby fixed the contribution to the family at
Rs.9,600/- per annum after deducting 1/3rd towards personal
expenses of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal has applied
multiplier '17' as the age of the deceased was 30 years on the date
of accident and arrived at Rs.1,63,200/- towards loss of
dependency. In addition to that, the Tribunal also awarded
Rs.15,000/- each towards non-pecuniary damages and loss of
consortium. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,93,200/-, which
was rounded off to Rs.1,95,000/- towards compensation along
with interest at 7.5% per annum, payable by the respondents 1
and 2 jointly and severally. The amounts awarded by the
Tribunal are as follows:
S.No. Head of claim Amount Amount
claimed awarded
1. Loss of dependency --- Rs.1,63,200/-
2. Non-pecuniary --- Rs. 15,000/-
damages
3. Loss of consortium --- Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.5,00,000 Rs.1,93,200/-
rounded off to
Rs.1,95,000/-
7. Heard Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the
claimants and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the
2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
8. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the
Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation of
Rs.1,95,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Tribunal
ought to have considered the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 and ought to
have fixed the income of deceased as Rs.3,400/- per month as
per Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and further claimed compensation
under other conventional heads.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company
made her submissions in support of the impugned award. She
contended that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion
and awarded a just compensation and the award under appeal
needs no interference.
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 lorry, 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 either by the owner or
the insurer of the offending vehicle.
11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, in the absence of
positive evidence with regard to income of the deceased as stated
by PW.1 in her evidence, admittedly when the Court was
intending to consider the income of the deceased by taking into
consideration as a labourer, the Court ought to have fixed the
minimum income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, as
per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa
v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Limited1, wherein it was held that in the absence of substantive
proof about the earning capacity of the deceased, the income of
the deceased has to be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. Further,
as per the decision in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another2, if the dependants of the
deceased are in between 2 to 3, the deduction would be 1/3rd. As
in the present case, there are three dependents, therefore, 1/3rd
shall be deducted from the income of the deceased which comes
to Rs.2,000/- per month and the annual contribution to the
(2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 236
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121
family of the deceased comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12).
Further, as per the decision in Sarla Verma case (referred
supra), the appropriate multiplier '17' is applicable to the age of
deceased, as he was 28 years as on the date of accident. Hence,
the loss of dependency would be arrived at Rs.4,08,000/-
(Rs.24,000/- x 17). In addition thereto, as per the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others3, wherein it is held that in
case of claims relating to death, 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.
However, the Tribunal already granted Rs.15,000/- towards non-
pecuniary damages. In all, the claimants are entitled for an
amount of Rs.4,93,000/- (Rs.4,08,000/- + 70,000/- + 15,000/-).
12. 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.4,08,000/-
2. Loss of 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.4,93,000/-
13. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation from Rs.1,95,000/- to Rs.4,93,000/- along with
(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680
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.3936 of 2008
DATED : 25-08-2022
ARR
