United India Insurance Co.Ltd., ... vs Bathineni Krishna Murthy, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8335 AP

                                                                    1
                                                      MACMA_1922_2012

       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO


                  M.A.C.M.A. No.1922 OF 2012


JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2009 in M.V.O.P. No.500 of

2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole the 2nd respondent-M/s.

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Nellore, represented by its

branch manager, Nellore, has filed this appeal questioning the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P for

convenience.

3. The Claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a compensation amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-on account of the death of his son-Bathineni Anil,

in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.04.2004. The

said Bathineni Anil would hereinafter be referred to as 'the

deceased.

4. On the factual side, on 13.04.2004, the deceased travelled with a

load of brandy bottles from Hyderabad to Ongole in a lorry

bearing registration No. A.P. 16 U 0023, at about 5.15 AM, a

lorry bearing No. A.P. 31 T 5502, driven by the driver-3rd

respondent, came in the opposite direction at high-speed rashly

MACMA_1922_2012

and negligently dashed against the lorry in which Claimant was

travelling. As a result, the deceased, who sat in the lorry's cabin,

sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their respective written statements.

6. Respondent No.3 adopted the written statement filed by the first

respondent. It is contended in the written statements that the

driver of the lorry bearing No. A.P. 16 U 0023 drove rashly and

negligently, without blowing the horn, and dashed the lorry

bearing No. A.P. 31 T 5502. There was no negligence on the part

of the 3rd respondent. The driver of the lorry bearing No. A.P. 16

U 0023 is only responsible for the accident. It also submitted

that the said lorry driver did not have a valid and effective

driving licence, a valid permit to ply or a valid insurance policy.

It is further contended that the Claimant is not dependent upon

the deceased's income.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated relevant issues.

During the trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined , marked Exs.A., 1

to A.5..On behalf of the respondents, they let in no oral evidence;

however, marked a copy of the policy as Ex.B.1.

8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal

awarded compensation Rs.4,39,000/- to the Claimant with

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization.

MACMA_1922_2012

9. Heard the counsel for the 2nd respondent/appellant and the

counsel for the claimant/ 1st respondent. Perused the material

on record.

10. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the appellant herein,

has contended that the Claimant did not produce any

documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased.

However, the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly earnings

of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. It is further contended that as the

deceased was unmarried, the age of the deceased's parents is

relevant in the choice of the multiplier, and the learned Tribunal

erred in deducting 1/3rd of the monthly earnings of the deceased.

The Tribunal should have deducted 50% of the deceased's

monthly earnings as it is a case of a bachelor's death.

11. Learned counsel for the Claimant has supported the Tribunal's

findings and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. The point for consideration is whether the Tribunal awarded a

just and reasonable compensation amount or needs reduction.

13. After reading the evidence on record and considering

submissions made on either side, this Court is of the view that

there is no serious dispute about the death of the deceased due

to injuries sustained in the accident. There is no dispute about

the accident happening and the respondent's liability to pay

compensation. The claimants have not preferred any appeal or

MACMA_1922_2012

cross-objections questioning the finding and observations made

by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

addressed his argument only regarding the quantum of the

compensation amount; Thus, it is unnecessary to narrate the

factual aspects of the case.

14. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 24 years

based on the documentary evidence, i.e., Ex.A.2-certified copy of

the inquest report and Ex.A.3-certified copy of post-mortem

examination report and applied the multiplier '17' instead of '18'

which would be applied for the persons aged between 20 and 25

years as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation1. There is no dispute regarding

the age of the deceased.

15. Regarding the contention of taking multiplier, a three-Judge

bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Royal Sundaram Alliance

vs Mandala Yadagari Goud 2 by referring to the principles laid

down in Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh3 and Reshma Kumari v.

Madan Mohan4 it is held that the view was categorically taken

that the age of the deceased and not the parents' age would be

the factor to take the multiplier to be applied. The relevant

2017 ACJ 1298

2019 ACJ 1644

2018 ACJ 737 (S.C.)

2013 ACJ 1253 (S.C)

MACMA_1922_2012

portion of the Judgment, in paragraphs 11 to 13, is extracted

hereunder:

"11.....the loss of dependency is thus stated to be based on: (i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. It is the third aspect of significance, and Reshma Kumari (supra) categorically states that it does not want to re-visit the law settled in Sarla Verma on this behalf. 12 The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 (S.C.) has also been referred to in Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh 2018 ACJ 737 (S.C.).

13.....there is no need to take up this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of the three-Judge Bench and also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it is the age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents."

16. By following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Royal

Sundaram's case (supra1), Sube Singh's case (supra2), Reshma

Kumari's case (supra3), this Court is of the view that the

Tribunal rightly took the age of the deceased in determining the

loss of earnings of the deceased.

MACMA_1922_2012

17. The other contention raised by the 2nd respondent is that the

Claimant is not dependent on the deceased's earnings. It is not in

dispute that the Claimant is the deceased's father and the

deceased's mother died. It is the case of the sole Claimant that he

depends on the deceased's earnings. There is nothing in the

evidence of PW.1 to disprove the contention. Nothing elicited to

discredit the testimony of P.W.1. In the absence of such evidence

on record, this Court finds no difficulty considering the Tribunal's

finding that the Claimant is dependent on the deceased's

earnings.

18. Coming to the calculation of the loss of earnings of the deceased,

it can be seen from the order of the Tribunal that, though the

Claimant contended that the earnings of the deceased were at

Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal had taken deceased's

earnings at Rs.3,000/- per month. In Lakshmi Devi and others

vs Mohammad Tabber 5 , the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down a

principle that, in today's world, even common labour can earn

Rs.100/- per day. Given the principle laid down by the Apex

Court, the Tribunal rightly assessed the deceased's earnings at

Rs.3,000/- per month, and annual income can arrive at

Rs.36,000/-. Insofar as the future prospectus is concerned, In

case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an

2008 ACJ 1488

MACMA_1922_2012

addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant

where the deceased was below the age of 40 years vide the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Ltd., V.Pranay Sethi. 6 40% of the monthly income

comes to Rs.1200/-, in all the monthly earnings of the deceased,

including a future prospectus, is at Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/+

1,200/-).

19. It is the further contention of the 2nd respondent that the

Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd earnings of the deceased towards

the personal expenses of the deceased. But the deceased

happened to be a bachelor, and 50% of income must be deducted

towards personal expenses.

20. Even if the said contention raised by the counsel for the 2nd

respondent/ appellant is accepted, 50% of the notional income of

the deceased contributed to the dependants comes to

Rs.25,200/- per annum; thereby, Claimant would be entitled to

more amount towards loss of dependency than awarded by the

Tribunal. However, since the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,32,000/-

only towards loss of dependency, the same cannot be said to be

excessive; hence, I do not find any substance in the appeal, and

(2017) 16 SCC 680

MACMA_1922_2012

the appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to

be dismissed.

21. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

22. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

-----------------------------------

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

Dt.04.11.2022 BV