Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Vice Chairman Managing Director ... vs Dugganaboina Duggina 2 Others on 7 November, 2022

BVLNC,J                             MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012
Page 1 of 24                                                  Dt: 07.11.2022




           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                               ****

M.A.C.M.A.No.1152 OF 2016

Between:

1. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, RTC Complex, Ongole.

....Appellants/Respondents.

Versus

1. Dugganaboina @ Duggina Venkata Subbaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, Hindu, Aged 45 years.

2. Dugganaboina @ Duggina Naga Lakshmamma, W/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged 43 years.

Both are R/o.Satyanarayanapuram Village & Mandal, Pamuru, Prakasam District.

3. Shaik Sattar, S/o.Mahaboob Saheb,
   Aged 53 years, APSRTC Bus Driver,
   R/o.Behind State Bank,
   Pamuru Village and Mandal,
   Prakasam District.                          ....Respondents




DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED                :      07.11.2022
 BVLNC,J                            MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012
Page 2 of 24                                                 Dt: 07.11.2022




SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

___________________________ B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 3 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ M.A.C.M.A.No.1152 OF 2016

% 07.11.2022

# Between:

1. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, RTC Complex, Ongole.

....Appellants/Respondents.

Versus

1. Dugganaboina @ Duggina Venkata Subbaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, Hindu, Aged 45 years.

2. Dugganaboina @ Duggina Naga Lakshmamma, W/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged 43 years.

Both are R/o.Satyanarayanapuram Village & Mandal, Pamuru, Prakasam District.

3. Shaik Sattar, S/o.Mahaboob Saheb,
   Aged 53 years, APSRTC Bus Driver,
   R/o.Behind State Bank,
   Pamuru Village and Mandal,
   Prakasam District.                               ....Respondents

! Counsel for the Appellants     : Smt.Danda Radhika



^ Counsel for the
   Respondents No.1 & 2          : Sri N.Krishna Murthy

^ Counsel for the Respondent No.3:            ---
 BVLNC,J                          MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012
Page 4 of 24                                               Dt: 07.11.2022




< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2011 ACJ 1702 (AP)

2. 2011 ACJ 2403

3. 2009 ACJ 1298

4. (2017) 16 SCC 680

5. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734




This Court made the following:
 BVLNC,J                                 MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012
Page 5 of 24                                                      Dt: 07.11.2022

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

M.A.C.M.A.No.1152 OF 2016 & CROSS OBJECTIONS IN M.A.C.M.A. (S.R.) No.19700 OF 2012

COMMON JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Appellants/APSRTC

represented by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC,

Hyderabad, and Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole, challenging the

award dated 17.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.192/2010 on the file of

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Prl. District Judge, Prakasam

District at Ongole, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the

petition, awarded compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- with interest

@ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the

respondents/claimants for death of their son Dugganaboyina @

Duggina Ravi in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in

the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an

application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act")

claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of their

son Dugganaboyina @ Duggina Ravi in a motor vehicle accident

occurred on the intervening night of 06/07-09-2009.

 BVLNC,J                               MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012
Page 6 of 24                                                    Dt: 07.11.2022

4. The facts show that the deceased Dugganaboyina @ Duggina

Ravi was aged about 20 years and was studying third year B.Tech

course in Sri Vidyaniketan Engineering College, Rangampet, Chittore

District. On the intervening night of 06/07-09-2009, the deceased and

his brother boarded APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 945 at Pamuru

Village to go to Nellore to go to college. When the said bus crossed

Butchireddipalem Village and reached near Harsha College at about

00.50 hours, the 3rd respondent, who was driving the said bus, drove it

in a rash and negligent way and dashed a stationed lorry from behind,

as a result the back portion of the lorry and the left front portion of the

bus were damaged and the deceased Ravi and another person, who

were travelling in the said bus died on spot while some other

passengers sustained injuries.

The deceased was quite intelligent and a hard worker and he got

535 marks out of 600 in 10th class and secured 921 marks in

intermediate. In B.Tech course also he secured good marks and would

have certainly secured a good job and earned Rs.40,000/- to

Rs.50,000/- per month, if he were alive. The petitioners were rearing

she-buffalos and selling milk to meet the educational expenses of

deceased. On account of death of the deceased, they lost their beloved

son and they are suffering from mental agony.

 BVLNC,J                               MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012
Page 7 of 24                                                    Dt: 07.11.2022

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/APSRTC, filed a written

statement while traversing the material averments with regard to proof

of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of

accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime

bus, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the driver

of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 945 observed a stationed lorry

without any signal lights and turned towards right side, but in the

meanwhile, he observed that a car was coming in opposite direction,

and to avoid hitting the said car, he had again turned the bus towards

left side, and at that juncture, the left side front portion of the bus hit

the lorry on its rear end, and there was no rashness or negligence on

the part of the driver of the bus in driving the said bus. The claim of

the petitioners is excessive. The 3rd respondent adopted the written

statement filed by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent remained

exparte.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident dated 07.09.2009 which resulted in the death of the deceased Dugganaboina Ravi occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 945 by the 3rd respondent as alleged in the petition?

BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 8 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to

3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-17. On behalf of the 1st respondent /

APSRTC, R.W-1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to

3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-17, held that the accident took place due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus

bearing No.AP 28Z 945 i.e., 3rd respondent, and further, taking into

consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to

A-17, awarded a compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- with interest

@ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

9. The plea of the 1st respondent/APSRTC is that the driver of

APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 945 observed a stationed lorry

without any signal lights and turned towards right side, but in the

meanwhile, he observed that a car was coming from the opposite

direction, and to avoid hitting the said car, he had again turned the

bus towards left side, and at that juncture, the left side front portion of BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 9 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

the bus hit the lorry from behind, and there was no rashness or

negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in driving the said bus.

10. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on

the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus, and that

the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

11. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3,

coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-17, awarded an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-

towards loss of dependency on account of death of deceased;

Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral

expenses, total Rs.9,10,000/-.

12. The contention of the Appellants/APSRTC is that the Tribunal

has awarded on the compensation amount @ 9% p.a., which is

excessive and exorbitant and the Tribunal ought to have awarded

interest only @ 6% p.a. The further contention of the

appellants/APSRTC is that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the income

of the deceased, who is student of B.Tech as Rs.1,20,000/- per annum

without any reliable evidence on record, wrongly applied multiplier as

15 instead of 14, as the age of the mother was more than 40 years, BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 10 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

and therefore, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is

excessive, and the same is liable to be modified.

13. It is pertinent to note down that the claimants also filed cross

objections in this case vide MACMA (S.R.) No.19700 of 2012,

contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased

at Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.12,000/- per month, as laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Setty Chandra

Sekhar and another Vs. Mohd Ghouse and another, and the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and

the interest awarded at 9% p.a. is not excessive as claimed by the

appellant/APSRTC, and the claimants are entitled to more

compensation than awarded by the Tribunal.

14. The appellants/APSRTC in its appeal grounds, did not raise any

issue with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

appellants/APSRTC, who is responsible for the accident. However, it

is very clear that on 06/07-09-2009 the deceased and his brother

(P.W-2) boarded RTC bus bearing No.AP28Z 0945 at Pamuru to go to

Nellore, as they were studying in Tirupathi, and the driver of the RTC

bus, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed a

stationed lorry from behind near Butchireddipalem village, near

Harsha College at about 00-50 hours, and as a result the left portion BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 11 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

of the bus was damaged, and the deceased, who is the younger son of

the claimants died on spot, and other passengers also received

injuries. The claimants in order to establish that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

appellant/APSRTC bus examined the brother of the deceased, who was

also travelling in the same bus as P.W-2.

15. P.W-2 deposed about the manner, in which the accident

occurred, which shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus. Nothing was elicited

in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony before the

Tribunal. The claimants also filed Ex.A-1 copy of the FIR registered by

Kovuru Police about the accident on the report given by the son of the

claimants, a person, who witnessed the accident, which discloses that

the accident was caused due to the rash driving of the driver of

APSRTC bus, and they also filed Ex.A-4 copy of police report (charge

sheet) filed by Kovuru Police after investigation of the case, stating that

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the APSRTC bus.

16. The APSRTC examined its driver as R.W-1. He deposed that the

accident occurred as the lorry was negligently parked on the road

without any indications in the night time, but it appears that the lorry BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 12 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

was not stationed on the road, and it was stationed on the road

margin, and the accident occurred as the bus dashed from the back

side of the lorry, which indicates that due to negligent driving of the

bus driver only the accident occurred. In that view of the matter, I do

not find any error in the findings of the Tribunal that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

APSRTC bus.

17. When coming to the compensation, admittedly, the deceased was

studying III year B.Tech (Computer Science) course in Sri Vidya

Nikethan Engineering College, Rangampet, Chittoor District at the time

of accident. The claimants in support of their case, filed several

documents from Exs.A-5 to A-17, which includes the records relating

to X Class, Intermediate as well as I and II year B.Tech Courses done

by the deceased, and his marks received in the examinations from X

Class to B.Tech II year, showing that the deceased was studying III

year B.Tech Course in Sri Vidya Nikethan Engineering College,

Rangampet, Chittoor District. The claimants also examined one of the

students of the said college as P.W-3, indicating that after completion

of engineering course, he got employment in Tata Consultancy Service

covered by Ex.A-14, and they are paying Rs.3,16,387/- per annum.

 BVLNC,J                                MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012
Page 13 of 24                                                     Dt: 07.11.2022

18. The claimants before the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of

the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B.Ramulamma Vs. Venkatesh

Bus Union1, contending that the minimum income of B.Tech graduate

can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month, and as the deceased is III year

student of B.Tech, his income may be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month.

The Tribunal considering the said judgment, fixed the income of the

deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and @ Rs.1,20,000/-per annum.

19. The learned counsel for the claimants, who filed cross objections

vide MACMA (S.R.)No.19700 of 2012, contended that the judgment in

B.Ramulamma case was followed by another Division Bench in the

case of Setty Chandra Sekhar and another Vs. Mohd.Ghouse and

another2. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench held in

para 11 as follows:

"A Division Bench of this Court B.Ramulamma (1 supra), considered the question as to what salary can be fixed for students who completed or are studying final year or last semester of B.Tech., B.E., M.Tech., M.E. or M.B.A., M.C.A., etc. and answered the same as follow:

"...As far as the students, who completed or in final year or last semester of B.Tech., B.E., B.C.A., M.Tech., M.E. or M.B.A., M.C.A.,

2011 ACJ 1702 (AP)

2011 ACJ 2403 BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 14 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

etc., courses and who died in motor accidents or sustained permanent disability, their salaries also can be fixed on the basis of the salary of their classmates when they entered into jobs. Some percentage say e.g. 10% per year can be deducted in respect of the students studying III year or II year as the case may be. In view of the present salaries, being earned by the Computer Engineers, there cannot be any doubt as to say that the deceased would have minimum Rs.12.000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. It has to be seen that now-a-days IVth class employees are also getting minimum Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month depending upon their service. The Junior Assistants are also getting Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, considering the normal scales being earned by the Government employees and also the minimum wage scales fixed to the technical persons, we are of the view that the minimum salary of a technical person, who is holding a bachelor degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the graduates in engineering i.e., B.Tech., cannot be fixed less than Rs.12,000/- per month, otherwise it amounts to neglecting the ground of reality."

20. The Division Bench fixed the salary of a deceased III year B.Tech

student at Rs.10,800/- per month, by deducting 10% from

Rs.12,000/-. In the case on hand, admittedly, the deceased was

studying III year B.Tech course. Therefore, his income shall be fixed at

Rs.10,800/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed at Rs.10,000/- only,

instead of Rs.10,800/- per month, though the claimants relied upon BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 15 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B.Ramulamma's

case. In that view of the matter, it requires modification, and

therefore, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal should have

fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,800/- per month.

21. The Tribunal has applied multiplier 15 by considering the age of

the mother of the deceased, which was shown as 39 years in the claim

petition. The age of the father of the deceased was shown as 43 years.

The appellant/APSRTC contended that the Tribunal erroneously fixed

multiplier at 15 instead of 14. It is pertinent to note down that the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another3, wherein it was held in para 19

to 21 as follows:

"19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie [2005 (10) SCC 720], this Court noticed that in respect of claims under section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). This was reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya [2005 (6) SCC 236] and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala [2006

2009 ACJ 1298 BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 16 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

(6) SCC 249]. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under section 166 of MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under section 163A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years) :

Age of the Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier deceased scale as scale as scale in Trilok specified in actually used envisaged in adopted by Chandra as second column in Second Susamma Trilok clarified in in the Table in Schedule to Thomas Chandra Charlie II Schedule to MV Act (as MV Act seen from the quantum of compensation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

years

years BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 17 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

20. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163A 23 of MV Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable.

21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 18 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

22. The same was approved by the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of

Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi4, wherein it was held in para 44, 45 and 46 as follows:

"44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below :-

"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M- 16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

45. In Reshma Kumari, the aforesaid has been approved by stating, thus:- "It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The courts in some of

(2017) 16 SCC 680 BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 19 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these reasons, we think we must approve the Table in Sarla Verma for the selection of multiplier in claim applications made under Section 166 in the cases of death. We do accordingly. If for the selection of multiplier, Column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma is followed, there is no likelihood of the claimants who have chosen to apply under Section 166 being awarded lesser amount on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle than those who prefer to apply under Section 163-A. As regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be up to 15 years, we are of the considered opinion that in such cases irrespective of Section 163-A or Section 166 under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed. This is to ensure that the claimants in such cases are not awarded lesser amount when the application is made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. In all other cases of death where the application has been made under Section 166, the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed."

46. At this stage, we must immediately say that insofar as the aforesaid multiplicand/multiplier is concerned, it has to be accepted on the basis of income established by the legal representatives of the deceased. Future prospects are to be added to the sum on the percentage basis and "income" means actual income less than the tax paid. The multiplier has already been BVLNC,J MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012 Page 20 of 24 Dt: 07.11.2022

fixed in Sarla Verma which has been approved in Reshma Kumari with which we concur."

23. In that view of the matter, as the deceased is aged 20 years as

per Ex.A-6, he was born on 01-08-1988. He died on 06/07-09-2009 as

per Ex.A-2 copy of post mortem certificate. Therefore, he was aged 21

years. Hence, as per schedule in Sarla Verma's case, which has to be

applied for the claims filed U/s.166 of M.V.Act, is 18, and therefore,

the application of multiplier 15 by the Tribunal is also not correct, and

accordingly, it requires modification.

24. 50% of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses

as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's

case. In that view of the matter, the annual income of the deceased in

this case will be Rs.10,800 x 12 = Rs.1,29,600 - 64,800 = Rs.64,800/-

p.a. and by applying multiplier 18, the amount of loss of dependency

comes to Rs.64,800 x 18 = Rs.11,66,400/-.

25. The Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Pranay

Sethi's case held that the claimants are entitled to an amount of

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate and the same can be awarded to the claimants. The claimants

are not entitled to filial consortium, as the deceased was a major at the

time of accident.

 BVLNC,J                               MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012
Page 21 of 24                                                    Dt: 07.11.2022

26. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case on

hand, the total compensation amount entitled by the claimants is

Rs.11,66,400/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards

funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and the total

compensation amount would be Rs.11,66,400 + 15,000 +15,000 =

Rs.11,96,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.9,10,000/-. The

claimants filed the claim petition for a claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, but the

just compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.11,96,400/-.

27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others

Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others5, held that in the matter of

compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded

despite the claimants having had sought for a lesser amount and the

claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled

that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and

payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a

lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value.

Therefore, though the claimants sought for a lesser amount, and the

claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.9,70,000/-, the

amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs.11,96,400/-.




    2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734
 BVLNC,J                              MACMA 1152 of 2016 & S.R.No.19700 of 2012
Page 22 of 24                                                   Dt: 07.11.2022

In that view of the matter, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to

be modified.

28. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants/APSRTC is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel,

miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

The cross objections filed by the claimants in S.R.No.19700 of

2012 is allowed, and it is held that the claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.11,96,400/-, with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the

date of filing of claim petition, till the date of actual payment. There

shall be no order as to costs.

The Appellants/APSRTC is directed to deposit the entire

compensation amount of Rs.11,96,400/- along with the accrued