Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Yampala Padma 2 Ors vs G.Sri Satya Trinatha Anr on 28 October, 2022

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI

                                 ****
                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3799 of 2008


Between:

1.     Yampala Padma, W/o.Nagaraju, Hindu,
       Aged about 40 years, D.No.32/498,
       Jakeer Hussain Nagar, Nellore.
2.     Yampala Bhudevi, D/o.Nagaraju, Hindu, aged about 22
       years, D.No.32/498, Jakeer Hussain Nagar, Nellore.
3.     Yampala Chengamma, D/o.Nagaraju, Hindu,
       Being minor represented by her mother and natural
       guardian, D.No.32/498, Jakeer Hussain Nagar, Nellore.
                                                         ... Appellants
             And
1.     G.Sri Satya Trinatha, S/o.Subbarayudu, Hindu,
       Owner of the Lorry bearing No.ABK 9949,
       Residing at Udayagiri, Nellore District.
2.     National Insurance Company Limited,
       Rep.by its Senior Divisional Manager,
       Having their Divisional Office at Dharvari Gardens,
       Ongole.                                      ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28-10-2022


SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1.     Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?               No

2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be
       marked to Law Reporters / Journals?               Yes

3.     Whether His Lordship wish to
       see the fair copy of the Judgment?                Yes



                                   DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
                                    2




     * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                    + M.A.C.M.A.No.3799 of 2008

% 28-10-2022

Between:

1.     Yampala Padma, W/o.Nagaraju, Hindu,
       Aged about 40 years, D.No.32/498,
       Jakeer Hussain Nagar, Nellore.
2.     Yampala Bhudevi, D/o.Nagaraju, Hindu, aged about 22
       years, D.No.32/498, Jakeer Hussain Nagar, Nellore.
3.     Yampala Chengamma, D/o.Nagaraju, Hindu,
       Being minor represented by her mother and natural
       guardian, D.No.32/498, Jakeer Hussain Nagar, Nellore.
                                                         ... Appellants
             And
1.     G.Sri Satya Trinatha, S/o.Subbarayudu, Hindu,
       Owner of the Lorry bearing No.ABK 9949,
       Residing at Udayagiri, Nellore District.
2.     National Insurance Company Limited,
       Rep.by its Senior Divisional Manager,
       Having their Divisional Office at Dharvari Gardens,
       Ongole.                                       ... Respondents

! Counsel for Appellant s              : Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy

^ Counsel for Respondents              : Sri G.Visweswar Reddy
                                         Sri T.S.Rayulu

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

       1) 2011 ACJ 2436

       2) 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

       3) 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

       4) (2003) 2 SCC 274

This Court made the following:
                                  3




 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.3799 of 2008

ORDER:

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed by the

Appellants/Claimants challenging the Award dated 22.03.2006

delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum District

Judge, Nellore in M.V.O.P.No.297 of 2004 granting

compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum to the petitioners /claimants i.e., wife and two

children of the deceased-Nagaraju, from the date of petition till

date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on

account of his death in a road accident that occurred near

Saibaba Temple, Gudur Rural, Nellore District on 22.05.2004.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim

petition.

3. Y.Nagaraju, aged 36 years who is a rickshaw puller at the

time of his death, was earning an amount of Rs.200/- per day

and monthly income of Rs.6,000/- per month. On 22.05.2004

when the deceased and his brother-in-law were coming from ice

factory and after crossing Saibaba temple, the offending lorry

bearing No.ABK 9949 came in an opposite direction in a rash

and negligent manner and hit the deceased as a result of which,

he fell down and received multiple injuries and while he was

shifted to Tirupati for treatment, he was died. The matter was

reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a

result of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and

based on the FIR lodged by Malakotaiah, who was sitting on the

backside of the rickshaw of the deceased, a case in Crime No.63

of 2004 for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC was

registered and after investigation of the case, charge sheet was

submitted against the accused-driver of the offending lorry for

having committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A

IPC. The wife and two children of the deceased filed an

application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge,

Nellore on account of his death in the said road accident.

4. The 1st respondent did not contest the matter. The 2nd

respondent-Insurance company resisted the claim and the

petitioners are put to strict proof of the rashness attributed to

the driver of the offending lorry, age of the deceased, income of

the deceased, dependency of the petitioners. The insurance of

the vehicle is admitted and the claim of the petitioners is

excessive and untenable.

5. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following

issues:

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?

6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.B.1 were marked on behalf of the

petitioners. None were examined and no documentary evidence

was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company.

7. Appreciating the evidence of P.W.1/claimant and placing

reliance upon Ex.A1 to A6 and Ex.B.1, attested copies of FIRs,

attested copy of inquest report, certified copy of the charge

sheet, attested copy of post mortem report and true copy of the

Insurance Policy etc., the Tribunal was of the view that the

accident in the instant case was due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the 1st respondent‟s vehicle. The Tribunal

then proceeded to assess the compensation and quantified an

amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and consequently, it passed the

impugned award granting compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- with

proportionate costs with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of claim petition till the date of realization to the claimants

jointly and severally payable by the 1st and 2nd respondents.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the

instant appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted

before this Court that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per

day i.e., Rs.6,000/- per month from the Ice-cream business as

well as rickshaw pulling . The Tribunal without taking note of

the said fact, erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at

Rs.1,000/- per month and fixed the contribution to his family at

Rs.750/- per month and the annual income of the deceased

would come to Rs.9,000/- and awarded meager amount, though

the petitioners are entitled to more compensation. Further, he

would submit that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial

legislation made by providing the reliefs to the victims or their

family in case of genuine claims. He would further submit that

the appellants are entitled to the amounts under different

conventional heads. He would further submit that as per the

Minimum Wages Act during the relevant period the income of

the deceased should not be less than Rs.100/- per day.

Therefore, even if the Tribunal takes into consideration the

income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, the petitioners

would have got more compensation than awarded amount.

Having failed to consider the above, the Claims Tribunal has

committed illegality in awarding a meager amount of

compensation payable to the claimants. Hence, the impugned

award warrants interference of this Court. Therefore, there is a

reason to modify the award suitably.

10. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company would submit that there is no record to show that the

deceased was earning Rs.200/- or atleast Rs.100/- per day.

Therefore, the Tribunal has taken reasonable amount of

Rs.1,000/- per month as income of the deceased and

accordingly calculated the compensation which, by all means, is

just and reasonable. Hence, the claimants are not entitled to

any further enhancement of compensation and the appeal has to

be dismissed.

11. In the light of the above rival arguments, now, the points

for determination in this appeal are:

(1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement?

(2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference?

12. POINT Nos.1 & 2: In the present case, the accident,

involvement of the offending lorry bearing registration No.ABK

9949 and the death of the deceased, are not in dispute, as stated

supra. The appellants/claimants are mainly challenging the

quantum of compensation. The Tribunal going by the evidence

on record, fixed the notional income of the deceased as

Rs.1,000/- per month which is not just or tenable as the same

was taken without any valid basis. Even according to the

Minimum Wages Act, even if the deceased is a labourer, he may

get Rs.100/- atleast per day. In the present case, the deceased

was running the Ice-cream business as well as he was pulling

rickshaw. As such, definitely he would get Rs.100/- to Rs.150/-

per day atleast.

13. At this juncture, in the similar facts and circumstances,

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in

Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Limited1 took into consideration the

income of a coolie @ Rs.4,500/- per month, at the time of

accident which occurred in the year 2004 and that in the

present case also the accident took place in the year 2004 and in

such a view of the matter, the income @ Rs.4,500/- per month

should be taken into consideration even in respect of the

deceased, who was running Ice-cream business and pulling

rickshaw by transporting cement bags etc., at the time of

2011 ACJ 2436

accident which occurred in the year 2004. That is a case where

the matter was carried to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in appeal

wherein the Tribunal has taken into consideration, the earnings

of the coolie @ Rs.3,000/- as against Rs.4,500/- on the

assumption that the wages of the labourer during the relevant

period i.e., in the year 2004 was Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- per day.

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court interfering in the matter, recorded

its conclusions holding inter-alia that the view taken by the

Tribunal is not sustainable. The relevant paragraph of the

judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is extracted herein.

"14: In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning '4,500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of '3,000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz., in the year 2004, was '100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of '3,000/- per month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It 2 2011(6) ALD, 75 (SC) depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to

ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between '100/- to '150/- per day or '4,500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from '4,500/- to '3,000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was '4,500/-."

14. Therefore, in the light of the above judgment of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court of India, this Court finds considerable force in

the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellants. No reasons were assigned by the Claims Tribunal for

adopting monthly income of the deceased @ Rs,1,000/-. The

appellants/claimants cannot be expected to file any income

certificate in respect of the earnings of the deceased who was

running ice-cream business and also running rickshaw by

transporting cement bags from the retailers to customers, as

stated by the witnesses. Therefore, the monthly income of

Rs.1,000/- as taken by the Claims Tribunal is not just and

reasonable as the same was taken without any valid reasons.

Applying the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India,

referred to supra, it would be appropriate, in the facts and

circumstances of the case to take monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.4,500/- even in the absence of documentary

evidence, to arrive at loss of dependency.

15. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this

Court is inclined to take into consideration the monthly income

of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. There is no other evidence

available on record that he was not earning the same. In the

light of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court referred to

supra, for the purpose of arriving the compensation towards loss

of dependency the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not

correct and the multiplier „15‟ has to be taken into account. In

view of the ratio of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla

Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 the multiplier

applicable for the age between 36 years to 40 years is „15‟. Since

the deceased in the present case was aged 36 years, in view of

the said judgment, the multiplier applicable is „15‟. But, the

Tribunal has committed error in taking the multiplier as „16‟. In

the present case, it should be „15‟. In the light of the judgment

of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported in Ramachandrappa Vs.

The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company

Limited stated supra, for the purpose of arriving at the

compensation towards loss of dependency, income of Rs.4,500/-

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

per month is adopted and thus, the annual income of the

deceased is arrived @ Rs.54,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the

income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the

contribution to the family of the deceased would be @

Rs.36,000/- per annum. As per the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case, the appropriate multiplier

of the age group 36 to 40 years is „15‟. The total compensation

towards loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.5,40,000/-

(Rs.36,000/- x 15 = Rs.5,40,000/-).

16. Apart from the above, the appellants are entitled to the

compensation under conventional heads in terms of the

judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi3. Accordingly,

the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards

loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Claims Tribunal has

committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of

compensation payable to the claimants.

17. In view of the above discussion, in the instant case, the

computation of compensation is made as follows:

         Loss of dependency         ...... Rs.5,40,000/-
         Loss of Estate             ...... Rs. 15,000/-


    2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)





         Funeral Expenses            ...... Rs. 15,000/-
         Loss of Consortium          ...... Rs. 40,000/-

Loss of love and affection...... Rs. 15,000/-

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

                         Total       ...... Rs.6,25,000/-

(-)      The Claims Tribunal

Awarded Rs.1,75,000/- ..... Rs.1,75,000/-

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

         Enhanced amount      ...... Rs.4,50,000/-
                                   ----------------

18. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and

others4, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only

up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate

case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal

Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more

compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award.

There is no embargo to award compensation more than that

claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal

and Court to award "just compensation", even if it is in the

excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to

make an award by determining the amount of compensation

which should appear to be just and proper. In the present case,

the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against

(2003) 2 SCC 274

the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is

not just and reasonable and the claimants are entitled to more

compensation though they might not have claimed the same at

the time of filing of the claim petition.