Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Melam Pravallika Another vs P. Anantha Lakshmi Another on 15 September, 2022

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO


                     M.A.C.M.A. No.1218 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the award dated 08.12.2009 in M.V.O.P. No.504 of 2007

passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-II

Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, (for short, 'the

tribunal') the claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as

they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants filed the M.V.O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, read with

163-A of Amendment Act, 1994 seeking compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- with costs against the respondents 1 and 2, for the

death of the Melam Seshagiri Rao, who is the husband of claimant

No.1 and the son of claimant No.2. The said Melam Seshagiri Rao

died in the accident occurred in the intervening night of 2/3-6-2007

at about 1.00 AM, while he was sleeping in the fields of Veerla

Gangadhara Rambabu, situated in Prathipadu village, the driver of

the lorry bearing No.AP 37 X 4447 drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner without watching him ran over on the body of the

deceased, due to which he died on the spot.

4. Basing on the evidence adduced on both sides, the tribunal has

arrived to a conclusion that the accident was occurred only due to the

MACMA_1218_2012

rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 37 X

4447 and awarded an amount of Rs.2,13,500/- with proportionate

costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum against the respondents 1 and

5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the leaned counsel

for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the learned tribunal

has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the claimants in its right

perspective and granted inadequate compensation under various

heads and sought for enhancement of compensation.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that

the Tribunal has passed the award in consonance with the law, and

the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

8. The 2nd respondent/ insurance company has not challenged the

award and therefore this Court need not go into other aspects of the

case except the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

9. Now the point for consideration is, Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants by the learned tribunal is inadequate or needs to be enhanced and if so to what extent?

POINT:

10. The 2nd respondent/ insurance company has not preferred any appeal

or cross objections denying the evidence adduced by the claimants and

its liability. As such the factum of accident is not in dispute and the

finding of the tribunal that the petitioners successfully proved that the

MACMA_1218_2012

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

driver of the lorry only became final.

11. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the learned tribunal relying

on Ex.A.3 - Postmortem certificate, has taken the age of the deceased

as on the date of accident is 23 years. The said finding of the learned

tribunal is also not assailed by the insurance company. According to

the evidence of the first claimant who herself got examined as P.W.1,

the deceased was working as proclain driver as on the date of accident

and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. As seen from the record,

the relationship among the claimants as claimed in the petition and as

deposed by P.W.1 in her evidence is not disputed. P.W.1 is no other

than the wife of the deceased. As rightly observed by the learned

tribunal, the claimants did not choose to examine any independent

witness or to file any documentary evidence, to prove the earnings of

the deceased as claimed by the claimants. On behalf of the

respondents, one A.V.Seshu Babu was got examined as R.W.1. He

deposed that the deceased did not work as proclain driver and did not

earn Rs.5,000/-. It does not appear from the evidence of R.W.1 that he

has got any personal knowledge about the earnings of the deceased.

The 2nd respondent/insurance company mainly relied on Ex.B.1 ration

card to show that the income of the deceased is Rs.18,000/- per year.

The learned tribunal, by considering the income shown in the ration

card, has determined the compensation amount. The claimants have

filed their claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act and Section

166 of the Act. The learned tribunal has awarded compensation by

MACMA_1218_2012

invoking the II schedule of the Act and in such case, the multiplier '17'

for the persons age group between 20 and 25, cannot be found fault.

12. In Lakshmi Devi and others vs. Mohhammad Tabber 1 , the Apex

Court has laid down a principle that, in today's world, even a common

labour can very easily earn Rs.100/- per day. In view of the principle

laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is inclined to consider the

earnings of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting

1/3rd of the said amount as the personal expenses of the deceased,

the claimants dependency is assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and by

multiplying the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.2,000/- per

month with the multiplier 17, the compensation worked out to an

amount of Rs.4,08,000/- (2,000 x 12 x 17). Hence, the claimants are

entitled an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- towards loss of dependency.

Further, the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal under

conventional heads such as an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral

expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards love and affection and Rs.5,000/-

towards loss of consortium, shall remain unaltered. In all, the

claimants are entitled to the compensation as under:

         Loss of dependency               : Rs.4,08,000/-
         Funeral expenses                 : Rs. 02,000/-
         Loss of love and affection       : Rs. 02,500/-
         Loss of consortium               : Rs. 05,000/-
                                   -----------------------------------
               Total:                       Rs.4,17,500/-
                                   ----------------------------------

13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from

Rs.2,13,500/-to Rs.4,17,500/-(Rupees four lakhs, seventeen thousand

2008 ACJ 1488

MACMA_1218_2012

and five hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum to the

claimants. Out of the enhanced compensation amount Rs.2,04,000/-,

the 1st claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, is entitled to an

amount of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest and remaining amount

Rs.79,000/- along with interest is allotted to the 2nd claimant, who is

the mother of the deceased. The respondents are directed to deposit

the enhanced compensation amount along with interest within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this Judgment,