Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chatla Srinamma And 4 Others vs M/S Pawansut Management Limited, ... on 15 September, 2022

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
                  M.A.C.M.A. No.461 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the claimants preferred this

appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2011 in

M.V. O.P. No.590 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam (for short 'the tribunal'), Srikakulam, wherein the

tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest at

9% per annum and costs payable by the respondents 1 and 2

jointly and severally.

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

to as they were arrayed in M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants filed M.V.O.P. claiming compensation under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 455 of

A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

against the respondents, for the death of Nageswara Rao, who is

the husband of the 1st claimant, father of claimants 2 and 3 and

the son of claimants 4 and 5, in a road accident that occurred on

14.07.2009 while the said Nageswara Rao was riding the motor

cycle bearing No.AP 30 H 5275 on which two girls were sitting as

pillion riders, at 3.30 PM when he reached the outskirts of

MACMA No.461 of 2012

Ichapuram, a tanker lorry bearing No.NL 01/D 4416 came in

opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle, as a

result he fell down and sustained multiple injuries, then he was

admitted in Government Hospital, Ichapuram and later he was

referred MKCG Hospital, Berhampur, on the same day he died in

the hospital.

4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the tanker lorry, remained

exparte and the respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the

tanker lorry has filed written statement contending that the

accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the

motor cycle by the deceased, who suddenly came to the middle

of the road and there no negligence on the part of the driver of

the tanker lorry.

5. The tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, awarded an

amount of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum payable

by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

7. The 2nd respondent has not aggrieved with the judgment passed

by the tribunal and therefore, this Court need not go into other

aspects of the case except the issue of enhancement of

compensation awarded by the tribunal.

MACMA No.461 of 2012

8. Now the points for considerations are,

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just in the facts and circumstances of the case and it requires enhancement?

2. If so, what extent?

POINT No.1:

9. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased as claimed

in the petition is not disputed. Before the tribunal, on behalf of

the claimants, the 1st claimant herself got examined as P.W.1,

the pillion rider was examined as P.W.2 to prove the accident in

question and also to prove about the death of the deceased in

the accident got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the

respondents, no evidence was let in.

10. By taking into consideration of Ex.A.1-F.I.R. and Ex.A.2-charge

sheet, the tribunal came to the conclusion that due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle the

accident happened. The claimants have contended that the

deceased was doing mason work and used to earn an amount of

Rs.4,500/- per month. The 2nd respondent has not disputed the

occupation of the deceased. However, as rightly observed by the

tribunal, no evidence is placed on record in support of the

earnings of deceased.

MACMA No.461 of 2012

11. 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, the tribunal ought

not to have assessed the annual income @ Rs.25,000/- per

annum. As such this Court is inclined to consider the monthly

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

12. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Panay Sethi 2 the

Apex Court held that in case the deceased was self-employed or

on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income

should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of

40 years. A reading of the Tribunal judgment would show that

future prospectus is not awarded to the claimants. The finding of

the tribunal that the age of the deceased at the time of accident is

35 is not disputed. By following the judgment of the Apex Court

in Pranay Sethi's case, this Court is of the view that the

claimants are also entitled 40% of the earnings of deceased

towards future prospectus. Thus, an amount of Rs.4,200/-

towards monthly can be taken into consideration. The claimants,

who are the wife, children and the parents, were dependants of

the deceased and hence the 1/4th of the income to be deducted

2008 ACJ 1488

2017 ACJ 2700 SC

MACMA No.461 of 2012

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, then the

contribution of the deceased to the family works out to

Rs.3,150/-. When the same is multiplied with the multiplier '16',

as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarala Varma vs.

Delhi Transportation Corporation and others 3 , the loss of

dependency works out to Rs.3,150/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.6,04,800/-.

That apart the claimants are entitled to an amount of

Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- for funeral expenses

and Rs.44,000/- for loss of spousal consortium, under

conventional head in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court

in Pranay Sethi's case. In all, the claimants are entitled to the

compensation as under:


        Towards      loss of dependency : Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.3,150x12x 16)
        Towards      loss of estate      : Rs. 16,500/-
        Towards      funeral expenses    : Rs. 16,500/-
        Towards      loss of
                       spousal consortium:Rs. 44,000/-
                                         _________________
        Total                             Rs.6,81,800/-
                                         _________________

13. The claimants filed their claim for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

In Ramla vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.,4 the Apex Court held

that there is no restriction to award compensation exceeding the

amount claimed and as such in view of the principle laid down by

2009 ACJ 1298

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11495 OF 2018

MACMA No.461 of 2012

the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled to an amount of

Rs.6,81,800/- exceeding the claimed amount. However, the

claimants shall pay the requisite court fee over and above the

compensation awarded.

14. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, the tribunal

awarded interest @ 9% per annum. In National Insurance

Company Ltd., v. Mannat Johal 5 , at paragraph 13, the Apex

Court held as under:

"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimant as regards the rate of interest. The tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5 per cent per annum and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court"

Hence, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the

rate of interest should be 7.5% per annum.

POINT No.3

15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed enhancing compensation from

an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- to an amount of Rs.6,81,800/-

(Rupees six lakhs, eighty one thousand and eight hundred only)

together with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of claim

2019 ACJ 1849

MACMA No.461 of 2012

petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent - insurance

company shall deposit the compensation amount along with

interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this