Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gottumukkala Lakshmi Narasimha Kumari ... vs Ghan Syam 2 Ors, Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATHI
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
M.A.C.M.A.No.642 of 2010
Between
Gottumukkala Lakshmi Narasimha
Kumari @ Swetha and 3 others
....Appellants/Petitioners
And
Ghan Syam and 3 others
....Respondents/Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Sri N. Siva Reddy
Counsel for 3rd respondent : Ms. Medida Marimma
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.237 of 2003,
against the judgment dated 13.02.2008, passed by the Motor Vehicle
Accidents Claims Tribunal-Principal District Judge, East Godavari,
Rajahmundry, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") awarding
compensation of Rs.2,77,800/- as against their claim of Rs.15,00,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties
hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd
petitioner is the minor daughter, 3rd petitioner is the father and 4th
petitioner is the mother of the deceased. On 29.12.2001, the deceased
JS,J
was going slowly on his Hero Honda motorcycle near the toll gate of
Vadapalli village, Nalgonda District, and then a lorry bearing registration
No.MP 09 KA 9845 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner, proceeding from Dachepalli to Miryalaguda, and dashed the
deceased motorcycle resulting in the instantaneous death of the
deceased, and the motorcycle was completely damaged. A case was
registered in Crime No.93 of 2001 under Section 304-A IPC on the file of
the Vadapalli Police Station. The deceased was aged 23 years, and
working as a Supervisor in Santhi Sea Foods, Chennai, and earning
Rs.8,500/- per month, as of the date of the accident.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte, and respondent
No.3-Insurance Company, has filed a written statement denying the
pleas taken by the petitioners, requiring the petitioners to establish the
accident and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following
issues for trial:
1. Whether the deceased Gottumukkala Srinivasa Naveen Kumar
died in motor accident occurred on 29.12.2001 at 2.00 p.m. near
Vadapalli toll gate, due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry
bearing No.MP 09 KA 9845 by the 1st respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners being the dependents of the deceased
Gottumukkala Srinivasa Naveen Kumar are entitled to the
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest thereon from all the
respondents with joint and several liability?
JS,J
3. To what relief?
6. To establish their claim, the petitioners examined P.W.1 to P.W.3
and marked documents as Exs.A.1 to A.6 and marked documents as
Exs.X1 to X6. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. On behalf of
respondent No.3-Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined, but
Ex.B.1 copy of policy was marked.
7. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by granting compensation
of Rs.2,77,800/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% p.a., from
the date of petition till the date of realization of the amount payable by
the respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally and the petitioners 1 to
4 are apportioned Rs.1,52,800/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.25,000/-
respectively, by a judgment dated 13.02.2008. Questioning the same,
the present appeal is filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of
compensation along with 12% interest per annum.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners would contend that
the Tribunal rejected the salary certificate i.e., Ex.A6; on erroneous
grounds fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/- and
applied multiplier of "17" instead of "18", which is not in accordance with
the law laid down by the Apex Court, and awarded paltry amount of
Rs.2,77,800/- against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, and the award
passed by the Tribunal suffers from legal infirmities and the learned
counsel relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court is National
JS,J
insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, Rajwati vs. United India
Insurance Company Ltd., and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation, and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would
contend that P.W.3, who is a resident of Chennai and working as
General Manager (finance) in Santhi See Foods, has not filed
authorization letter to give evidence on behalf of the company and has
not filed any authentication register to prove Ex.A6 and Exs.X1 to X6 to
prove that the deceased has worked in the said company, and the
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was doing some
job to maintain himself, his family and his earnings would be Rs.1,800/-
per month, and by applying proper multiplier, awarded compensation.
Therefore, there are no errors apparent in the judgment passed by the
Tribunal, and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Heard both sides.
11. Now, the points that would emerge for determination are:
1. Whether the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence for
properly awarding the compensation?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest @7.5%
as prayed for?
POINT:
12. Before the Tribunal, petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 Sri.
Adireddy Satish, eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2.
JS,J
S.Jaya Chandran, General Manager of Sea Foods, was examined as
P.W.3, and other documents were marked as evidence. The Tribunal
held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the lorry bearing No.MP 09 KA 9845, resulting in the instantaneous
death of deceased. The Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to
the compensation as under:
Loss of contributory income : 2,44,800/-
Loss of consortium : 15,000/-
Loss of estate : 15,000/-
Funeral expenses : 2,500/-
Transportation of dead body : 500/-
-----------------------------------------------------
Total : 2,77,800/-
-----------------------------------------------------
Aggrieved by the Tribunal's judgment, the appellants/claimants
preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
13. The Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3, Ex.A-6 and
Exs.X1 to X6, which are the salary certificates of the deceased, which
show that the deceased was paid Rs.8,500/- as monthly salary. The
Tribunal, without proper assessment, has fixed the income of the
deceased as Rs.1,800/- per month, i.e., Rs.60/- per day, which is
inadequate and this assumption, in my view, has no basis.
14. The Apex Court reported in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd1, held that "the appellant
was working as a coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the
(2011) 13 SCC 236
JS,J
wage of a labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or
Rs.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 Rs.4,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per
month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning
was Rs.4,500/-."
15. The deceased was married as of the date of the accident and had
an infant daughter. He was only 23 years old, with a lot of life and future
ahead. In fact, he is the only earning member in the family; because of
his sudden demise in the accident, his entire family was disturbed,
especially his wife, who is petitioner No.1, and her daughter is the worst
affected person, and they have to lead the rest of their life without their
dear one, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore,
this Court in the light of the above judgements, feels that it is appropriate
to fix his daily earnings as Rs.100/- per day by taking minimum wages
existing as of the date of the accident and, accordingly, the monthly
earnings comes to Rs.3,000/- where the deceased was married. The
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should
be one-fourth if the members of dependent family are 4 to 6.
Future Prospects
16. In the wake of increased inflation, rising consumer prices, and
general standards of living, future prospects have to be taken into
JS,J
consideration, not only with respect to the status or educational
qualifications of the deceased but also other relevant factors such as
higher salaries and perks which are being offered by private companies
in these days. The dearness allowance and perks from which the family
would have derived monthly benefit, are required to be taken into
consideration for determining the loss of dependency.
17. In Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in
favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the
deceased towards future prospects, where the
deceased had a permanent job and was below 40
years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable
range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as
'actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only
30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of
deceased is more than 50 years. Though the
evidence may indicate a different percentage of
increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to
avoid different yardsticks being applied or different
methods of calculations being adopted. Where the
deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary
(without provision for annual increments etc.), the
courts will usually take only the actual income at the
time of death. A departure therefrom should be made
only in rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances.
16. Compensation awarded does not become `just
compensation' merely because the Tribunal considers
it to be just. For example, if on the same or similar
facts (say deceased aged 40 years having annual
income of Rs.45,000/- leaving him surviving wife and
(2009) 6 SCC 121
JS,J
child), one Tribunal awards Rs.10,00,000/- another
awards Rs.5,00,000/-, and yet another awards
Rs.1,00,000/-, all believing that the amount is just, it
cannot be said that what is awarded in the first case
and the last case is just compensation. "Just
compensation" is adequate compensation which is
fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of
the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result
of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying
the well-settled principles relating to award of
compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza,
largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving
certain hypothetical considerations, should
nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness
emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and
thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and
uniformity in the decision making process and the
decisions. While it may not be possible to have
mathematical precision or identical awards, in
assessing compensation, same or similar facts should
lead to awards in the same range. When the
factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal
principles are the same, consistency and uniformity,
and not divergence and freakiness, should be the
result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation."
18. The facts in the present case clearly demonstrate that the
deceased died when he was 23 years, leaving behind his wife, minor
infant and parents. It is a struggle for the young widow throughout her
life, and at the same time, the welfare of the minor is also a paramount
consideration for facilitating the best education for the child. In view of
the above citation, this Court believes that 50% of the minimum wages
should be awarded for future prospects.
19. An accident leading to death causes great shock and agony to the
family of the deceased. The consortium is to be granted to the wife for
JS,J
the sudden loss and demise of her husband. The daughter of the
deceased was an infant at the time of her father's death and, according
to this Court, she is the most affected person who lost the love and
affection of her father. Parental aid, protection, affection, society,
discipline, guidance and training are the most important things for
developing and uplifting a child who has not seen the world. Consortium
is the right to claim compensation in the case of an accidental death of
the deceased. The greatest agony of losing the husband and father for
their child during their lifetime cannot be compensated by any means on
this earth and, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award
Rs.2,00,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner-wife and
Rs.5,00,000/- towards consortium to the 2nd petitioner-child considering
her future.
20. As observed above, the monthly income of the deceased is
Rs.3,000/-. The future prospects are 50% i.e., Rs.1,500/- (Rs.3,000/-
p.m. x 50%). The monthly income comes to Rs.4,500/- (Rs.3,000/- +
Rs.1,500/-). After deducting 1/4th towards the personal and living
expenditure, the net monthly income comes to Rs.3,375/- (Rs.4,500/- -
Rs.1,125/-). The loss of earnings comes to Rs.7,29,000/- (Rs.3,375/- x
12 x multiplier '18' as per Sarla Verma case). In addition, in the light of
the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rs.7,00,000/- is
awarded towards loss of Consortium to the 1st and 2nd petitioners,
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
JS,J
expenses. The total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is
Rs.15,04,000/-.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rajwati Vs. united Insurance
Company Ltd., and Seema and others. Vs. United India Insurance
Company Ltd.3, has awarded the rate of interest payable on the total
compensation, at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the date of realisation. In the light of the said judgments, the rate of
interest awarded in the Tribunal is enhanced from 6% p.a. to 7.5% p.a.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,77,800/- to Rs.15,04,000/-, and the
petitioners/claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation amount
of Rs.12,26,200/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the
claim petition till realisation. The appellants/petitioners are entitled to
receive the rest of the compensation amount. The 3rd
respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation
amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order after deducting the amount deposited earlier, if any, and on
such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the
compensation amount with accrued interest thereon by filing the proper
application. However, the petitioners shall pay the requisite Court fee in
respect of the amount awarded over and above the compensation
claimed.
Civil appeal No.8179 of 2022, dated 09.12.2022
JS,J
23. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
also stand closed.
_____________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
Date: 05.08.2024
BSK
JS,J
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
Date: 05.08.2024
BSK
