Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Cholamandalam Ms General Ins Co Ltd, ... vs B. Shahnaz, Chittoor Dist Three Others on 24 June, 2024
APHC010405012017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3364]
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 256 OF 2017
Between:
1. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP.BY
ITS BR.OFFICE AT NO.234, 2ND FLOOR, NO.2, NSC BOSE ROAD,
CHENNAI.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. B SHAHNAZ, W/O.B.SHABBIR @ BASHA, AGED 45 YRS,
R/O.EGUVA PUNEPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, PENUMUR MANDAL,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
2. B SHABBIR @ BASHA, S/O.B.BUDDEN BASHA SAHEB, AGED 47
YRS, R/O.EGUVA PUNEPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, PENUMUR
MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
3. B RESHMA, D/O.B.SHABBIR BASHA, AGED 20 YRS, R/O.EGUVA
PUNEPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, PENUMUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.
4. M CHINNABBA MANDADI, S/O.M.KUPPAIAH, R/O.D.NO.17-15,
PEYANAPALLE VEDDEINDLU, MOGARALAPALLE, GUDIPALLE
MANDAL, CHITTOOR.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. KOTA SUBBA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. B S REDDY
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
-
Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A is to the award, dated 09.11.2015 in
M.V.O.P.No.69 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, ("Tribunal" for short) whereunder,
the Tribunal dealing with a claim of compensation made by the claimants for a
sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with regard to the death of the B.Mohammad Siddiq @
Basha (hereinafter will be referred to as "deceased") in a motor vehicle
accident occurred on 02.12.2013 at 4.45 p.m., awarded a sum of
Rs.4,65,000/- towards compensation.
2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A will hereinafter be referred to as
described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.69 of 2014, according to the
averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, is that:
The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents and the 3rd petitioner is the
unmarried sister of the deceased B.Mohammad Siddiq Basha. The deceased
was aged about 13 years and studying VII class in Z.P. High School,
Doddipalli, Chittoor. On 02.12.2013 morning the deceased went to school at
Doddipalli, Chittoor Mandal. After completion of school, he returned to the
house in the RTC bus. He got down the bus at the Eguva Ponepalle bus stop
on Penumur-Chittoor road along with other students. While he was crossing
the road, one TATA ACE luggage auto bearing registration No.AP-03-TA-
6676 (hereinafter will be referred to as "offending vehicle") driven by its driver
in a rash and negligent manner, came at high speed and hit the deceased. As
a result, he fell on the road and received a head injury. He was shifted to
Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, in a private vehicle for
treatment and from there he was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. While
undergoing treatment on 03.12.2013 he died. Petitioners spent Rs.20,000/-
towards medical expenditure and transport charges. On the report lodged by
one B.Nawab, who was an eye witness to the occurrence, police registered
the FIR in Crime No.105/2013, under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the
offending vehicle and later altered the section of law on account of the death
of the deceased. The police, after completion of the investigation, filed a
charge sheet in C.C.No.513 of 2013. The petitioners suffered a lot on account
of the death of the deceased. The accident was occurred on account of the
rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence,
the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter contending in substance that the
petitioners have to prove the manner of accident and negligence alleged
against the driver in driving the offending vehicle and their entitlement to claim
compensation.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following
issues for trial:
(1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the ACE auto bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TA-6676?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom?
(3) To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.s.1 to 3
were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,
R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well
as documentary evidence found that the accident was occurred on account of
the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle and
awarded the compensation of Rs.4,65,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the
unsuccessful respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed the present
M.A.C.M.A.
9. Now, in deciding the M.A.C.M.A., the point that arises for determination
is whether the award, dated 09.11.2015, in M.V.O.P.No.69 of 2014, on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge,
Chittoor, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any
grounds to interfere with the same?
Point:
10. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The driver had
no valid driving license. Apart from that, the Tribunal considered the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum instead of Rs.15,000/- per
annum. The deceased was a non-earning member. He was aged about 13
years and the accident was occurred due to his negligence while crossing the
road. Hence, the award needs interference.
11. Sri B.S. Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend
that P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were the direct witnesses to the occurrence spoke
of the manner of the accident and further the police after due investigation
filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal
rightly held that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and
negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal
rightly considered the income of the deceased as that of Rs.30,000/- per
annum applied the appropriate multiplier and awarded just compensation. In
support of his contentions, he would rely upon the citations in (1) Meena Devi
Vs.Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & others1, (2) Kishan Gopal
and another Vs.Lala and others2 and (3) Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali
and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another 3 . With the above
submissions, he would contend that Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, she
deposed in accordance with the petition averments. Through her examination,
Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Ex.A1 was the certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 was
the certified copy of the charge sheet. Ex.A3 was the certified copy of the
post-mortem certificate. Ex.A4 was the certified copy of the inquest report.
Ex.A5 was the certified copy of the accident information report. Ex. A6 was the
certified copy of the M.V.I. report. Ex.A7 was the original transfer certificate.
The petitioners examined P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were the direct witnesses to
the occurrence. They deposed that when the deceased and others while
crossing the road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Nothing could be elicited
during the course of cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 to disbelieve their
testimony. The police registered the F.I.R. in respect of the accident in
question and after investigation filed the charge sheet under Ex.A2. The cause
of the death is on account of the fatal injuries received in the accident which is
evident from Ex.A3-copy of post-mortem report. The accident was not
2022 live law (SC) 841
(2014) 1 SCC 244
(2022) 1 SCC 317
occurred on account of any mechanical defects according to Ex.A6-M.V.I.
report. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred on
account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending
vehicle.
13. Now, turning to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded
compensation under the following heads:
Damages towards transportation Rs.10,000-00
Damages towards funeral expenses Rs.25,000-00
Damages towards clothes and articles Rs.5,000-00
Damages towards pain & suffering, Rs.2,00,000-00
love and affection
Damages towards loss of future Rs.2,25,000-00
earnings and dependency
Total Rs.4,65,000-00
14. As seen from the damages towards transportation and damages
towards clothes and articles are concerned, it needs no interference
whatsoever. However, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain & suffering, love
and affection needs interference. Apart from this, the conventional heads of
compensation under funeral expenses is well regulated by the National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors 4 case. Keeping in
view that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs interference.
15. Now, it is a case where the deceased was aged about 13 years and
studying VII class and he was a non-earning member. Though the notional
income of the deceased that can be considered is mentioned in Schedule-II of
the M.V. Act, 1988, the Tribunal fixed Rs.30,000/- per annum as notional
income.
2017 SCC Online SC 1270
16. As seen from the judgment in Meena Devi's case (1 supra), it is
relating to just compensation. Turing to the judgment in Kishan Gopal's case
(2 supra), it was a case where the death of 10 years old child happened and
she was a non-earning member and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in
case of death of children in motor vehicle accidents between the age group of
10 to 15 years, compensation can be considered notionally. However, the
notional income under Schedule-II of the M.V. Act, 1988, at Rs.15,000/- per
annum in the year 1994 cannot be considered on account of the decrease in
value of rupees. In that particular case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the notional income of the child who died at the age of 10 years as
that of Rs.30,000/- per annum. In Kurvan Ansari's case (3 supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to consider the notional income of
Rs.15,000/- per annum as mentioned in Schedule-II of M.V. Act, 1988.
17. Having regard to the above, the exercise made by the Tribunal in
considering the notional income as that of Rs.30,000/- per annum is found to
be reasonable, as such, it needs no interference. In view of Sarla Verma &
Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr5 case, the proper multiplier is "15". As
the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards the
personal expenses and arrived at multiplicand as Rs.2,25,000/-
(Rs.30,000/- minus Rs.15,000/- = Rs.15,000/- X 15).
18. It is to be noted that the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- +
Rs.15,000/- towards the funeral expenses and loss of estate, in view of the
Pranay Sethi's case (4 supra). Further the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being the
parents of deceased are entitled to filial consortium in view of the judgment in
Janabai WD/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Ors Vs. I.C.I.C.I., Lombard
Insurance Company Ltd 6 to the extent of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, the
AIR 2009 SC 3104
Manu/SC/0985/2022
compensation which can be awarded to the petitioners on reasonable basis
can be summarized as follows:
transportation charges Rs.10,000-00
clothes and articles charges Rs.5,000-00
funeral expenses and loss of estate Rs.30,000-00
(Pranay sethi's case)
Filial consortium Rs.40,000-00
Loss of future earnings and Rs.2,25,000-00
dependency
Total Rs.3,10,000-00
19. In the light of the above, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of
Rs.3,10,000/-, as such, the award of the Tribunal needs interference so as to
reduce the compensation.
20. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part with proportionate costs
reducing the compensation from that of Rs.4,65,000/- to Rs.3,10,000/- and
apportioning the same as that of Rs.1,35,000/- each to petitioner Nos.1 and 2
and Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner No.3. The appellant shall deposit the rest of
the compensation within a period of one month from this date. On such
deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt.24.06.2024
MH
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 24.06.2024
MH
