Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S Apsrtc A.P. State Road Transport ... vs Pokuri Supraja Devi on 1 March, 2024

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                  AT AMARAVATI
           (Special Original Jurisdiction)
           FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH
           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                       PRESENT
       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
    HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
  MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
                NO: 598/2021
Between:
M/s APSRTC (A.P. State Road Transport   ...APPELLANT
Corporation)
                         AND
Pokuri Supraja Devi and Others      ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
  1. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
  1. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR


The Court made the following:
                                2




         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                              AND


     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                MACMA.No.598 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay)

The present appeal arises out of an order passed in

M.V.O.P.No.176 of 2017 dated 17.08.2021 passed by the

Motor accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District

Judge, Krishna District granting compensation of

Rs.26,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 7.5% per

annum.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

On 01.11.2016, while the deceased was going on

Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 DF 8784 from

G.S.Raju road to BRTS Road, Vijayawada, an APSRTC Bus

bearing No.AP28Z3287 without following road norms or

blowing without horn and in a rash and negligent manner

dashed Maruti Swift Car bearing No.AP16AX 6354 and also

dashed the vehicle of the deceased. The deceased

succumbed to the injuries. The S.N.Puram Police State

registered an FIR i.e. Cr.No.561 of 2016 under section 304-

A and 337 I.P.C., on the very same day i.e. 01.11.2016. In

the claim application, it was stated that the deceased was

aged about 45 years and was doing medical agency

business and also running a sweet shop earning a monthly

income of Rs.50,000/- per month. Hence, compensation of

Rs.35,00,000/- was sought by the claimants i.e. wife and

two children.

3. The Respondent No.1 is the driver and he remained

ex parte. The Respondent No.2 i.e. APSRTC filed its

counter denying the negligence of Respondent No.1 and

that Respondent No.2 was not liable to pay any

compensation. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial

Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether Mr.Pokuri Srinivas Rao, S/o Mr.Krishna Murthy died due to the motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.11.2016 at about 5.30 p.m., at opposite Gymkhana Grounds, G.S.Raju road, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada?

2) If so, whether the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP28Z3287?

3) Whether petitioners are the dependents and if so whether they are entitled for compensation as prayed for, and if so, from whom and to what amount?

4) To what relief are the petitioners entitled?

4. In the course of trial, the wife of the deceased was

examined herself as P.W.1 apart from P.Ws.2 and 3, and

Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the claimants.

The Respondent No.1 driver was examined on behalf of the

respondents and no documentary evidence was marked.

The trial Court while considering the issue Nos.1 and 2

held that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in

the accident and that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the respondent No.1.

5. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the income

tax returns for the years 2013-14, 201-15, and 2015-16

were marked as Ex.A.6. The Tribunal taking into

consideration the income tax returns assessed the

compensation at Rs.26,00,000/- while adopting a

multiplier of 14. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Heard Sri Solomon Raju.M, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri K.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the

respondents.

7. There is no dispute about the accident and the

factum of death of the deceased due to the injuries

sustained in the accident. As regards the issue of accident

on account of rash and negligent driving, the same being

on preponderance of probability, this Court does find any

error in the reasoning and finding arrived at by the

Tribunal on this aspect.

8. During the hearing, the counsel for the claimant had

passed on the GST cancellation of the business of the

deceased "Sai Krishna Agencies" with effect from

01.01.2018. This being a document from the GST portal,

the same is taken note of and the plea of supervisory loss

urged by the appellant is negatived.

9. The only issue which falls for consideration in this

appeal is the quantum of compensation granted by the

Tribunal. The income of the deceased as per the income tax

returns (Ex.A.6) for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-

16 is between Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-and for three

years. The Tribunal considered the income tax returns and

arrived at Rs.24,416/- per month as the average income of

the deceased and for the purpose of calculation of

compensation income at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month

was taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal deducted 10%

towards income tax and 1/3rd towards personal expenses

of the deceased. After deducting the amounts, the annual

income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.1,44,000/-.

10. There is no dispute to the multiplier of 14 adopted by

the Tribunal, but this Court is of the opinion that

deduction towards income tax @ 10% in the income of the

deceased as made by the Tribunal is not sustainable as

this Court in MACMA No. 36 of 2024 dated 18.12.2023 had

opined that taxability of income and compensation under

Motor Vehicles Act is for the income tax department to

determine.

11. Even otherwise, income upto Rs.2,50,000/- was

exempted from income tax as per the Finance Act, 2016 for

the year 2016-17 and income over and above

Rs.2,50,000/- was liable for 10% income tax. This income

over and above Rs.2,50,000/- is subject to exemptions

provided under the Income Tax Act. These are aspects

which cannot be visualized by this Court and depend on

the tax planning of the deceased. It is also to be noted that

the income tax deduction sought by the appellant cannot

be to the benefit of the appellant Corporation while

calculating compensation. It is not the case of the

appellant that they would be paying the amount deducted

towards tax to the income tax department.

12. The trial Court having calculated the monthly income

of the deceased @ Rs.24,416/- per month on the basis of

average of income tax returns as per Ex.A.6, could not

have fixed the income @ Rs.20,000/- per month in the face

of the income tax returns for the preceding years.

Therefore, this Court takes the income of the deceased at

Rs.24,416/- per month. As regards the compensation

under the head of loss of consortium, the same is modified

in terms of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias

Chuhru ram granting consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each

of the claimants.

13. Thus, the reworked calculations towards

compensation are as under;

MONTHLY INCOME-: Rs.24416/-

ADDITION TO INCOME TO FUTURE PROSPECT(@25% Rs.30520/-

DECEASED BEING GREAT THAN THAN 40 YEARS AND (Rs.24416+Rs.6104) LESS THAN 50 YEARS)

ANNUAL INCOME(Rs.30520/-x12) Rs.366240/-

Rs.244160/-

DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL & LIVING (Rs.366240-Rs EXPENSES(1/3) 122080)

Rs.34,18,240/-

           AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
                                                  (Rs.244160/-x14)





              LOSS OF ESTATE                       15000


                                                 1,20,0000
            LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
                                               (Rs.40,000/-x3)


            FUNERAL EXPENSES                     Rs.15000/-


       TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION            Rs 35,68,240/-

14. The re-worked compensation as tabulated above on

the basis of average income adopted by the Tribunal is

higher than the compensation granted by the Tribunal. The

question whether this Court could enhance the

compensation in an appeal filed by insurer/Road Transport

Corporation was answered in favour of the claimants by a

coordinate Division Bench of this Court in a case between

National Insurance Company Ltd v. E.Susheelamma

reported in 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 41 after considering the

case law and scope of appeal.

15. This Court is in agreement with the same and would

only add that "Just Compensation" being the core principle