Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Potru Rama Devi And 4 Ors vs M/S. Bommidala Sree Ram Agro ... on 4 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATHI
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
M.A.C.M.A.No. 2047 of 2008
Between:
Potru Rama Devi and others ... Appellants/
Petitioners
and
M/s. Bommidala Sree Ram Agro Traders (P)
Ltd., Guntur and another ... Respondents/
Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Sri B. Parameswara Rao
Counsel for 1st respondent : None appeared
Counsel for 2nd respondent : Sri C. Prakash Reddy
This Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.136 of
2006 aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2007 passed by the Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District
Judge, Guntur, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") awarding
compensation of Rs.8,60,000/- to the petitioners as against their claim
of Rs.20,00,000/-.
JS,J
2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter
will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are:
On 11.12.2002 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased Potru Ranga
Rao, along with two others, was proceeding in a Maruthi Car bearing
No.16-AL-9461 on N.H.5 road to go to Guntur. When they reached
Yanamadala village, the driver of a Mini Lorry bearing No.AP-7T-5487
came in the wrong direction at high speed and dashed the Maruthi Car.
As a result, the deceased and another received grievous injuries and
were shifted to the Government Hospital, Guntur, where the deceased
died while undergoing treatment. The Police, Prathipadu, registered a
case vide Crime No.98 of 2005 for the offences punishable under
Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and filed a charge sheet against the
driver of the Mini Lorry. The deceased was working as a Drawing
Teacher in Mandal Parishad Elementary School, Vemavaram, and
earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The 1st respondent is the owner, and
the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the Mini Lorry and hence, both the
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners.
4. The 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the
minor son and daughter, and petitioners No.4 and 5 are the father and
JS,J
mother of the deceased. The deceased was about 39 years old as of
the date of the accident. The petitioners are claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- for the deceased's death in the accident.
5. The respondents filed written statements denying the accident
and alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the Maruthi Car by the deceased himself. Therefore, the
respondents are not liable to pay compensation.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, and
Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of
the respondents, but Ex.B.1 - pay particulars of the deceased was
marked.
7. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the
negligent driving of the mini lorry driver and accordingly, by an order
dated 17.09.2007, awarded compensation of Rs.8,60,000/- to the
petitioners with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of realization. Seeking enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred the instant appeal.
8. The grounds urged in the appeal are that the deceased was 39
years old and still has 19 years of service as of the accident date. The
deceased worked as a Drawing Teacher at Mandal Parishad
Elementary School, Vemavaram, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The
JS,J
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre; if the deceased
were in service, he would get increments and pay revisions, and the
Tribunal has failed to award just compensation. The M.V. Act is a
beneficial legislation, and the courts must see that fair and adequate
compensation is paid to make good the loss suffered by the family due
to the sudden demise of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have
awarded just compensation by applying the well-settled principles
relating to the award of compensation. The Tribunal awarded 7.5%
interest, contrary to the judgement in Tejender Singh Gujral Vs
Indrajit Singh reported in AIR ONLINE 2006 SC 488. The petitioners
depend on the deceased's income; the 1st petitioner should take care of
her minor children and father-in-law, and the compensation awarded is
insufficient for their maintenance and prayed to award just
compensation.
9. Heard both sides and perused the record.
10. The 1st petitioner, the deceased's wife, was examined as P.W.1.
P.W.2, an eyewitness who was travelling with the deceased, narrated
the accident and stated that the Mini Lorry came in the wrong direction
at high speed and dashed their car. The deceased and his younger
paternal uncle were shifted to KMC Hospital, from there to Government
General Hospital, Guntur. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem,
opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries sustained in the
JS,J
accident. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred due to
the negligent driving of the driver of the Mini Lorry. P.W.2 further stated
that the Mini Lorry hit the front portion of the Maruthi car. Respondents
1 and 2 have not denied that P.W.2 travelled in the car along with the
deceased. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicle,
opined that the accident did not occur due to mechanical defects. The
driver of the offending vehicle, the mini lorry, was not examined. There
was no rebuttal evidence on the part of the respondents to show that
there was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle mini lorry.
The 2nd respondent filed a memo showing that the insurance policy was
in force as of the accident date.
11. As seen from the record, as of the date of the accident, the
children of the deceased were six years and eight years old,
respectively, and they have a lot of future ahead. As a single parent,
financial support is necessary to raise the children and provide them
with a better education. With the death of the spouse, many changes
would come, and the surviving parents often express that they are not
prepared for the challenge of raising their children alone and find it to
be an overwhelming responsibility. The surviving parents express
concern for their grieving children as developing the child at an early
stage is very difficult, and sometimes, they fear that the family will be
abandoned and deserted by the other family members and a single
JS,J
parent will become too protective and over-involved in hopes of trying
to make the children feel better.
12. The deceased worked as a Teacher at Mandal Parishad
Elementary School, Vemavaram. As per Exs.A.2 and A.3, the
deceased's age is 39 years. Nothing is elicited during cross-
examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 to disbelieve the age of the deceased
spoken by them. P.W.3 is the Mandal Educational Officer, Ballikurava
Mandal, Prakasam District, who stated that Ex.A-6 is the salary
certificate of the deceased, which bears his signature. As per Ex.A-6
salary certificate, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.8,396/- per
month. After deducting the statutory deduction, i.e., Rs.80/- towards
professional tax, the net salary of the deceased would come to
Rs.8,316/- i.e., Rs.99,792/- per annum.
13. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, has held that "we approve the method that
an additional 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income
of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below 40 years".
14. As the deceased was a permanent employee and aged 39 years
at the time of the accident, as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi case (1 supra), 50% from out of the annual
2017 (16) SCC 680
JS,J
income has to be added towards future prospects, and accordingly, the
annual income of the deceased arrives at Rs.1,49,688/- (Rs.99,792/- +
Rs.49,896/-). There are four dependents on the deceased. As per the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation2, 1/4th of the annual income has to be deducted
towards the personal expenses of the deceased. If deducted, the
annual contribution to the deceased's family members arrives at
Rs.1,12,266/- (Rs.1,49,688/- - Rs.37,422/-). As stated supra, the
deceased was aged 39 years as on the date of the accident. The
relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is "15",
and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.16,83,990/- (Rs.1,12,266/-
x multiplier „15‟).
15. As seen from the record, the 1st petitioner is only 35 years old
and should bring up the children in the absence of the father, who
occupies a critical role in child development for which money plays a
significant role in giving better education to the children for which
adequate compensation be awarded to make good the loss suffered.
16. In Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh 3 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
observed on the aspect of awarding compensation under conventional
heads as under:
2009 (4) SCJ 91
(2013) 9 SCC 54
JS,J
"The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a
precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to
achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic
issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a
precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically
revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. We may therefore, revisit the practice of
awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of
consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to
children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum
of Rs 2500 to Rs 10,000 in those heads was fixed several
decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same
needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, it was held
that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the
range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000. In legal
parlance,"consortium" is the right of the spouse to the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace,
affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-
pecuniary head of damages has not been properly
understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love,
care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to
be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary
damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of
award of compensation in other parts of the world more
particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc.
English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to
get compensation even during the period of temporary
disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an
attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection,
comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance,
protection, care and sexual relations during the future years.
Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and
other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise
adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not
be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence,
we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable
that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of
consortium."
17. In the light of the above judgment, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is
awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and
JS,J
Rs.2,00,000/- each is awarded to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 towards love
and affection. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.2,000/-
towards funeral expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges,
and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, cannot be interfered with. In
total, a sum of Rs.22,98,990/- is awarded towards compensation to the
petitioners.
18. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of realisation. This Court does not find any ground
to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal at 7.5 % p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of realisation, in view of the Apex
Court judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Mannat
Johal4.
19. As a result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.8,60,000/- to
Rs.22,98,990/-. The petitioners are entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs.14,38,990/- along with interest as ordered by the
Tribunal. Out of the enhanced compensation, the 1st petitioner is
entitled to Rs. 6,38,990/-, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (children) are entitled
to Rs.3,50,000/- each, and the 4th petitioner is entitled to 1,00,000/-.
Both the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount
with costs and interest as awarded by the Tribunal within two months
2019 ACJ 1849
JS,J
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the
amount deposited, if any, earlier and on such deposit, the petitioners
are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation
amount as per law. However, the petitioners shall pay the requisite
Court fee for the amount awarded over and above the compensation
claimed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed as a
sequel thereto.
____________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
4th October, 2024
cbs
JS,J
THE HON‟BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
4th October, 2024
cbs
