Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt. Munipalli Vajram, Krishna Dist 2 ... vs Apsrtc, Hyd 2 Others on 23 October, 2024

APHC010090002017

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3367]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

     WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
          TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                        PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

     MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
                   NO: 1754/2017

Between:
Smt. Munipalli Vajram, Krishna Dist & 2 Others ...APPELLANT(S)
and Others
                              AND
Apsrtc Hyd 2 Others and Others               ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):
  NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):
  1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC
  2. MATADA YUVASIVA SWAMY

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman,

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional

District Judge at Vijayawada (hereinafter called as 'the

Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.144 of 2013 dated 21.09.2016.

2. The appellants, who are wife and children of one

Munipalli Ramakrishna (hereinafter called as 'the deceased'),

herein are the claimants. The respondent No.1 is the

owner/APSRTC of the Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 5256 (hereinafter

referred as "crime bus"). The respondent No.2 is the mother of

the deceased. The respondent No.3 is the driver of the said

crime bus.

3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the

Tribunal is that:

i). On 30.09.2012 at about 06.30 p.m., while the

deceased coming from Ganguru petrol bunk on his

motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 BX 1834, the crime bus

driven by the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent

manner dashed the motorcycle of the deceased,

resulted, the deceased sustained grievous injuries.

Thereafter, he was shifted to Times Hospital, where he

was declared dead.

ii). The deceased was working as auto driver and

earning Rs.25,000/- per month and contributed the

same for the family. Being dependents, they claimed

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the owner and

driver of the crime bus.

4. The respondent No.1/owner of the crime bus filed written

statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded

that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the

part of the deceased, but not 1st respondent; that the

compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and

thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry

basing on the material:

"1.Whether the deceased M.Ramakrishna died in a motor accident that occurred on 30.09.2012 at about 18.30 hours near Petrol Bunk, Ganguru village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP28Z 5256?

2.What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident?

3.Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, for what amount and from whom? and

4.To what relief?"

6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2

were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the

respondent No.1, 3rd respondent was examined as R.W.1, but,

no documentary evidence was adduced.

7. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the

accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime bus

by its driver, held that the claimants are entitled for the

compensation of Rs.4,25,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

against the respondent Nos.1 and 3, for the death of the

deceased in the accident.

8. It is against the said order; this appeal was preferred by

the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard Sri T.Manikanta, learned counsel representing Sri

Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants and Sri P.Durga Prasad, leaned Standing

Counsel for the respondent Nos.1/ APSRTC.

10. Sri T.Manikanta, learned counsel representing Sri

Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants submits that the claimants are entitled

for enhancement of compensation; that the Tribunal failed to

consider the fact that by the date of death the deceased was

earning Rs.25,000/- per month as auto driver and

erroneously taken the same as Rs.2,500/- per month,

thereby, prays to consider the present appeal by awarding

compensation as claimed by the claimants before the

Tribunal.

11. Sri P.Durga Prasad, leaned Standing Counsel for the

respondent Nos.1/ APSRTC submits that the Tribunal, in the

absence of substantial material on record, rightly taken the

notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month and

awarded compensation; that there are no valid grounds urged

by the claimants to interfere with the well-articulated order of

the Tribunal, thereby, prays to dismiss the present appeal.

12. Now, the following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? and

2. To what relief ?

13. POINT NO.1:

There is no dispute about the death of the deceased in

the accident, involvement of the crime bus, rash and

negligent driving of the 3rd respondent in causing the

incident. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was

preferred by the APSRTC against the order of the Tribunal.

14. The only contention of the claimants is that the

Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the

deceased, who is an auto driver, as Rs.25,000/-, but

erroneously taken the same as Rs.2,500/- per month. It is

not in dispute that to prove the said contention, no material

was placed before the Tribunal by the claimants. However, in

view of the facts and circumstances, it is just and reasonable

to take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-.

Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at

Rs.1,08,000/- per annum.

15. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi1, the deductions towards personal and living

expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows:

39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down: -

"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six."

16. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), in case

the deceased was self-employed, an addition of 40% should

1 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC)

be made, if the age of the deceased was below the 40 years.....

(emphasis supplied)

17. In the present case, as per the above-mentioned

decision, 40% of actual income has to be added to the income

of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is

about 27 years by the date of incident, which is not in

dispute. After adding 40% to the income of the deceased

towards future prospects his income is determined at

Rs.1,51,200/-(Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/-).

18. In the case on hand, there are three claimants and 2nd

respondent depending on the deceased, thereby, the

deduction towards personal and living expenses of the

deceased should be 1/4th from the income of the deceased.

Then the quantum is determined as Rs.1,13,400/-.

19. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande

& Anr2, at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows :

2 2017 (3) SCC 315

11.........it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.........

12......... While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be.......

....... there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present

provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of 'just' compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country."....... (emphasis supplied)

20. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the

deceased i.e., 27 years is 18. The total loss of dependency is

determined at Rs.20,41,200/- (Rs.1,13,400/- x 18).

21. CONVENTIONAL HEADS:-

On the point of the conventional heads, as per the

judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma National

Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

and Ors.3, Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod

and Others4, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder

Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors.5 and Rojalini Nayak

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 5 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683

17 (2021) 11 SCC 780

and others v. Ajit Sahoo and others6, this Court can award

the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss

of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The

claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.48,400/- to

each of the claimants, being Rs.1,93,600/- for loss of

consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and

towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-, respectively as was

awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra).

22. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at

the compensation is set out infra:

S.No. Heads                        Calculation

1      The annual income of Rs.1,08,000/- per annum
       the deceased.

2      40% of above(1) to be (Rs.1,08,000/-             +
       added     as    future
       prospects              Rs.43,200/-) Rs.1,51,200/-


3      1/4th to be deducted as Rs.1,13,400/-.
       personal expenses of





       deceased.



4      Compensation   arrived (Rs.1,13,400/-           x   18)
       at on application of
       multiplier 18.         Rs.20,41,200/-

5      Spousal and      Parental Rs.1,93,600/-
       consortium
                                   (Rs.48,400/- X 4)
       (wife, two children and
       mother)

6      Loss of estate              Rs.18,150/-

7      Funeral expenses            Rs.18,150/-

       Total   compensation Rs.22,71,100/-
       awarded(Rows
       4+5+6+7)

23. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the

Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.4,25,000/- to Rs.22,71,100/-. It is

needless to say that the compensation claimed on the

remaining heads are not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this

appoint is answered accordingly.

24. POINT No.2:

In view of the findings on point No.1, the order passed by

the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of

compensation only. As such, the appeal preferred by the

appellant/claimants is liable to be considered.

25. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed with proportionate

costs enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,25,000/- to

Rs.22,71,100/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the

date of petition till the date of realization against driver and

owner/APSRTC of the crime bus. The respondent

No.1/APSRTC shall deposit the entire compensation amount

within two months from the date of this judgment before the

Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants as well as the 2nd

respondent, who is mother of the deceased are entitled to

receive the enhanced compensation equally, they are

permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon

subject to attaining majority by claimant Nos.2 and 3 and the