Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

United India Insurance Co Ltd., ... vs K.G.Sambhasiva Chetti, Chittoor Dist ... on 11 September, 2024

APHC010881892017

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

     WEDNESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
          TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                       PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS:
               2934/2017 & 157/2018

Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.2934 of 2017:
United India Insurance Co Ltd., Chittoor Dist       ...APPELLANT

                            AND
K G Sambhasiva Chetti Chittoor Dist Three       ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others and Others

Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.157 of 2018:
K G Sambhasiva Chetti Chittoor Dist Three          ...APPELLANT
Others and Others

                              AND
United India Insurance Co Ltd., Chittoor Dist ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2934 of 2017:
  B NAGA SAILAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S) in M.A.C.M.A.No.157 of 2018:
  SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These appeals are directed against the order of the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX

Additional District Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as 'the

Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.371 of 2014 dated 10.07.2017.

2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the

material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by

this common judgment.

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.2934 of 2017 is preferred by the insurer of

Lorry bearing No.TN23/BB 8416 (hereinafter referred as "crime

lorry"). The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are parents of one

K.Vasantha Kumar (hereinafter called as 'the deceased'). The

respondent Nos.3 and 4 are owner/insured and driver of the

said crime lorry.

4. M.A.C.M.A.No.157 of 2018 is preferred by the claimants

for enhancement of compensation.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter

referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

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

Tribunal is that:

i). On 14.12.2013 at about 07.15 a.m., while the

deceased along with his brother K.Siva Kumar

proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 03/AA

3175, driven by the deceased, when they reached near

Muttukurupalle, the crime lorry driven by its driver in

a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed

against the motorcycle of the deceased, resulted the

deceased died on the spot.

ii). The deceased was aged about 24 years by the time

of incident, working as mason and used to earn

Rs.500/- per day. Being legal representatives and

dependents, they claimed compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer

of the crime lorry.

7. The respondent No.2/insurer of the crime lorry filed

written statement denying the averments in the petition and

pleaded that there is contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased in causing the incident; that the petition is bad for

non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the

motorcycle involved in the incident and thereby, prayed to

dismiss the petition.

8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry

basing on the material:

"1.Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 23/BB 8416 of R.1 or the deceased himself drove the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP 03-AA 3175?

2.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? and

3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"

9. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3

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

respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and no documentary

evidence was adduced.

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

accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime lorry

by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the

compensation of Rs.6,58,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the

deceased in the accident.

11. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by

the insurer of the crime lorry and claimants respectively.

12. Heard Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel

representing Smt.B.Naga Srilakshmi, learned counsel for the

appellant/insurer in M.A.C.M.A.No.2934 of 2017 and Sri

Y.V.S.S.Dharneesh, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh

Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.157 of 2018.

13. Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel representing

Smt.B.Naga Srilakshmi, learned counsel for the

appellant/insurer submits that there is no rash and negligence

on the part of the driver of crime lorry in causing the incident;

that there is no proof regarding income of the deceased; that

Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the

claimants, and thereby, prays to consider the appeal.

14. Sri Y.V.S.S.Dharneesh, learned counsel representing Sri

Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants submits that the tribunal after

considering the material placed on record, rightly concluded

that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the

driver of the crime bus; that the claimants are entitled for

enhancement of compensation in view of the settled legal

position and thereby prays to enhance the compensation as

claimed by the claimants before the tribunal.

15. Now, the following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver?

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

3. To what relief ?

16. POINT No.1:

On this point, the Tribunal categorically held that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime

lorry by its driver only and to come to a such conclusion, relied

on the testimony of P.W.2 as well documents produced by the

claimants.

17. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the

incident and involvement of crime lorry.

18. On perusal of testimony of P.W.2, while he was standing

in front of Muttukurupalle bus stop, the crime lorry, which is

coming in a rash and negligent manner at high speed hit the

motorcycle driven by the deceased in a slow and cautious

manner, resulted the deceased died on the spot. Nothing was

elicited during cross examination to disbelieve his testimony. In

support of the testimony of P.W.2, the claimants got marked

Ex.A.1 F.I.R. and A.2 Charge Sheet, which shows that after

completion of entire investigation, police came to the conclusion

that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the

driver of the crime lorry.

19. In fact, the 3rd respondent, who is driver of the crime

lorry and best witness to speak what was really happened

and on whose fault the accident had occurred, but he did not

enter into witness box before the tribunal to say that he is

not responsible for the incident.

20. Viewing from any angle, it is clear in vivid terms that 3rd

respondent driver of the crime lorry is responsible for the

incident and due to his negligence only the incident had

occurred. Thereby, no contributory negligence can be

attributed against the deceased. Thus, this point is answered

against the appellant/insurer.

21. POINT NO.2:

By taking into consideration of facts and

circumstances, even the appellants claimed income of the

deceased as Rs.500/- per day, in view of the absence of

substantial material to fortify the same, this Court fixed

notional monthly income of deceased @ Rs.6,000/- instead of

Rs.4,000/- taken by the Tribunal. Thereby, the actual income

of the deceased is determined at Rs.72,000/- per annum.

22. 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 reflectible from Sarla Verma,

1 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC)

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.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."

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

the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an

addition of 40%, where the deceased was below the age of 40

could be made.......(emphasis supplied)

24. In the present case as per the above said decision, 40%

of actual income has to be added to the income of the

deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is in the

age group of 24 years. After adding 40% to the income of the

deceased towards future prospects his income is determined

at Rs.1,00,800/-(Rs.72,000/- + Rs.28,800/-).

25. In the case on hand, the deceased is a bachelor by the

time of incident, thereby the deduction towards personal and

living expenses of the deceased, should be 50% from the

income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as

Rs.50,400/-.

26. 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 :

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

2 2017 (3) SCC 315

the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising 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.".......

27. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the

deceased i.e., 24 years is 18. The total loss of dependency is

determined at Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.50,400/- x 18). Apart from

that, as per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) as

well New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati3,

an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium, an 3 (2020) 9 SCC 644

amount Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection are awarded. In-total

the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.9,77,200/-.

28. 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.72,000/- per annum
       the deceased.

2      40% of above(1) to be (Rs.72,000/- + Rs.28,800/-)
       added     as    future
       prospects              Rs.1,00,800/-


3      50% to be deducted as Rs.50,400/-.
       personal expenses of
       deceased.

4      Compensation   arrived (Rs.50,400/-           x      18)
       at on application of
       multiplier 18.         Rs.9,07,200/-

5      Filial consortium           Rs.40,000/-

6      Loss of estate              Rs.15,000/-

7      Funeral expenses            Rs.15,000/-





         Total   compensation Rs.9,77,200/-
         awarded(Rows
         4+5+6+7)

29. 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.6,58,000/- to Rs.9,77,200/-. Thus,

this appoint is answered accordingly.

30. POINT No.3:

In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the order

passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding

quantum of compensation only and with regard to the

remaining aspects there is no need to disturb the order passed

by the Tribunal. As such, the appeal filed by the insurer of the

crime lorry is liable for dismissal and the appeal preferred by

the claimants is liable to be considered partly.

31. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.2934 of 2017 is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

32. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.157 of 2018 is allowed in

part to enhance the compensation from Rs.6,58,000/- to

Rs.9,77,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, with

proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of

realization against owner, insurer and driver of the crime

lorry/respondent Nos.1 to 3. On such deposit, the claimants,

who are parents of the deceased, entitled the enhanced

compensation amount equally and they are permitted to

withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The

respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation