Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

G. Kumari And Others vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram on 13 September, 2024

                                         1
                                                                     (RNT,J& VN,J
                                                       M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185
                                                                    3185 OF 2017)

APHC010912762017
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI                            [3470]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                    PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3185/2017

Between:

G. Kumari and Others                                        ...APPELLANT(S)

                                       AND

Rangan and Others                                        ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

   1. M.S.BANU PRASAD RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. SRINIVASA RAO K

   2.

The Court made the following:


JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri M.S.Bhanu Prasad Rao, Rao learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/claimants.

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

2. No representation for the respondents.

3. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act

1988, (in short 'M.V.Act'), has been filed by the claimants/appellants,

challenging the Award, dated 22.06.2017, passed in M.V.O.P.No.93 of

2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District

Judge, Chittoor (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of the

compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal.

4. The claimants/respondents filed M.V.O.P.No.93 of 2015

under Section 166 of the M.V.Act for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for

the death of one G.Sarath Kumar (hereinafter referred as 'deceased') in

the motor accident, which took place on 21.09.2014 at about 10.00 am.,

near Vemu Institute of Technology, P.Kothakota, Puthalpattu Mandal,

Chittoor District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver-cum-

owner of the TATA Indica Car bearing No.AP 03 TV 0460 (in short

'offending vehicle'), the accident took place.

5. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending

vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer. The case of the

claimants/appellants is that the deceased was aged about 22 years. He

was a brilliant student of IV Year B.Tech from Vemu Institute of

Technology, P.Kothakota, Puthalpattu Mandal, Chittoor District. He would

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

have secured a good job after completion of B.Tech with a salary of

Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month.

6. Respondent No.1 remained exparte before Tribunal.

7. The 2nd respondent-National Insurance Company Limited

filed written statement denying the material averments of the claim

petition and submitting that the claimants be put to the strict proof of

those averments. The amount of compensation was said to be

excessive. There was contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased. It was denied that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The liability was denied subject

to the terms and conditions of the policy.

8. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration :

1. Whether the accident in question caused due to rash and negligent manner of

TV 0460 or the deceased himself drove his motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AB 4501?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ?

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

9. On behalf of the claimants, 1st claimant/petitioner was

examined as P.W.1. Besides, witnesses P.Ws.2 & 3 were examined.

Exs.A1 to A8 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness

was examined. A copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle

was however marked as Ex.B1.

10. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence before it,

recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. On the point of quantum of

compensation, the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 22

years. His income as Rs.12,000/- per month i.e., Rs.1,44,000/- per

annum. 50% ( i.e., ½ ) was deducted for personal expenses of the

deceased. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18. The total

dependency was taken as Rs.12,96,000/-. Adding thereto, a sum of

Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses,

the total compensation of Rs.13,06,000/- was awarded with interest @

9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondents

1 & 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation

amount.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

determination of income @ Rs.12,000/- per month is on the lower side.

The deceased had been pursuing IV year B.Tech from the prestigious

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

institution and was a brilliant student. He submits that the evidence of

P.W.3-Assistant Professor, VEMU Institute of Technology, showed that if

the deceased would have lived, he would have secured a good job and a

placement with a salary of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month. He

further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of future

prospects under the conventional heads of loss of Consortium and loss of

Estate. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance in the case of

S.Vasanthi V. M/s. Adhiparasakthi Engg. College and

Another 1 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court determined the monthly

income of the deceased, bachelor MBA Student of 23 years age, as

Rs.30,000/-.

12. We have considered the submissions advanced and

perused the material on record.

13. The following point arises for determination :-

1. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation to the appellants in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants or the compensation awarded is inadequate and deserves enhancement ?

14. Income :- The Tribunal determined the notional income of

the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month.

(2022) 15 SCC 316

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

15. It was specific case of the claimants in their claim petition

that the deceased was studying his final year B.Tech graduation course

of Electrical and Electronic Engineering branch and was to complete the

same in the academic year of 2014-2015. The deceased was a bright

student all through his career. The campus selection took place in the

said college, and if a candidate is selected, he may draw Rs.50,000/- to

Rs.60,000/- per month. The deceased, if alive would have drawn salary

in the pay bracket of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month.

We would refer the evidences. P.W.3 deposed as under:-

"......I am working as Asst. Professor in Vemu Engineering College, P.Kothakota, Chittoor from the year 2010 Principal has authorized me to give evidence in present case. Ex.A.8 is the authorization letter. I know the deceased Sarathbabu personally. Deceased was an intelligent and obedient student. I am attached to EEE Department. Campus selection took place in our college. If a candidate is selected from our campus he may draw an amount of Rs.50000/- to 60,000 per month towards salary. If the deceased could have been alive he would have drawn the above said amount towards his salary. Ex.A.7 is issued by the VIT College."

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

16. The respondent No.2-insurance company did not produce

any evidence. Nothing could be brought to the contrary in the cross-

examination of these witnesses.

17. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Susubelli Bapuji

and Others2, this Court held as under in Paragraph Nos.25 to 27 :-

"25. In S. Vasanthi v. Adhiparasakthi Engineering College ((2022) 15 SCC 316), the deceased at the time of accident was aged about 23 years. He was the student in the second year of MBA course. His notional income was determined as Rs. 30,000/- per month. In that case, specific averment was made in the affidavit as to the employment prospects of the classmates of the deceased and also about his young age at the time of the accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in not giving due weightage to those averments. It was observed that if the deceased had not met with the unfortunate accident, he would have surely drawn a salary equivalent to that of his classmates or at least an amount near to the said amount.

26. In Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh ((2020) 1 TAC 736) the appellant was a student undergoing a degree course in Engineering from a premier institute. He was 21 years of age. The High Court fixed notional income as Rs. 5,000/- per month on the basis of what an unskilled worker will earn. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the notional income could not be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker. The students recruited through campus interviews are at least offered a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

27. Considering the evidence on record and giving it due weightage, as also in consideration of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the monthly notional income of the deceased would not have been less than 20,000/-

2024 SCC OnLine AP 3955 (DB)

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

per month. We accordingly determine the monthly income as Rs. 20,000/- per month."

18. In Basanti Devi and Others V. Divisional Manager,

the New Indian Assurance Company Ltd., and Others 3 , the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-

5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective sides and considering the fact that the deceased at the time of death/accident was aged 25 years of age and was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly considered the income of the deceased at the time of death at least @ 20,000/- p.m. The same was not required to be interfered with by the High Court. The submission on behalf of the Respondent - Insurance Company that as no documentary evidence was produced and/or laid in support of the documentary evidence produced on record that the deceased was earning Rs.

20,000/- per month and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/- per month is concerned, assuming that there was no supporting evidence laid, in that case also considering the potentiality to earn, as the deceased was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology, his income can safely be assessed at-least at Rs. 20,000/- per month. As such we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The High Court has committed a grave error in reducing the compensation from Rs. 30,54,000/- (Rs. 30,04,000/-) to Rs. 15,82,000/-.

19. Considering the aforesaid as also the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Vasanthi's case (supra) & Navjot Singh's case

MANU//SC/1333/2021

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

(supra) and Basanti Devi's case (supra) we hold that the deceased

being a B.Tech VI year student, his monthly income could not have been

less than Rs.20,000/- per month.

20. Future Prospects :- The Tribunal has not awarded any

amount towards future prospects. The claimants are entitled for grant of

future prospects.

21. In National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay

Sethi and Others4, on the point of future prospects, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held as under :

"59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50

(2017)16 SCC 680

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."

22. In Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali 5 , the deceased was a

bachelor. He was aged about 21-22 years and was studying in the 3 rd/4th

semester of civil engineering. The Hon'ble Apex Court applied para 59.4

in Pranay sethi (supra) and added 40% of the income as future

prospects.

23. Para Nos.13 to 15 of Meena Pawaia (supra) read as under:

13. We see no reason why the aforesaid principle may not be applied, which apply to the salaried person and/or deceased self employed and/or a fixed salaried deceased, to the deceased who was not serving and/or was not having any income at the time of accident/death. In case of a deceased, who was not earning and/or not doing any job and/or self employed at the time of accident/death, as observed herein above his income is to be determined on the guesswork looking to the circumstances narrated hereinabove. Once such an amount is arrived at he shall be entitled to the addition over the future prospect/future rise in income. It cannot be disputed that the rise in cost of living would also affect such a person.

14. As observed by this court in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment and/or in case of a deceased who was on a fixed salary and /or self employed would only get the benefit of future prospects and the legal representatives of the deceased who was not serving at the relevant time as he died at a young

(2021) 17 SCC 148

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

age and was studying, could not be entitled to the benefit of the future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. Because the price rise does affect them also and there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance.

15. It is not expected that the deceased who was not serving at all, his income is likely to remain static and his income would remain stagnant. As observed in Pranay Sethi (Supra) to have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Therefore we are of the opinion that even in case of a deceased who was not serving at the time of death and had no income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to future prospects by adding future rise in income as held by this court in Pranay Sethi (supra) i.e. addition of 40% of the income determined on guesswork considering the educational qualification, family background etc., where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.

24. In Navjot Singh (supra) also 40% of income was added as

future prospects.

25. Considering that the deceased was about 22 years (below

40 years), and a brilliant student in IV-Year B.Tech, we award the future

prospects @40%, on the monthly income.

26. Deductions :- Claimant No.1 is the mother, 2nd claimant

is the father and 3rd claimant is the sister of the deceased. The Tribunal

has deducted 50% towards personal expenses. The deceased was a

bachelor. In Sarala Varma and others V. Delhi Transport

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

Corporation and another6, the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the point of

the deductions towards personal expenses has held as under :

"30. ...Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where he 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 d 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 e contribution to the family will be taken as two- third."

In Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the Constitution Bench of

the Apex Court upheld the same.

27. As per Sarla Varma's case (supra), the father will not be

dependant. The sister of the deceased would be dependant on father

(2009 ) 6 SCC 121

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

and not the deceased brother. Consequently, the mother being the only

dependant, the deduction of ½ (50%) towards personal expenses shall

be applied.

28. Multiplier : The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of '18' at

the age of 22 years, which is as per Sarala Varma (supra).

29. Conventional Heads : As per the judgments in National

Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Others, 7 Magma

National Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

and Ors., 8 Smt. Anjali and Others V. Lokendra Rathod and

Others, 9 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @

Satwinder Kaur and Ors., 10 and Rojalini Nayak and Others vs Ajit

Sahoo and Others 11 we award the amounts under the Conventional

Heads, for loss of Consortium, loss of Estate and funeral expenses, as

Rs.48,400/- (per claimant), Rs.18,150/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively as

was awarded in Rojalini (Supra), which is with an increase of 10% every

three years.

(2017) 16 SCC 680

(2018) 18 SCC 130

(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683

(2021) 11 SCC 780

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901.

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

30. The Claimants are thus entitled for the following amount as

just and fair compensation :-

  S.                        Head                          Compensation Awarded
  No.

   1.                Net Annual Income                Rs. 20,000/- x 12 = Rs. 2,40,000/-
                    (As per the Tribunal)

   2.                 Future Prospects                            Rs. 96,000/-
                                                         (i.e., 40% of the income)
                                                      Total (i.e., 1+2) = Rs. 3,36,000/-

   3.           Deduction towards personal                     Rs. 1,68,000/-
                       expenditure
                         (i.e.1/2)

   4.                 Total Annual loss                        Rs. 1,68,000/-

5. Multiplier of 18 at the age of 22 years 18 x 1,68,000/- = Rs. 30,24,000/-

i.e.

6. Conventional Heads:

         Loss of Consortium                                     Rs. 1,45,200/-
                                                              (Rs. 48,400/- x 3)

         Loss of Estate                                         Rs. 18,150/-

         Funeral expenses                                       Rs. 18,150/-

   7.               Total Compensation                         Rs. 32,05,500/-

31. Consequently, the compensation amount granted by the

Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.13,06,000/- to Rs.32,05,500/-.

32. Interest :Interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded by the

Tribunal.

(RNT,J& VN,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.3185 OF 2017)

33. In Rahul Sharma & Another vs. National Insurance

Company Limited and Others12 , in Kirthi and another vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited,13 presently in Smt. Anjali and Others V.

Lokendra Rathod and Others, 14 while referring to Malarvizhi & Ors.

Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.15 the Hon'ble Apex Court

allowed interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization.

34. On the aforesaid amount the claimants are allowed interest

@ 9 % p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.

35. IN THE RESULT :

i) the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation as Rs.32,05,500/- by modifying the award of the Tribunal, as per the calculation made in this judgment being the just compensation with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization with costs throughout to the claimants/appellants ;

ii) The respondents shall pay/deposit the amount as aforesaid, adjusting the amount already deposited if any, before the Tribunal within one (01) month from today, failing which, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law ;