Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tankawsala Lakshmi 4 Others vs D. Tirumala Rao 2 Others on 20 September, 2024
1
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
+M.A.C.M.A. No.2906 of 2012
% .09.2024
#1. Tankasala Lakshmi and others
......Appellants/Claimants
And:
$1. D.Tirumala Rao and others.
....Respondents/Respondents.
!Counsel for the appellant : Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy
^Counsel for the respondent No.3 : Smt.A.Jayanthi
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)
2. 2021 ACJ 1 (SC)
3. 2020 ACJ 2714 Bombay High Court
4. 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)
5. 2022 Live Law (SC) 816
6. (2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 260
7. (2008) 4 SCC 224
8. 2004 ACJ 782
9. FA.665 of 2019, dated 19.05.2020
10. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338
11. (2003) 7 SCC 484
12. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683
13. (2021) 11 SCC 780
14. (2015) 1 SCC 539
15. (2021) 6 SCC 188
16. (2021) 2 SCC 166
17. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683
18. (2020) 4 SCC 228
2
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
M.A.C.M.A. No.2906 of 2012
1. Tankasala Lakshmi and others
......Appellants/Claimants
And:
1. D.Tirumala Rao and others.
....Respondents/Respondents.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : .09.2024.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be
Allowed to see the judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
Copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No
___________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
___________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY,J
3
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO:2906 of
2012
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants/appellants through virtual mode as well as Smt.A.Jayanthi,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance
company.
2. 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 31.05.2012, passed in M.V.O.P.No.461
of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District
Judge), West Godavari at Eluru(in short 'the Tribunal') for
enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. The claimants/respondents filed M.V.O.P.No.461 of
2009 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act for compensation of
Rs.44,99,999/- for the death of one T.Rambabu (hereinafter referred
as 'deceased') in the motor accident, which took place on 21.12.2007
near Kondaparava Cross Road, at the outskirts of Vissannapeta on
Nuzvid to Visannapeta Road, Krishna District, due to rash and
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP Q 5749
(HGV) (in short 'offending vehicle'), the accident took place.
4. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the
owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
5. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was
aged about 32 years and he was earning Rs.6,00,000/- per year by
doing Real Estate Commission business, leasehold cultivation, milk
business and chit fund business in the name and style of Tankasala
Chits and Finance.
6. Respondents 1 & 2 remained exparte.
7. The 3rd respondent-Oriental 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
the averments of the claim petition. The amount of compensation
was said to be excessive. It was denied that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It was
submitted that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident
as he was rash and negligent in driving the Indica Car. The liability
was denied subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, that if
such policy was in existence by the date of the accident.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
8. The Tribunal framed the following issues for
consideration :
1. Whether the Motor Vehicle accident on
21.12.2007 at the outskirts of Kondaparava
Village on Nuziveedu to Visannapeta Road arose
on account of negligence of R-1/driver of the Lorry
bearing No.AP Q 5749 resulting the death of
deceased Tanakasala Rambabu ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation and if so, for what amount and
from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
9. On behalf of the claimants, the claimants 1 & 4 were
examined as P.Ws.1 & 8 respectively and the other witnesses were
examined as P.Ws.2 to 7 and P.Ws.9 to 12 and Exs.A1 to A16 were
got marked. The 3rd respondent-Insurance company examined its
Branch Manager as R.W.1. A copy of the insurance policy of the
offending vehicle was marked as Ex.B1.
10. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle i.e., 1st respondent, resulting into the death of the
deceased.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
11. On the point of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal
determined the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month
i.e., Rs.1,44,000/- per annum. 1/4thwas deducted for personal
expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16.
The total dependency was taken as Rs.17,28,000/-. Adding thereto, a
sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.4,000/- for funeral expenses, the total
compensation was awarded by the Tribunal to a sum of
Rs.17,62,000/- with interest @ 7.5%.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
appeal has been preferred only on the point of quantum. He
submitted that the agricultural income as shown in Ex.A8 i.e.,
Rs,1,80,000/- (which is same as in Ex.X5) was not considered,
whereas considering the same, the claimants were entitled for the
supervisory charges. He also placed reliance on the documents
marked as Exs.A11 to A16. He submitted that the future prospects
were not granted by the Tribunal and the rate of interest @ 7.5 % is
on the lower side, which deserved to be enhanced.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
13. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the
following judgments:-
i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and Others1
ii) Kirti and others V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd2
iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kunti Binod Pande
and others3
iv) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram and
others4
v) K.Ramya & others V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Another5
14. Learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute the
finding recorded by the Tribunal on the points of age of the deceased,
¼ deduction for personal expenses and the multiplier of '16'.
15. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted
that the agricultural income was shown for the first time in Ex.A8
(Ex.X5), which was filed after the death of the deceased. There was
no evidence on record to show agricultural income, except the oral
evidence of the wife of the deceased. In the absence of any other
evidence, the Tribunal rightly did not consider the agricultural income
and did not add it to the annual income for the supervisory charges.
2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)
2021 ACJ 1 (SC)
2020 ACJ 2714 Bombay High Court
2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)
2022 Live Law (SC) 816
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
He further submitted that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality.
The compensation awarded is just and fair compensation, which
needs no enhancement.
16. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited V. Mannat Johal and Others6
17. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, did not
dispute on the point of not awarding future prospects and the rate of
interest @ 7.5 % per annum.
18. We have considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
19. The following points arise for our consideration and
determination :-
1. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just
and fair compensation to the appellants,
in the light of the submissions advanced
by the learned counsels or the
compensation awarded is inadequate
and deserves enhancement ?
2. Whether the interest @7.5 % as awarded
by the Tribunal is correct or is to be
enhanced ?
(2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 260
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
ANALYSIS :-
POINT No.1:-
(I) Agricultural Income/ Supervisory Charges :-
20. The Tribunal has considered the monthly income
@ Rs.12,000/-. The annual income comes to Rs.1,44,000/-. The
Tribunal did not take into account the agricultural income recording
the reason that Ex.A8(Ex.X5) was filed before the Income Tax
Department on 08.02.2008 i.e., long after the death of the deceased,
and under the circumstances, no importance could be attached to
that document. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of P.W.12-
Surpanch, Enikepadu, who deposed about the owning of Ac.10-00
cents of land by the deceased and about his earnings. However, no
material was placed before the Tribunal to prove that the deceased
was having such an extent of land in his name. No material by way
of the sale deeds or other documents of title was filed before the
Tribunal on the said aspect. The Tribunal considered Exs.A11 to 16-
Lease agreements, but observed that no weight could be attached to
those documents, as no other records were filed to prove that the
deceased was cultivating the land. Besides, those lease agreements
did not contain the signature of the deceased.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
21. We have perused Ex.A8 (Ex.X5)-Notarized copy of
Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2007-2008 filed before
the Tribunal, in which, for the first time, the agriculture income of the
deceased was shown as Rs,1,80,000/-. As per Ex.X4, Income Tax
Returns for the Assessment Year 2006-2007, the annual income from
business/profession is shown as Rs.1,18,500/- and the agricultural
income is shown as Rs.21,000/-. No other documents have been filed
to prove that the deceased was getting Rs,1,80,000/- from
agriculture. Besides, Ex.A8 was filed before the Income Tax
Department on 8.12.2008, i.e., long after the date of death of the
deceased i.e., 21.12.2007. In V.Subbulakshmi and others V.
S.Lakshmi and another 7 , where the accident took place on
07.05.1997 and the Income Tax returns were filed on 23.06.1997, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the income tax returns (Ex.P14),
therefore, had rightly not been relied upon. In Sutinder Pal Singh
Arora and others V. Ashok Kumar Jain and others8 , the Madhya
Pradesh High Court observed and held that the income tax returns
filed after the death of the deceased could not be taken into
consideration as the possibility of them being filed, by inflating the
income, could not be ruled out. In United Insurance Company
(2008) 4 SCC 224
2004 ACJ 782
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
Limited V.Shrinivas R. Kantam and others 9 , the Bombay High
Court held that the Income Tax returns filed after the date of the
death of the deceased for the purpose of deriving the loss of
dependency, were liable to be excluded.
22. Besides, in the previous year, as per Ex.X4 (Assessment
year 2006-2007) the income from agriculture was shown only as
Rs.21,000/-, whereas in Ex.A8/Ex.X5 filed after the death, it has
been highly increased to Rs. 1,80,000/-, which is only the next
assessment year.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
Exs.A11 to A16-Unregistered lease agreements along with receipts
show that the deceased had sufficient agricultural land, on lease. On
perusal, it is evident that Exs.A11 to A16 were not signed by the
deceased. As submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.3, the lease period of those documents was up to
4.05.2008,14.05.2008, & 24.09.2008, and consequently, the lease
period had also come to end. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that except Exs.A11 to A16, there is no document to show
other agricultural land. He submitted that the deceased did not own
any agricultural land, except on lease. So, even if we take Exs.A11 to
A16 as genuine documents, though not signed by the deceased,
FA.665 of 2019, dated 19.05.2020
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
there would be no lease of the agriculture land in favour of the
appellants to determine the supervisory charges based on Exs.A11 to
A16.
24. In V.Subbulakshmi's case (supra) with respect to the
lease, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that it was unregistered
document and consequently, along with other reasons recorded, it
was observed that the trial Court was right in not placing reliance on
those unregistered lease documents.
25. Thus, considered on the aspect of the agricultural
income, we do not find any illegality in the finding of the Tribunal.
26. The supervisory charges are normally given @10 to 15%
on the agricultural income. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Ramya and
Others. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd10., observed as under :
"21. Now, the sole issue which remains before this court is
whether the entire amount under 'Income from House
Property and Agricultural Land' should be deducted or not.
In this respect, we are guided by the observations of this
court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur11 wherein it was
noted that
8. x-x-x-x
The land possessed by the deceased still remains
with his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338
(2003) 7 SCC 484
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
claimants may be required to engage persons to look after
agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the
deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases
where agricultural income is the source. Attendant
circumstances have to be considered.
(Emphasis Applied)
22. In our opinion, the abovementioned observations,
though made in the context of agricultural land, would also
be applicable to rent received from leased out properties
as the loss of dependency arises mainly out of loss of
management capacity or efficiency. As a rule of prudence,
computation of any individual's managerial skills should lie
between 10 to 15 per cent of the total rental income but
the acceptable range can be increased in light of specific
circumstances. The appropriate approach, therefore, is to
determine the value of managerial skills along with any
other factual considerations".
27. But, in the present case, in view of the finding recorded
above on agricultural income; no agricultural land, there is no
occasion to grant any supervisory charges.
28. Considering Ex.X4, on the point of annual income, we
maintain the finding of the Tribunal on annual income as
Rs.1,44,000/-, though the Tribunal determined the same considering
the commitments of the deceased.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
(II) Future Prospects :-
29. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
future prospects. On the point of future prospects, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 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 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."
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
30. In Kirti's case (supra), future prospects and under
conventional heads, amount was considered as per Pranay Sethi's
case (supra).
31. In view of the Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and Kirti's
case (supra),, the claimants/appellants are entitled for addition of the
future prospects @ 40%, on income i.e., Rs.1,44,000/- as determined
by the Tribunal. The deceased was self employed and below age of
40 years. We grant the same.
(III) Conventional Heads :-
32. Under conventional heads, as per the judgment in
Pranay Sethi's case (supra), Magma's case (supra) and Smt.
Anjali and Others V. Lokendra Rathod and Others12 and
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur and Others13, the claimants are entitled for an
amount of Rs.48,000/- to each of the claimants being Rs.2,40,000/-
(Rs.48,000/- x 5) for loss of Consortium, Rs.18,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of Estate inclusive of
increase @ 10% per annum on every three years i.e., @ 20% as on
today. We accordingly grant the same.
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683
(2021) 11 SCC 780
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
33. In Kunti Binod's case (supra), the Bombay High Court
has held that it is the statutory obligation of the Court/Tribunal to
grant just compensation. There is no dispute. Law to above effect is
well settled.
34. Thus considered, the claimants/appellants are held
entitled in total to the following amount of compensation.
S. No. Head Compensation Awarded
1. Net Annual Income Rs.12,000/- x 12
Rs. 1,44,000/-
2. Future Prospects Rs. 57,600/-
(i.e., 40% of the income)
Total = Rs. 2,01,600/-
3. Deduction towards personal Rs.50,400/-
expenditure (i.e.1/4th )
4. Total annual loss Rs.1,51,200/-
5. Multiplier of 16 at the age of 32 years 16 x 1,51,200/- = Rs.24,19,200/-
6. Conventional Heads:
i) Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,40,000/-
(Rs. 48,000/- x 5)
ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/-
iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/-
7. Total Compensation Rs. 26,95,200/-
POINT No.2:-
(IV) Interest :-
35. The Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5% p.a. In Mannat
Johal's case (supra), upon which the learned Standing counsel for
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
respondent No.3 placed reliance, the Tribunal granted interest @
12%, which was reduced by the High Court to 7.5%. The Hon'ble
Apex Court did not interfere. In Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh and
others 14 the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the
Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the
High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @9%
p.a., from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma & Another
vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others15 , in Kirthi
and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,16 presently
in Smt. Anjali and Others V. Lokendra Rathod and Others,17 while
referring to Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors.18 the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% p.a., from the
date of claim petition till realization.
36. On the aforesaid amount the claimants are allowed
interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.
(V) Result :-
37. IN THE RESULT,
i) the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the
compensation as Rs.26,95,200/- by modifying the award of
(2015) 1 SCC 539
(2021) 6 SCC 188
(2021) 2 SCC 166
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683
(2020) 4 SCC 228
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
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 ;
iii) On such deposit being made, on realization,
the claimants/appellants shall be paid the same in the
proportion, as per the award.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date : 20.09.2024
Note:
L.R.Copy to be marked.
B/o. RPD.
(RNT,J& VN,J
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2906 OF 2012)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
(ALLOWED IN PART)
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2906 of 2012
DATE : 20.09.2024
Date : 20.09.2024
Note:
L.R.Copy to be marked.
B/o RPD.
