Telangana High Court

The Apsrtc vs Bhairavabatla Laxmi 4 Others on 23 December, 2021

Bench: P Naveen Rao, P.Sree Sudha

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                           AND
            HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                    MACMA No.1157 of 2014

                            JUDGMENT

(per Justice P.Sree Sudha)

1. This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation aggrieved by the Award dated 30.08.2013

passed in O.P.No.281 of 2012 on the file of the learned Motor

Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Nalgonda (for short, the Tribunal).

2. Perusal of the Award shows that Mr.Chandrashekara

Sharma (deceased) met with an accident on 13.01.2013 at about

8.30 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10Z 6745, as a result of which, he died

instantaneously. Therefore, the respondents herein filed the

aforesaid OP seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.

3. The Tribunal after appreciation of entire evidence on record

granted compensation of Rs.20,60,800/-. At the time of accident,

the deceased was working as Junior Assistant in Commercial Tax

Department, Suryapet. Basing on the evidence of P.W.1 and also

the salary certificate, which is marked as Ex.A.8, the age of the

deceased was taken as 42 years. P.W.1 stated that her husband

was having further period of 16 years of service and he may likely

to retire as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. His gross salary was

Rs.15,771/- and net salary was Rs.15,192/-. P.W.3 is the

Commercial Tax Officer, Suryapet, and Ex.A.8 was marked

through him. He further deposed that the deceased was working in

their office for the past 15 years and still he is having 14 years of

service and still there is a chance of getting three pay revisions by

which his salary would be enhanced and that there is much

chance for promotion and he may retire as Assistant Commercial

Tax Officer with the salary of Rs.65,000/- along with pension

benefits if he could not met with an accident. Considering the

above aspects, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased

as Rs.15,844/- per month and rounded it to Rs.16,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that there is

no proof of income and age of the deceased and as such taking the

age of the deceased as 42 years and assessing his monthly income

at Rs.20,800/- is without basis. He would further argue that the

actual net salary of the deceased per month was Rs.15,192/-, but

the Tribunal erred in rounding of the same and that though the

deceased was a Government employee, his Service Register was not

called for to ensure his date of birth.

5. The proper method of computation is the multiplier method.

Basically, three aspects need to be established by the claimants for

assessing the compensation in case of death are (1) Age of the

deceased, (2) Income of deceased and (3) number of dependents.

The issues that have to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at

the loss of dependency are i) Additions/Deductions to be made for

arriving at income, ii) The deductions to be made towards personal

living expenses of the deceased, iii) The multiplier to be applied

with reference to the age of the deceased.

6. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the Tribunal has

taken the age of the deceased as 42 years and the multiplier was

taken as 14. Regarding income of the deceased, it was brought in

evidence that he was getting a salary of Rs.15,192/- and there is

no evidence regarding his future promotions. Though the deceased

was having 14 years of service, this Court finds it reasonable to

take his income as Rs.15,192/- per month, which comes to

Rs.1,82,304/- per annum (Rs.15,192/- x 12 = Rs.1,82,304/-), and

if 30% is added towards future prospects, as the deceased was a

permanent employee, the annual income comes to Rs.2,36,995.20

ps. (Rs.1,82,304/- + 30% on Rs.1,82,304/-). The claimants are

wife, children and parents of the deceased. As they are five in

number, 1/4th was to be deducted towards his personal expenses

and it comes to Rs.1,77,746.40 ps. (Rs.2,36,995.20 ps -

Rs.59,248.80 Ps.). If the same is multiplied with the appropriate

multiplier i.e. 14, the loss of dependency would come to

Rs.1,77,746.40 Ps. x 14 = Rs.24,88,449.60 Ps.

7. Further, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-

towards loss of consortium, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate love

and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants relied upon

a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in N.JAYASREE

V/s. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD.1 in which an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate,

Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- towards

consortium were granted. As per the said judgment, the first

respondent is entitled for Rs.44,000/- towards spousal

consortium, the second and third respondents are entitled for

parental consortium at the rate of Rs.44,000/- each (total

Rs.88,000/-) and the fourth and fifth respondents are entitled for

2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 642

filial consortium at the rate of Rs.44,000/- each (total Rs.88,000/).

Thus, the respondents/claimants are entitled for total

compensation of Rs.27,42,449.60 ps (Rs.2,20,000/- + Rs.16,500/-

+ Rs.16,500/- + Rs.24,88,449.60).

9. Learned counsel for the appellant objected the above said

claim on the ground that the respondents have not preferred any

appeal for enhancement of the claim against the Award of the

Tribunal and thus they are not entitled for enhancement of the

said amount in the appeal preferred by them.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants relied on the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in JITENDRA

KHIMSWHANKAR TRIVEDI V/s. KASAM DAUD KUMBHAR2 to

contend that even when claimants have not preferred appeal it is

permissible for the appellate Court to enhance the compensation.

11. Admittedly, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial

legislation and thus the provisions shall be interpreted in favour of

the claimants. While considering the claim petition by the Tribunal

or in appeal, the Tribunal or the appellate Court can assess the

entitlement of claimants for appropriate compensation as per laid

down norms and settled principles for determination of

compensation. The Tribunal or the appellate Court has to see what

is the just compensation payable to a family who have lost a

person in a motor accident. In arriving at just compensation it is

competent to appellate Court to enhance the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the opposite party

and eve when the claimant has not preferred the appeal. In

(2015) 4 SCC 237

JITENDRA KHIMSWHANKAR TRIVEDI's case (supra) the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that in a motor vehicle accident the claimants

are entitled for enhancement of compensation even in the absence

of appeal.

12. The Tribunal disposed of this O.P. in the year 2013 and the

appellant herein preferred appeal in the year 2014, but during the

pendency of the proceedings in the appeal, the Apex Court laid

down several principles in respect of future prospects, consortium

and it was also held specifically in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

LTD., V/s. PRANAY SETHI3 that the amounts mentioned in the

heads - loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium shall be

enhanced by 10% for every three years. As this appeal came up for

hearing in the year 2021, the respondents-claimants herein are

entitled for the amount of Rs.2,53,000/- under the above

conventional heads. Hence, the total compensation amount comes

to Rs.27,41,449.60 Ps. The respondents-claimants are also entitled

for interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of Award till its

realisation. Therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled to

the compensation in detail shown in the tabular format.

     1)     Loss of dependency                       Rs.24,88,449.60

     2)     Spousal Consortium - Rs.44,000/-
            Parental Consortium - Rs.88,000/-
            Filial Consortium   - Rs.88,000/-         Rs.2,20,000.00

     3)     Loss of Estate                              Rs.16,500.00

     4)     Funeral Expenses                            Rs.16,500.00

            Total compensation                       Rs.27,41,449.60





    2017 (16) SCC 680

13. As regards the apportionment, this Court confirms the view

taken by the Tribunal. However, the parents of the deceased are

entitled for permission to withdraw their share of Rs.2,00,000/-

each. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation

amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment, and on such deposit, the respondents-claimants are

permitted to withdraw the amounts as directed by the Tribunal.

14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed enhancing the

compensation of Rs.26,60,800/- awarded by the Tribunal to

Rs.27,41,449.60 Ps. With regard to the interest and

apportionment, the Award of the Tribunal shall be intact. It is

informed that the fourth claimant died and hence the fifth