Manda Sunitha And 3 Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6231 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3687 of 2008

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.214 of

2004, dated 13.09.2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as

arrayed in the O.P.

3. The appellants are the claimants. The O.P. was filed by the

claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming

compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of death of the

deceased/Manda Mohan, in the accident which occurred on

05.02.2004 at 11.00 p.m.. The said accident occurred while the

deceased along with one Manda Manohar were proceeding to

Nallabelli village in an Auto bearing No.AP-36-V-4950 and when

they reached old Bus stand, Atmakur village, the RTC bus bearing

No.AP-11-Z-2983, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed against the Auto. As a result, the deceased and his

GAC, J MACMA.No.3687 of 2008

friend sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to injuries

while undergoing treatment in MGM hospital, Warangal.

4. Basing on the complaint of the friend of the deceased, a case

was registered against the driver of the Bus in Crime No.20 of

2004 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC on the

file of Atmakur Police Station, Warangal District. The claimants

are the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased. It is the

specific averment that the deceased was hale and healthy and was

earning Rs.6,000/- as an Auto driver and was contributing the same

to the family.

5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents

disputing the age and income of the deceased. It was further

contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of

the Bus.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

GAC, J MACMA.No.3687 of 2008

7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal for

enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence

would be with respect to the quantum alone.

8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record.

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that

the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased as

Rs.2,000/- per month and prayed to consider the income of the

deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month by applying proper multiplier

and also to grant future prospects and amounts under other

Notional heads while calculating the compensation and prayed to

allow the appeal.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-

Insurance Company contended that there is no error or irregularity

in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same

and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal confirming the

judgment of the Tribunal.

GAC, J MACMA.No.3687 of 2008

11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no

dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on

05.02.2004. PW-1 is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the minor

children and claimant Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased.

In the absence of proper evidence, the Tribunal has taken the

income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. Ex.A-5 is the

driving licence of the deceased, which was in force as on the date

of the accident.

12. Admittedly, the age of the deceased as on the date of the

accident was 26 years as per Exs.A-2 and A-3 i.e. inquest and

postmortem reports of the deceased respectively.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa

v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd1., taken the

income of the deceased/coolie, as Rs.4,500/- per month.

Therefore, taking into consideration the above said proposition, the

income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month, for the

year 2004.

(2011) 13 SCC 236

GAC, J MACMA.No.3687 of 2008

14. As already stated supra, the deceased was aged about 26

years as on the date of the accident and the income of the deceased

can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. If 40% future prospects is

added, it would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500+1800). The

claimants in this case are six in number and 1/4th has to be

deducted if the number of dependants are 4 to 6. Thus, his

contribution towards family would come to Rs.4,725/- (Rs.6,300 -

1,575) As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2,

the multiplier applicable is '17' for the age group of 26 to 30 years.

If the annual income and multiplier '17' are applied, then, the loss

of earnings of the deceased would be Rs.9,63,900/- (Rs.4,725 X 12

X 17).

15. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others3, wife and children

of the deceased (appellants before the Court) are entitled to

Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards

funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.No.3687 of 2008

16. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the compensation under

the following heads;

 1.   Loss of dependency                      Rs.9,63,900/-
 2.   Funeral expenses                        Rs.15,000/-
 3.   Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to the     Rs.1,60,000/-
      wife and 3 children of the deceased)
 4.   Loss of estate                          Rs.15,000/-
      TOTAL                                   Rs.11,53,900 /-

17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total

compensation of Rs.11,53,900/- with costs and interest at the rate

of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realisation, payable by respondent No.1/RTC within one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appellant Nos.2 to

4 were minors as on the date of filing of appeal i.e. on 08.09.2008,

and as on today, they became majors. Therefore, all the appellants

are equally entitled for the compensation amount and they are

permitted to withdraw their respective shares, on payment of

deficit Court fee.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 29.11.2022 ajr