Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER MACMA No. 3578 of 2012 Between: Smt. Kalapala Bhanu Prabhavathi, W/o. Narasimha Rao, Female, Hindu, aged 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Satyanarayanapuram, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Smt. Chintamaneni Suneetha, W/o. Viamala Roy, Female, Hindu, aged 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Satyanarayanapuram, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Sri Kalapala Murali Krishna, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Male, Hindu, aged 30 years, R/o. Satyanarayanapuram, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District. 1. 2. 3. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND Sri Varre Nagarjuna, S/o. Seetharamayya, Male, Hindu, aged 39 years. Driver of Lorry No. AP 07 U 5377, R/o. Udarlapadu, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 1. 2. Sri B.Naresh, S/o. Satyanarayana, Male, Hindu, aged not known. Owner of Lorry No. AP 07 U 5377 R/o. D.No. 12-2-4/2, Bavisettivaripet, Eluru, West Godavari District. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ramachandrarao Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Decree and award dated 08.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.914 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Eluru, West Godavari District. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgement and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y V Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Sri Ravi Kumar Represents on behalf of Sri S Agastya Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
f This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part. 2. That the compensation amount from Rs.7,69,000/- to Rs.8,45,000/- interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization be and is hereby enhanced. 3. That the 3"'^ respondent/insurance Company shall deposit balance compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of Sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of Orders of this Court in the present appeal. 4. That on such deposit, the petitioner is hereby entitled to claim a sum of Rs.7,45,000/- with proportionate interest and entire costs, and the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to claim a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with proportionate interest. 5. That on such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their share of compensation amount with accrued interest. 6. That there be no order as to costs in the appeal. with Sd/- S SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Eluru West Godavari District. a . 2. Three CD Copies To TK vna
I / HIGH COURT DATED:07/10/2023 <;■ DECREE MACMA.No.3578 of 2012 ;'fv' \\ i 2 1 MAR 202^ rn 4y PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA _S'/y )3jd3^^^
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER MACMA No. 602 of 2016 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager. Branch Office, Ramachandrarao pet, Eluru, by its Authorized Signatory, Regional Manager, Regional Office. #48-14-111, 2"'^ Floor, Sri Nitya Complex, 0pp. Karnataka Bank, Ramatalkies Road, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam-13 (Res.No 2) (Policy No. 463001/31/2011/2769, Valid up to 22/6/2011) ...Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND 1. Smt.Kalapala Bhanu Prabhavathi, W/o Narsimha Rao, Female, Hindu, aged 51 years. Housewife, R/o Satya Narayanapuram, Denduluru Mandal, W.G.District 2. Chinthamani Suneetha, Vimala Roy, Female, Hindu, aged 33 years. House wife, R/o Satya Narayanapuram, Denduluru Mandal, W.G.District 3. Sri Kalapala Murali Krishna, S/o Narasimha Rao, Male. Hindu, aged 33 years, R/o Satya Narayanapuram, Denduluru Mandal, W.G.District (Claim Petitioners) 4. Sri Varre Nagarjuna, S/o Seetha Ramayya, Male, Hindu, aged 40 years. Driver of Lorry No. AP 07-U 5377, R/o Udaralapadu, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District, D.L.No. DLDAP I 3711492010 valid upto 10-11-2011 LA Bhimavaram, D.No. 2-36 (Res.No.1) (R-4 dismissed vide court order dated 13.08.2015) 5. Sri B.Naresh, S/o Satyanarayana, Male, Hindu, aged not known. Owner of Lorry No.AP 07-U 5377, R/o 12-2-4/2, Bavisettivaripet, Eluru, W G District (Res. No.2) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 8/8/2012 passed in MVO.P.No.914 of 2010 by MACT- cum-Principal District Judge Eluru. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgement and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record
and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ravi Kumar Represents on behalf of Sri S Agastya Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri B V Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2. Sd/- S SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// cr SECTION OFFICER The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Eluru, West Godavari District. Three CD Copies To 1. 2. TK vna
• HIGH COURT ^ DATED:07/10/2023 DECREE MACMA.No.602 of 2016 ■.% 4-'v • '5 k- 2 I MAR 202'! »ATC Vi’fS DISMISSING THE MACMA hpci
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY. THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUND MACMA Nos. 3578 of 2012 and 602 of 2016 MACMA No. 3578 of 2012 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Decree and award dated 08.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.914 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Eluru, West Godavari District. Between: 1. Smt. Kalapala Bhanu Prabhavathi, W/o. Narasimha Rao, Female, Hindu, aged 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Satyanarayanapuram, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Smt. Chintamaneni Suneetha, W/o. Viamala Roy, Female, Hindu, aged 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Satyanarayanapuram, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. Sri Kalapala Murali Krishna, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Male, Hindu, aged 30 years, R/o. Satyanarayanapuram, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Sri Varre Nagarjuna, S/o. Seetharamayya, Male, Hindu, aged 39 years. Driver of Lorry No. AP 07 U 5377, R/o. Udarlapadu, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 2. Sri B.Naresh, S/o. Satyanarayana, Male, Hindu, aged not known. Owner of Lorry No. AP 07 U 5377 R/o. D.No. 12-2-4/2, Bavisettivaripet, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ramachandrarao Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District. ...Respondents/ Respondents Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Sri Y V Ravi Prasad : Sri Ravi Kumar Represents on behalf of Sri S Agastya Sharma
IVjOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 602 nf ?nifi OrH ■'^3 Of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 8/8/2012 passed in MVO.P.No.914 of 2010 by MACT- cum-Principal District Judge Eluru. ^ Between; The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office (Poncvr4f3r,3Sv276“,Vrur^^^^ ...Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND 1. Smt.Kalapala Bhanu Prabhavathi, W/o Narsimha Rao. Female Hindu aaed W.GO,st«''' '^-^-y^napuram, Denduluru Mandai ' ^ 2. Chinthamani Suneetha, Vimala Roy, Female, Hindu, wife, R/o Satya Narayanapuram, Denduluru Mandai,’ Narasimha Rao, Male, Hindu, aged 33 years PeUtfonere)^^'^^'^^"^'’^'^^'"' Vandal, W.G.District (Claim Ramayya, Male, Hindu, aged 40 years Driver of Lorry No, AP 07-U 5377, R/o Udaralapadu, Kaikaluru ManS Krishna District, D.L.No, DLDAP I 3711492010 valid upto 10-11-2011 LA Bhimavaram, D.No. 2-36 (Res.No.1) ^ uii,l.a. {R-4 dismissed vide court order dated 13.08.2015) 5. Sri B.Naresh, S/o Satyanarayana, Male Hindu Lorry No.AP 07-U 5377, R/o 12-2-4/2 (Res. No.2) aged 33 years. House W.G.District aged not known. Owner of Bavisettivaripet, Eluru, W.G.District. ...Respondents LA. NO: 1 OF 2016fMACMAMP Mr>- □ 4 . ^ ^ - 931 OF 20161 08 OR 9019 "^‘^''^ding execution of order and decree dated Judge, Bum, wrsfGjSavar™.°'^’^'"°^ MACT-cum-Principal District Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondents : Sri B V Krishna Reddy The Court made the following; COMMON JUDGMENT : Sri Ravi Kumar Represents on behalf of Sri S Agastya Sharma
SSSJ HACMA.Noi-.35?'8 of 2012 £r 602 of 2016 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER MACMA NOs,3578 of 2012 and 602 of 2ni,fi COMMON JUDGMENT Both Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of MVOP No.914 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari Eluru can be disposed of by Common Judgment. 2. The MACMA No.3578 of 2012 is filed by the appellants/ claimants, whereas MACMA No.602 of 2016 is filed by the 3^^ respondent/insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to M.V.Act"), challenging the Award passed by the Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in MVOP No.914 of 2010, dated 08.08.2012, wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,69,000/- to the petitioners with interest at 7.5% annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, against the claim of the claimants a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-. 3. The appellants in MACMA No.3578 of 2012, who respondent Nos.l to 3 in MACMA No.602 of 2016, and the at as Motor per are
MACm.N.M3578 of 2012 £, 602 ofloU after referred to respondent/insurance Company for the sake of brevity appellant in MAGMA No.602 of 2016 herein as petitioners and the 3'^ arrayed before the Tribunal convenience. as and 4. The petitioners have filed the of the MV Act,. 1939 read with 1994, claiming compensation of of one Mr.K.Narasimha Rao (herein a motor vehicle accident, that 4.00 p.m on NH-5 road i ‘ Godavari District. petition under Section 166 Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V.Rules, Rs. 18,00,000/- for the death after called as "deceased") occurred on 30.07.2010 at in Satyanarayanapuram village of West in 5. The case of the petitioners at about 4.00 village of West Godavari in brief is that on 30.07.2010 p.m on NH-5 road in Satyanarayanapuram District when the deceased proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 AV 9548, lorry bearing registration No.AP 07 offending vehicle") belongs to the 2 with the 3'’^ respondent/ Insurance was U 5377 (herein after referred to as nd respondent, insured Company, driven by the 1^*^ respondent in deceased motorcycle, due a rash and negligent manner, dashed the to which the deceased sustained
3 BSSJ MACMA.SJoi^.3578 of 2012 Or 602 of 2016 grievous injuries all over his body, then immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Ashram Hospital, Eluru, wherein he was treated as inpatient, and the deceased succumbed to the Injuries on 03.08.2010. The petitioners submit that they spent Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses of the deceased during the period of treatment. A report lodged before the Station House Officer, Denduluru Police Station, who registered the case against the 1 respondent for the offence punishable under Section 304-A St IPC. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was aged 52 years, who was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by way of cultivating agricultural land on lease, and also by running Dairy Farm. They claimed compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- on various heads. The 1^*^ respondent/driver of offending vehicle, and the 2"^^ respondent/owner of offending vehicle remained ex-parte 6. before the Tribunal and not chosen to contest the case. The 3’’'^ respondent/insurance Company filed counter. 7. denying the accident manner in which it was occurred, age and income of the deceased prior to the accident. They submit that
4 S55J MACMA.hJoy.3578 of 2012 6r 602 of2016 accident occurred due to negligent driving of the deceased, who had no valid driving licensG, petitioners is highly excessive. They petition. and the claim of the pray to dismiss the 8. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial 1. "Whether the motor vehicle accident on 30.07.2010 near Satyanarayanapuram cross road on NH-5 road, account of the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.AP 07 5377 by respondent No.l/driver, resulting the death of the deceased Kalapala Narasimha Rao? arose on 2. Whether the petitioners and if so, for what respondents? are entitled for compensation amount and from which of the 3. To what relief"? 9- On behalf of the petitioners, examined. Exs.Al to A9 and Exs.Xl and X2 behalf of the 3""' PW.l to PW.6 were were marked. On respondent/insurance Company, evidence was adduced, but Ex.Bl/copy of Insurance policy marked with consent. no oral
5 BSSJ MACMA.Nc^.3578 of 2012 &r 602 of 2016 10. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,69,000/- only to the petitioner while dismissing the petition in respect of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, directing the respondents are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 11. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners/claimants have presented the appeal, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is at lower side, which failed to consider the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6, who categorically deposed that the deceased was cultivating the lands on lease, who was also maintaining Dairy Farm, having 50 to 60 buffaloes. They submit that the Tribunal awarded interest at 6% which ought to have allowed 12% as per the prevailing rate, as per the recent Judgments. They pray to allow the appeal. 12. The 3''^ respondent/insurance Company also presented the appeal, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioner is at higher side. They submit that the Tribunal without any valid documents, fixed the
BSSJ £r 602 of 2016 ^ACMA.SJo^.SS^S of2012 as Rs. 10,000/- per month and per annum, which is erroneous. notional income of the deceased awarded interest at 7.5% They pray to allow the appeal. 13. I have heard both sides. 14. The learned Mr.B.V.Krishna Counsel for the Reddy would petitioners have adduced the petitioners/claimants submit that though evidence of PW.5 and PW.6, who the deceased the have categorically deposed that Ac.50.00 of agricultural Farm, as he was cultivating land, and he maintaining Dairy was having 50 to 60 buffaloes, the Tribunal was on erroneous appreciation of evidence not considered the said evidence. He submits that there IS no possibility of proving the and the Motor Vehicles beneficial legislation, the provision of the income of the deceased. Act is same has to be interpreted in favour of the claimants, motor vehicle accident. who are victims of the He would further submit that interest IS against to the ratio laid down It is the contention of the learned rate awarded by the Tribunal by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Counsel for the petitioners that the compensation awarded by
7 3SSJ HACMA.SJay.SSrS of 2012 602 of 2016 the Tribunal has to be enhanced. He relied on the following decisions. 1) K.Ramya and others, vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in motor vehicle accident claims, compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable, and the determination of quantum is a fact- dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious. It is also held that entire amount under income of house property and agricultural land need not be deducted merely because properties have been bequeathed to the dependents. The compensation towards loss of managerial skills can be awarded, and explained the concept of just compensation at para Nos.11 and 12, which reads as under: "11. At the outset, it is pertinent to reiterate the concept of 'just' compensation under Section 168 of the Act. It is a settled proposition, now through a catena of decisions including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (n 1), para 55 that compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further, the determination of quantum is a fact-dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious. It must be emphasized that compensation is a more comprehensive form of pecuniary relief which involves a broad-based approach unlike damages as noted by this Court in Yadava Kumar v Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited. (2010) 10 SCC 341, para 17. The discussion in the above mentioned cases highlights that Tribunals under the Act have been granted reasonable
8 BSSJ 602 of 2016 }^ACMA.Noir'.3578 of 2012 loss unlike in the case 0fLm^seTcTeZf^"f1^ Appellate Courts should ordiLrily be oompensatlonls'exorbltant'or'arbitrar^'. 12. Furthermore, Motor Vehicles Act nf laao ■ welfare legislation that seeks to ornuinl ^ beneficial and contemporaneous position of an inH- as per the forward-looking. Unlike tortuous iiaNnt^'^^t. essentially With making up Z thTpast concerned original position, the compensatioLneTr^hetfisT"'^"* a providing stability and continuity in nfnniL^i concerned with Keeping the above mentioned principles fn thJ'Zriid move on to the facts at hand" ^ backdrop, we now 2) New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hussain 2022 ACJ 2168 of Gujarat at spousal consortium, consortium has to be awarded in Haji Adam Sumra through heirs. Ahmedabad, wherein it is held that parental consortium and filial motor vehicle death cases. 3)Bhartiben Mansukhbhai Desai and others vs. Bhikhubhai Kurjibhai Desai and another. wherein it is held that Tribunal after 2020 ACJ 2528, considering Income Tax took income from business returns filed by the deceased Rs. 15,888/- at per month, and agricultural i per month, and total Rs. 18,888/- towards personal future income at Rs.3,000/- per month, deducted 1/4^^ -- income towards prospects, and adopted multiplier of 13, and allowed expenses, added 25% of i
9 BSSJ MACm.Noy.3578 of 2012 £r 602 of 2016 Rs.27,62,292 + Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses, and awarded Rs.17,73,900/-, which enhanced by the High Court as Rs.28,32,292/-. 4) Harpreet Kaur and others, vs. Mohinder Yadav and others. 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1465, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para Nos.9, 10 and 11, which reads as under: "9. This court is of the opinion that even while the High Court increased the level of income, it did not address the issue in the correct perspective. The documentary evidence on record showed that the deceased was cultivating 66 acres, and was entitled to a third of the value of produce from income of those agricultural lands. In addition, he owned and was getting over 12 acres cultivated. The admitted returns were to the tune of f 95,000/-. According to the fifst appellant (the deceased's wife) the deceased's income was f 1,00,000/- per month; the claim was for an extent of f 1 crore. Whilst there is no evidence for the latter amount, the documentary evidence supported the appellant's case in regard to cultivation of extensive lands. Having regard to these facts, the assessment of income @ f 95,000/- appears to be on the lower end, and Insufficient. It would in the circumstances of the case, be appropriate that the actual Income should be computed @ f 1,50,000/- per annum. Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income (? 1,50,000 + f 60,000) amounts to f 2,10,000. With a l/4th deduction (4 dependents), the annual loss of dependency (?2,10,000 Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e., 1,57,500 X 16) is Rs.25,20,000. f52,500) would be fl,57,500. 10. The appellants had urged that the amount towards loss of consortium awarded - especially in favour of the fourth petitioner, is too iow. A sum of MO,000/- was awarded towards spousal consortium and f1,00,000/- towards filiai and parental consortium. 11. On the issue of consortium, this court had observed, in Raiesh V. Raibir Sinah. 2013 9 SCO 54, that:
10 <irrv. ■BSSJ £r 602 of 2016 M/4CM,4.^;o3,357s of2012 '17. ■■■In legal parlance, spouse to the consortium company, care, help, society, solace, affection and mate. That non- is the right of the comfort, guidance, sexual relations with his pecuniary head of damages h^c properly understood by our ^ or her not been rsTS „T r«T “ one of the major heads of ports of the world America, Australia, the right of consortium is award of compensation in other more particularly in the United States etc. English courts have also oeriod nf t ^ compensation period of temporary disablement, courts have made of recognised even during the /oss of consortium, the future years Unlil,^ relations during the would not be are compensated for the pecuniary loss it head. Hence weeT of ^ iakh ior toss of consortium. rupees one He prays to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. The learned Counsel, Insurance Company would notional income of the proper evidence. He evidence of PW.3, income of the deceased, representing the 3'"'^ submit that the Tribunal respondent/ fixed deceased as Rs, 10,000/- without would further submit that any as per the and EXS.A7 to A9, there is which are created by the no proof of petitioners
11 BSSJ MACMA.No-y.3578 of 2012 <5- 602 of 2016 for claiming more compensation. He prays to reduce the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, and allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this 16. Court is:- "Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable^ which needs enhancement"? 17. POINT: It is not in dispute that the deceased, who is the husband of the petitioner, and father of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 30.07.2010 at 4.00 p.m while he was proceeding on a motorcycle, who succumbed to the injuries on 03.08.2010 while undergoing treatment. The petitioners have also filed Exs.Al to A5 criminal case records to support their contention rd manner in which accident occurred. The 3 respondent/ Insurance Company, who pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, has not chosen to adduce any oral evidence on their behalf. The petitioners able to prove that St accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1
12 ■BSSJ <5- 602 of 2016 was driver of offending vehicle, wherein the f^ACHA.Moi'.SSZS of 2012 respondent, who deceased died. 18. The main contention of the petitioners is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i failed to consider the by the deceased pri PW.3 to PW.6. The Company is that the PW.3 to PW.5 and Exs.A6 the Tribunal, but deceased document. IS at lower side, which agricultural lands, which prior to his death. were cultivated per the evidence of as contention of the 3'"'^ respondent/insurance petitioners have created the evidence of to A9, which rightly considered erroneously fixed notional income of the by as Rs.10,000/- per month without any valid to extract the with regard to income of the in Issue No.2 of its Award, which reads Now, discussion of the Tribunal it would be beneficial deceased at Para No.9 i as under: It is the case of the petitioners made per 'the materiai averments - deceased as in their petition that the Rs. 30,000/- per month by was earning way of doing leasehold cultivation and by running dairy farm by the date the above aspect of the of his death. As far as case of the petitioners i oniy to prove the IS concerned, same. No doubt, the Secretary of burden is upon them petitioners have examined the Panchayat
13 3SSJ MACMA.Noy.3578 of 2012 6- 602 of 2016 Denduluru, Y.D. Krishna and R.Suresh Prasad as PWs.3, 4 and 6 respectively before the Tribunal. PW.S has deposed about the avocation of the deceased and about his issuing Exs.A? and A8 certificates out of it, Ex.A7 was issued along with Sarpanch during the course of his evidence before the Tribunal. Whereas, PW.4 has deposed about his owning of 22 acres along with his brother in Satyanarayanapuram and about the cultivation of the same by deceased on lease. Similarly, PW.6 has deposed about the owning of land of Ac. 4- 00 in Satyanarayanapuram village by the wife of his elder brother, giving of authorization under Ex.XI to him to depose on her behalf and about the cultivation of the same on lease by deceased before the Tribunal. But the evidence of PWs.4 and 6 will be appreciated by the Tribunal only when they produce and mark the relevant documents of title so as to prove their respective ownership over the above landed property. But PWs.4 and 6 have not produced and marked any such documents of title before the Tribunal. While coming to the evidence of PW.3, the same will be appreciated by the Tribunal only, when it is supported by the relevant entries in revenue records. Especially when it is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was cultivating the land on lease, undoubtedly entries will be made in adangals showing his status as such and the evidence of PW.3 that there will not be any such entry In such adangals Is quite evasive. The petitioners have also examined the President of Vijaya Milk Producers Association of Satyanarayanapuram village as PW.5 who deposed about the supplying of milk by deceased from his dairy farm to the above Association with reference to
14 mcm.Noi.3S7S of 2012 £, 602 of20U Ex.A9 certificate during the Tribunal. But the above course of his evidence before the oral evidence will be appreciated by produces and marks the relevant accounts of his Association, respondent put a specific question above aspect, he the Tribunal only when he entries In the When the 3''^ to PW.5 with regard to the specifically admitted about his failure to bring such accounts to Tribunal. In that view of the matter, evidence of PW. 5 must be treated far as Ex.X2 as parrot wise evidence. /4s copy of minutes book IIS concerned, a careful perusal of the same shows that he same will not clinch the issue in any way. Hence, under the above circumstances, case of the petitioners regarding the avocation and earnings of the ora! and documentary deceased on the basis of the above evidence cannot be appreciated". 19. A perusal of above discussion which makes it clear that the evidence adduced by the made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal extensively discussed petitioners with regard to income and fixed notional of the deceased prior to the accident, income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- considering the status of the deceased per month, after in the society and his members. It is no doubt true commitments towards his family that awarding just vehicle accident claims mandatory, which also held compensation to the victims of the motor under Section 168 of the MV Act is by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
15 SSSJ MACMA.NOi'.SSTS of 2012 Sr 602 of 2016 K.Ramva and others case, referred supra relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, there was annple evidence to show that the deceased in those cases was an Income Tax assessee, and he was a landlord to show that he was having agricultural lands. In the present case, the petitioners have not filed any cultivation accounts to support their contention that the deceased was cultivating Ac.50.00 of agricultural land on lease, though not required to file income of the agriculturist as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of PW.l and also after elaborately discussing the contents in Ex.A4/Photostat copy of Post-mortem report, rightly came to conclusion that the age of the deceased was 56 years on the date of his death. The Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are majors cannot be considered as dependents on the income of the deceased, but failed to award any compensation under the head of loss of filial consortium. 20. The Judicial dictum evolved on the principles of assessing compensation is under the following heads:-
16 BSSJ <5- 602 of2016 of consortium, loss of expenses and (iii) contributory negligence i^ACMA.Noi^.3578 of 2012 (i) loss of dependency, (ii) loss estate and funeral if any. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court i Appellants Vs. Delhi in Smt.Sarla Verma and others, & another, important factors to be Transport Corporation Respondents^, laid down that the i considered while assessing compensation are:- (a) age of the deceased at the (b) income of the deceased (c) the number of dependants left To adequately take into account all these factors i calculating loss of dependency, adopted time of his death; at the time of death ; and behind. in the following methodology was Actual income of the deceased and living expenses of the deceased multiplier. per annum (-) personal (+) future prospects (x) The actual income is based within on income less tax, if the Hon'ble Apex income is taxable. The Court AIR 2009 SC 3104
17 ■BSSJ MACMA.Noy.3578 of 2012 & 602 of 2016 Constitutional Bench in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ^ ,_approve6 the ratio and multiplier as held in Smt.Sarla Verma's case referred supra. Now, it would be beneficial to quote para '61' of Pranav Sethi's case which reads as under:- [61] In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not binding precedent. (iii) 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 ^ 2017 ACJ 2700
18 BSSJ <5- 602 of 2016 15%. Actual salary should ^ACh4A.Noy.3578 of 2012 60 years, the addition should be read as actual salary less tax. be (iv) In case the deceased salary, an addition of 40% of be the warrant where the was self-employed or on a fixed the established income should deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the the age of 40 to 50 deceased was between years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of means the income minus the tax computation. The established iincome component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the shall be guided by paragraphs 30 for courts to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of Table in Sarla Verma judgment. multiplier shall be read with as indicated in the paragraph 42 of that (vii) The age of the deceased the multiplier, (viii) Reasonable figures of estate, loss of Rs. 15,000/-, aforesaid amounts should be every three years." should be the basis for applying on conventional heads, namely, loss consortium and funeral expenses should be respectively. The enhanced at the rate of 10% in Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
19 BSSJ MACHA.SJoy.3578 of 2012 £r 602 of 2016 22. In the present case, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- under the head of loss of dependency, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1^*^ petitioner, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. In total awarded compensation of Rs.7,69,000/- to the 1^^ petitioner. but the Tribunal failed to award filial consortium to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, and interest rate, which awarded by the Tribunal is only at 7.5% per annum. Now, it would be beneficial to quote the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Kiran, through her father Harinarayan. Appellant vs. Sajjan Singh and others. Respondents^ at para 21 (d), it is held that "Further, we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in granting interest rate at only 6% per annum and 7.5% per annum respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 9% per annum by applying the decision of this Court in MCD vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association in (2011) 14 SCC 481. ^ (2015) 1 SCC 539
20 TiSSJ £r 602 of 2016 ^ACMA.hJo^3578 of 2012 we awarded the interest @90/0 compensation determined in these appeals". Accordingly^ per annum on the 23. The Tribunal also funeral Apex Court Constitutional •n Eranay Sethi'c not awarded just compensation expenses as per the ratio laid towards down by the Hon'ble Bench in the above referred decision C3^. The petitioners are entitled to claim the following amounts deceased i as compensation for the death in motor vehicle accident. A of the sum of Rs.7,20,000/- under the head of loss of towards medical dependency, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral 1“ petitioner is entitled to claim expenses. The a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards and the petitioner Nos.2 spousal consortium, entitled to claim a and 3 are sum of Rs.40,000/- petitioners are entitled to claim towards filial consortium. In total, the of Rs.8,45,000/- annum for the death accident. As rightly held by the entitled to claim the a sum as compensation with interest at 90/0 of the deceased i per - in motor vehicle Tribunal, the petitioner is compensation amount, whereas the
21 BSSJ HACHA.Mo.y3578 of 2012 <& 602 of 2016 petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as legal heirs of the deceased, some portion of the compensation has to be awarded to them. 24. In the result, MAGMA No.602 of 2016 is dismissed. MAGMA No.3578 of 2012 is allowed in part enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.7,69,000/- to Rs.8,45,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the rd date of realization. The 3 respondent/insurance Gompany shall deposit balance compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of Sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of Orders of this Gourt in the present appeal. On such deposit, the l®*^ petitioner is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.7,45,000/- with proportionate interest and entire costs, and the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to claim a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with proportionate interest. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their share of compensation amount with accrued interest. No order as to costs. Gonsequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay if any granted, shall stand vacated. Sd/- S SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT^ REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Eluru, West Godavari District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Y V Ravi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S Agastya Sharma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the lower court records) 6. Three CD Copies To TK Vna
HIGH COURT DATED:07/10/2023 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.Nos.3578 of 2012 & 602 of 2016 OF ' ^ 21 MAR 202A i.i; S PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA No.3578 of 2012 AND DISMISSING THE MAGMA No.602 of 2016 9/^ SloS» )3 03