Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chegu Venkata Padmavathi 2 Ors vs B.Chinnamma Anr on 27 January, 2020
Author: J. Uma Devi
Bench: J. Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.207 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The claimants in O.P.No.23 of 2009, on the file of the Chairman, Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District have come before this court preferring the present appeal assailing the award passed in the aforementioned O.P dated 07.04.2012, on the ground that they are not adequately compensated by the Court below in respect of the death of Rama Krishna Prasad.
The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Rama Krishna Prasad. They have laid the claim before the Court below for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and that the Court below based on the evidence placed before it, had taken the view that awarding of compensation of Rs.5,44,000/- is fair and reasonable and accordingly allowed their claim partly by granting compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- and directed the respondents 1 and 2 herein to pay the said amount to them together with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till date of realisation and the proportionate costs etc. The claimants while assailing the award of the Court below have raised several other grounds. One of the grounds urged by them is that Ex.A.6 registration certificate issued by the Commercial department which establishes that the deceased was running a partnership firm has not been appreciated in a proper perspective by the trial Court. As per their contention, even after it is established by them that the deceased was conducting business, 2 the Court below assessed his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and on account of the same miscarriage of justice is occasioned and the same needs to be corrected by this Court by showing its indulgence.
In addition to the aforementioned grounds, yet another ground is raised by the claimants which is as regard to the interest awarded. As per his contention, the Court below ought to have awarded the interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of awarding the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Since the appeal is filed by the appellants disputing the quantum of compensation there is no need of examining the correctness or veracity of the finding recorded by the Court below on the aspect of negligence attributed to the driver of the Qualies vehicle bearing No.A.P.7AR 5677, which has been amply proved by them by examining P.W.1 and by exhibiting Exs.A.1 to A.5 documents.
It has been asserted by the claimants in their pleadings that the deceased Rama Krishna Prasad was running rice brawn mill prior to his death that he was getting income of Rs.35,000/- per month, and he used to spend all his earnings for their maintenance; due to his sudden demise of the deceased, they lost his earnings support and protection. Ex.A.6 on which reliance is placed by the claimants is the registration certificate of the rice brawn mill run by the deceased. The petitioners have produced the bank statement and also the Xerox copies of L.I.C bonds and the letter issued by Sri Sai Sadhana Chit Funds (P) Limited, Narasaraopet. These documents may not render any assistance to 3 the Court to assess the income of the deceased. Since it is not possible to assess the income of the deceased going by the contents of Exs.A.1 to A.9, the Court below placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltds., vs. Smt Kalpana and others1, wherein it is held that in the absence of any definite material about the income of the individual, the monthly contribution of him to the family after deduction of personal expenses is fixed at Rs.3,000/- and grant compensation on applying appropriate multiplier. In this case also no definite material is placed on record to assess the income of the deceased. The claimants have not produced the income tax returns said to be submitted by the deceased in the capacity of the Managing Partner of the Rice Brawn Mill. Since no documents establishing the income of the deceased is placed on record, the Court below placing reliance on the aforementioned case law has fixed his income at Rs.3,000/- per month on duly deducting substantial amounts towards his personal expenditure. I do not find any factual or legal error in assessing the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs.3,000/- for determination of compensation.
It appears from the contents of Exs.A.3 and A.4 that the deceased was aged about 45 years by the date of his death and that the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 14 as per Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2. If the monthly contribution of income to his family is Rs.3,000/- per month, the loss of dependency/loss of income contribution per year comes to Rs.36,000/-. If the same is 1 2007(3) SCJ 106 2 (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 4 multiplied by 14, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,40,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. It is found on perusal of the award impugned that only an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the claimants under the head of transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards consortium. This is the only area where indulgence can be showed as the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head such as loss of consortium, funeral expenditure and loss of estate as per the recent judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others3, thus they are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.5,74,000/- but not Rs.5,44,000/-.
In view of my afore mentioned discussions, the award under challenge is required to be annulled only to the extent of the compensation granted to the claimants under the head of loss of consortium, loss of transportation charges and funeral expenditure as they are entitled to get Rs.70,000/- under the afore mentioned heads as per the recent judgment of Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (3rd supra).
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed partly enhancing the compensation to Rs.5,74,000/- and the same to be paid to them by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realisation. No order as to costs. 3 2017(6) ALD 170 (SC) 5 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date.27.01.2020.
Gk 6 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI 57 M.A.C.M.A.No.207 OF 2013 27.01.2020 Gk