Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.H.Rayudu, vs The Deputy Personal Manager, Apsrtc, on 7 December, 2021
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
M.A.C.M.A.No.265 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 30.06.2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram, (for short "the Claims Tribunal) in O.P.No.53 of 2002, the claimants filed the present appeal.
2. Heard Mr. Saranu Phani Teja, Advocate, representing Mr. Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, and Mr. C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company.
3. The claimants filed the aforesaid original petition inter alia stating that the husband of the 1st claimant died in a road accident that occurred on 01.07.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing registration No.OR 10A 0039. In the claim petition, it is averred that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- p.m. by doing pan-shop business and in support of their case, they examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent- Insurance Company filed its counter and resisted the claim of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf.
5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, awarded a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- towards compensation as against the 2 NJS,J MACMA No.265 of 2006 total claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager and the claimants are entitled to more compensation, in view of the evidence adduced which was not properly appreciated by the Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel submits that though an amount of Rs.4,500/- was claimed as monthly income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal erroneously fixed the income at Rs.15,000/- p.a. as if the deceased was a non-earning member. He submits that even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (8) SCC 197, an amount of Rs.3,000/- would be reasonable as monthly income of the deceased. While relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the learned counsel submits that the claimants are entitled for the amounts under conventional heads, apart from the benefit of additional 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Accordingly, the learned counsel urges that the amount of compensation may be determined which may be just and reasonable, in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, contends that the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal was arrived at by taking into the relevant factors into 3 NJS,J MACMA No.265 of 2006 consideration and the amount awarded is just and reasonable. Accordingly, he submits that the award under appeal warrants no interference.
8. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
9. As stated earlier, it is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- p.m. by doing pan-shop business. To substantiate their claim, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and the Claims Tribunal, while answering issue Nos.1 to 3, categorically observed that though P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing was found in their evidence to discredit their testimony and that they stood well in the cross-examination. Having observed so, the Claims Tribunal, however, had taken into account the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.a. as per Schedule-II of the M. V. Act on the premise that no certificate was filed to prove the earnings of the deceased. The said finding of the Claims Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sustainable, as the appellants/claimants are not expected to adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim with regard to the earnings of the deceased by doing pan shop business. Further, the Claims Tribunal itself was satisfied with regard to the evidence let in by the claimants with regard to the income of the deceased as mentioned supra. Even in the absence of any such documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal is expected to arrive at a reasonable monthly income of 4 NJS,J MACMA No.265 of 2006 the deceased, in the light of the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the claimants.
10. Be that as it may. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Lata Wadhwa's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the monthly income of the deceased therein, who was a housewife, at Rs.3,000/-. Even if the monthly income of the deceased in the present case is taken as Rs.3,000/- which is reasonable, in the light of the uncontroverted evidence, his income would be Rs.36,000/- p.a.
11. As contended by the appellants' counsel, the claimants are entitled to compensation under conventional heads and 40% of the income of the deceased has to be taken into consideration towards future prospects while arriving at the compensation payable, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is arrived at as follows:
Monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/-
+ 40% of the monthly income towards future prospects Rs.4,200/-
Total monthly income of the deceased after deducting ¼ towards personal expenses comes to Rs.3,150/-
The applicable multiplier as per Sarla Varma's case for the age group of 34 years is "16" Total loss of future dependency Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.3,150/- x 16 x 12)
12. The claimants, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, are awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- + 10% thereon i.e., Rs.7,000/- = Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads. 5
NJS,J MACMA No.265 of 2006
13. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,81,800/-.
14. Though the claimants claimed Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2019 (2) SCC 192, just and reasonable compensation can be awarded. However, the claimants shall pay the requisite Court fee in respect of the amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed.
15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,74,000/- to Rs.6,81,800/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount, as per their entitlement, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.
_______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J December, 2021 cbs 6 NJS,J MACMA No.265 of 2006 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA M.A.C.M.A.No. 265 of 2006 December, 2021 cbs