Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apsrtc, Rep By Its Vc Cum Md, Hyderabad 2 ... vs Mudavath Muda Saraswathi, Prakasam ... on 26 July, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2550 of 2015 and 19 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since the parties to both the appeals and the issue to be resolved in both the appeals are one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the claim petition.
3. The brief averments of the claim petition can be summarised as follows:
One Rajaiah was working as Home Guard in Markapur Town police station. On 29.10.2013 at about 11.50 p.m. said Rajaiah along with one Venkateswara Naik was going on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AL 5065 and when they reached near Ramulavari Temple estate in Markapur, a RTC bus bearing No.AP 03Z 5043 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, came on to the right side of the road without blowing horn and dashed the motor cycle. Due to the impact, Rajaiah fell off the motor cycle and died on the spot and the pillion rider, Venkateswara Naik, sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The salary of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- 2
NV,J MACMA Nos.2550 of 2015 & 19 of 2016 per month by the date of the accident. In January, 2014, the Government enhanced the salary of Home Guards from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month. Due to the sudden death of Rajaiah, the family members, who are completely depending on the income of the deceased, have lost their source of income and they have become destitute. Hence, the family members of the deceased Rajaiah filed M.V.O.P.No.34 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - the Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (for short "the Tribunal") claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 being owners and respondent No.4 being driver of the offending bus are liable to pay the compensation.
4. The 1st respondent filed written statement in the claim petition contending that the petitioners have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and they are depending on the deceased. The age, income and avocation of the deceased have also to be established by the petitioners. The 1st respondent does not admit the allegations regarding the manner in which the alleged accident said to have occurred. On 29.10.2013 the driver of the bus started at Ongole at about 21.30 hours and proceeded to Markapur. While passing through the railway station, Markapur at Drivers' colony, the driver of the bus had observed one Hero Honda motor cycle in the center of the road turning this side 3 NV,J MACMA Nos.2550 of 2015 & 19 of 2016 and that side and coming in opposite direction and with a view to avoid that vehicle, the driver of the bus had swerved the bus towards left side and stopped the bus, but the rider of the motor cycle, who drove it in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed the right side of the head light on the front side of the bus and fell on the road side and sustained injuries. The accident was occurred only due to the negligent act of the rider of the motor cycle, but there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The owner and insurer of the motor cycle are proper and necessary parties and as they are not made parties to the claim petition, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The rider was driving the motor cycle without wearing head-gear and did not take proper precautions and violated the terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act, as such he contributed negligence to the alleged accident. The claim of the petitioners is excessive and unsustainable. The respondents, therefore, pray for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 remained ex parte.
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal below framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the deceased Mudavath @ Muda Rajaiah @ Rajaiah Naik died in a road accident which took place on 29.10.2013 at about 11.50 p.m. near Ramulavari Temple Estate, Markapur town due to 4 NV,J MACMA Nos.2550 of 2015 & 19 of 2016 rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 03Z 5043 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?
3. To what relief the petitioners are entitled?
7. The petitioners in order to establish their claim examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.X.1 to X.6. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked on their behalf.
8. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, allowed M.V.O.P.No.34 of 2014 by an award dated 02.09.2015 and granted compensation of Rs.14,05,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation against the respondents. The Tribunal further directed that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents-APSRTC preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.19 of 2016, on the other hand the petitioners also filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2550 of 2015 seeking enhancement of the compensation.
9. Heard Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondents-APSRTC.
5
NV,J MACMA Nos.2550 of 2015 & 19 of 2016
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly submit that the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meagre and the petitioners are entitled for more compensation, in view of the entire material placed and evidence was also adduced, but the same was not properly appreciated by the Claims Tribunal. While relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of additional 30% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Accordingly, the learned counsel contended that the amount of compensation may be determined which may be just and reasonable, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-APSRTC submits that the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate which is very excessive. Therefore, the award under appeal in respect of the said Head warrants interference and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may be reduced. He further submits that the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of other Heads is just and reasonable. 1 2017 (16) SCC 680 6 NV,J MACMA Nos.2550 of 2015 & 19 of 2016
12. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the learned counsels and perused the material on record.
13. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as Home Guard and his age was 40 years by the time of the accident. It is also not in dispute that for the purpose of arriving at loss of earnings, the Tribunal took into consideration the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month.
14. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they are entitled for the benefit of additional 30% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. In order to substantiate their case, they relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case wherein it is held as under:
"13. With regard to the addition of income for future prospects, this Court in Reshma Kumari adverted to para 24 of the Sarla Verma's case and held:-
"39. The standardisation of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 55 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases 7 NV,J MACMA Nos.2550 of 2015 & 19 of 2016 where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at that time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases."
The aforesaid analysis vividly exposits that standardization of addition to income for future prospects is helpful in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. Thus, the larger Bench has concurred with the view expressed by Sarla Verma as per the determination of future income."
15. As rightly contended by the petitioners' counsel, the petitioners are entitled for addition of 30% to the actual salary of the deceased 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.9,000/- + 30% of the monthly income towards future prospects Rs.11,700/-
Total monthly income of the deceased after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses comes to Rs.7,800/-
The applicable multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case for the age group of 40 years is "15"
Total loss of future dependency Rs.14,04,000/- (Rs.7,800/- x 15 x 12) 8 NV,J MACMA Nos.2550 of 2015 & 19 of 2016
16. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate to the petitioners. As rightly contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondents-APSRTC, the amount awarded under the said Head is on higher side. As such, the said amount is reduced to Rs.50,000/-.
17. Awarding of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection by the Tribunal, is not under challenge by the respondents-APSRTC.
18. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.16,79,000/-.
19. Though the petitioners claimed Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited2, just and reasonable compensation can be awarded.
However, the petitioners shall pay the requisite Court fee in respect of the amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed.
20. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2550 of 2015 filed by the petitioners is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.14,05,000/- to Rs.16,79,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. The respondents-APSRTC shall deposit the 2 2019 (2) SCC 192 9 NV,J MACMA Nos.2550 of 2015 & 19 of 2016 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 petitioners are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. M.A.C.M.A.No.19 of 2016 preferred by the respondents-APSRTC is allowed in part. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 26th July, 2022 cbs 10 NV,J MACMA Nos.2550 of 2015 & 19 of 2016 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2550 of 2015 and 19 of 2016 26th July, 2022 cbs