Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pnakalapati Kalyani vs D. Pavan Kumar 2 Ots on 28 February, 2025
APHC010000032012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
1933/2012
Between:
Pnakalapati Kalyani ...APPELLANT
AND
D Pavan Kumar 2 Ots and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NARESH BYRAPANENI
2. T KUMAR BABU
3. ELEVATED AS JUDGE
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, a minor daughter of the deceased preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 11.01.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Anantapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in O.P.No.2 of 2008.
2. Heard arguments of Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant. For respondent No.1, Sri T.Kumar Babu, the learned counsel made appearance but no arguments were submitted. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted arguments.
3. The travails in life threw a formidable challenge to a minor girl child aged 10 years. On 17.05.2006 the girl child and her elder sister and her mother and her father Sri P.Sriramulu were returning from Shiridi after taking blessing of the Lord and coming 3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 back to Anantapur travelling in Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP-21-V-5246. It was early in the morning and there was a bridge and before that there was a speed breaker. The driver who was expected to be vigilant when carrying passengers and driving a vehicle on the road failed to apply his mind and went at such speed without noticing the speed breaker and that resulted in the vehicle falling into Mathadi Vagu. The girl child sustained a few injuries and survived. However, to her shock, her mother, father and elder sister died in the accident. She had nobody else except the grandfather. She lodged a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act through her grandfather who acted as guardian next friend and sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of her father Sri P.Sriramulu. There were three respondents. Respondent No.2 therein was the insurance company. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 did not choose to appear and contest. Respondent No.2-insurance company sought dismissal of the claim stating that there was no insurance policy in force and even if it was there the vehicle was not having necessary fitness certificate and valid permit and the driver of it 4 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 did not have valid driving licence. That the compensation claimed was highly excessive.
4. Learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the accident occurred on 21.05.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No.AP-21-V-5246 and caused injuries to the petitioner and also caused death of the parents of the petitioner?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from which respondent?
3) To what relief?
5. PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.11 was the evidence on behalf of the claimant. None of the respondents including the contesting insurance company led any oral or documentary evidence.
6. Learned Claims Tribunal noticed that pertaining to this accident, F.I.R. was registered/Ex.A.1 and after due investigation a charge sheet was laid/Ex.A.5 as against the driver of offending vehicle, namely, Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP-21-V 5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 5246. The evidence of the eye witness/PW.2 and the above referred documents were considered and there was a categorical finding that the accident and death of Sri P.Sriramulu who is the father of the claimant girl/P.Kalyani was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the said offending vehicle. From the evidence on record it considered that the deceased was aged 40 years. He was found to be an LIC agent earning money by way of commission and he was also owning an extent of Ac.15.75 cents of land/Ex.A.8 (1B register). It observed that Rs.7,000/- was the monthly income of the deceased and 1/3 rd of it was deducted towards his possible personal expenses and his net annual income was assessed at Rs.56,000/-. Multiplier '15' was applied and towards loss of dependency Rs.8,40,000/-, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000 towards transportation charges were granted. Eventually, it granted Rs.8,54,000/- as compensation and stated that the insurance policy holder/respondent No.3 and the insurance company/respondent No.2 were jointly and severally liable to pay it. It passed the award in the following terms: 6
Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 "In the result, the petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.8,54,000/- to the minor petitioner payable by the respondents 2 & 3 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
[i] The respondents 2 & 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of this order with proportionate costs and interest as indicated above.
[ii] On such deposit, the guardian and next friend/grand father of the minor petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.7,54,000/- shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank till the minor attains majority.
[iii] The guardian of the minor is permitted to withdraw accrued interest on the Fixed Deposit at quarterly rests in order to meet the legal expenses of the minor.
[iv] The rest of the claim is rejected.
[v] The fee of the advocate for the petitioner is fixed at Rs.5000/-
[vi] The petition against the respondent No.1 is dismissed."
7. Grieved at the inadequacy of compensation the claim of the girl travelled to this appellate Court.
7
Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012
8. Learned counsel for appellant, with all vehemence, contended that the material placed on record ought to have been properly considered by the Claims Tribunal and the annual income of the deceased was estimated at such low level and in the process, it ignored the income derived by the deceased by way of a commission on his LIC agency. Various amounts under various heads under which compensation was awarded were not in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned counsel urges this Court to grant just compensation.
9. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not choose to contest. Respondent No.2-insurance company through its learned counsel contended that appropriate assessment of evidence on part of the Claims Tribunal is apparent from the record and the exorbitant claim was rightly negatived and just compensation was awarded and therefore, no interference is required in this appeal and the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: 8
Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 "Whether the impugned award failed to grant just compensation to the minor girl for the death of her father?"
POINT:
11. Death of Sri P.Sriramulu was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP-21- V-5246 on 17.05.2006 and the existence of a valid and enforceable insurance policy at the material point of time and the fact that there were no violations of insurance policy conditions have not been reagitated, rightly, before this Court. Therefore, nothing more is required to be stated on that front. A minor girl lost her father besides losing her mother and siblings also. The claim is only with reference to death of the father. Towards conventional heads their Lordships in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1, granted an amount of 70,000/- under the following heads:
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680 9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Consortium - Rs.40,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/-
In the case at hand, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses alone were granted. Nothing was granted towards loss of love and affection/consortium. Therefore, under these conventional heads an additional amount of Rs.58,000/- shall be granted.
12. PW.1 is the grandfather of the claimant/appellant. PW.3- Sri M.Vijaya Sekhar works in LIC Branch at Tadipatri. Ex.A.6 is the agent commission statement pertaining to the deceased Sri P.Sriramulu issued by the Branch Manager for the year 2005- 2006 indicating that he received Rs.1,09,883/- towards LIC commission. He had paid Rs.4,481/- towards income tax for the said amount. The deceased was LIC agent since the year 2004. Neither the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 3 shattered the credibility of that evidence nor was there any evidence showing facts otherwise brought on record by the insurance company. Therefore, one was expected to consider the annual income of 10 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 the deceased with reference to LIC commission. The learned Chairman, Claims Tribunal stated that a commission on LIC business was not standard and it varies from time to time. That observation cannot be said to be wrong. However, having said that it was expected on part of the learned Chairman to arrive at some amount of money towards this source of income of the deceased. I must say that the Chairman did not consider the same as he failed to record annual income from this source of income. In the facts and circumstances, it could be said that after giving due credit to the usual variations in the business from year to year, the approximate annual income from LIC commission of the deceased could be fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-.
13. The evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of PW.4 - Village Revenue Officer of Edruru Village and Ex.A.8/1B register do show that the deceased was owning Ac.15.75 cents of agricultural land. Before the Claims Tribunal a ruling of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in National Insurance Company 11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 Limited v. P.Subhashini Perumal2 was cited. Learned Chairman considered it at paragraph No.17 of its impugned award. Then it was expected of him to fix some amount of money towards this source of income. He did not do it. He considered the LIC commission as well as agricultural income together and without making a definite finding simply recorded that in his opinion Rs.7,000/- per month could be said to be the annual income. This Court is unable to agree with such a rendering. It has to be borne in mind that what the deceased owned in the form of agricultural lands being an asset remains an asset even after his death. In that view of the matter, the appellant/claimant being the daughter may have become the owner of the said land. However, during the lifetime of her deceased father he was the one who was managing that asset. On his death it had to be managed by someone else by payment of money. Therefore, whatever that could be paid for a proper and reasonable way of management of such lands could be stated to be the loss suffered by the girl child for the loss of management of that asset 2 2005 ACJ 61/2004 SCC Online Mad 625 12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 by her father. If one is to say that Rs.5,000/- per month is needed for management of this asset, it comes to Rs.60,000/- per year. That could be stated to be the loss suffered by the girl child on the death of her father with reference to agricultural land.
14. The income of the deceased as LIC commission Rs.1,00,000/- and loss of management of Ac.15.75 cents of agricultural land Rs.60,000/-. Thus, Rs.1,60,000/- is the annual income. The only dependent is the girl child and therefore 1/3 rd of it had to be deducted which means Rs.54,000/-. Thus, the net income comes to Rs.1,06,000/-. Multiplier '15' was applied by the Claims Tribunal and the same is accepted here. Thus, it comes to Rs.1,06,000/- x 15 = Rs.15,90,000/-. In the opinion of this Court that is found to be appropriate compensation towards loss of dependency. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.8,08,000/- is found to be the just compensation. To this extent, the impugned award requires modification. The point is answered accordingly.
15. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 11.01.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal 13 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 (District Judge), Anantapur in O.P.No.2 of 2008 from Rs.8,54,000/- to Rs.16,62,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 28.02.2025 Ivd 14 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1933 of 2012 Date: 28.02.2025 Ivd