Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nidamanuri Remana Kumari And Anr. vs Erukula Sesha Rao And Anr. on 5 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)ACC173, 2006(4)ALD689, 2006(4)ALT638, AIR 2006 ANDHRA PRADESH 1480, 1994 (4) SCC 673, 2006 A I H C 2536, (2006) 47 ALLINDCAS 153 (AP), (2006) 4 ACC 173, (2006) 4 ANDH LT 638, (2006) 3 TAC 734, (2006) 4 ANDHLD 689, (2006) 47 ALLINDCAS 153, ILR 2017 CHH 1313, 2006 AIHC 2536
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The parents of a girl, by name Nidamanuri Amitha, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 27-10-1999, near Nagarjuna Sagar Right Canal at Kambampadu village of Macherla Mandal, Guntur District, filed this appeal, Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2.The appellants filed M.V.O.P. NO. 283 of 2000, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur, claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as compensation, for the death of their daughter. They pleaded that when the 2nd appellant and the deceased were travelling in a jeep bearing NO. AP-7W-2157, to visit Amaralihgeswara Swamy Temple at Dyda, the jeep fell into the Nagarjuna Sagar Right Canal when the driver lost his control. His daughter was said to have been washed away in the waters and that the dead body was traced in the Buggavagu Reservoir, 3 or 4 days after the accident.
3. The appellants pleaded that the deceased was studying B.Com. Degree course, and that she was earning about Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,300/- per month, by giving tuitions to the school students. They furnished their ages as 38 and 45, respectively.
4. The O.P. was resisted by the 2nd respondent, alone. The very existence of insurance coverage for the vehicle was disputed by them. An objection was taken for non-joinder of the driver of the jeep. The 2nd respondent raised an objection as to the roadworthiness of the vehicle and absence of any former claim with them by the appellants. They also pleaded that the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 93,000/- in all, as compensation, with interest at 9%.
5. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal erred, both as regards the age of the 1sl appellant and the earnings of the deceased. He contends that several observations were made, suspecting the very bona fides of the appellants in making the claim. learned Counsel points out that the Tribunal did not follow the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the matter of applying the multiplier and assessing the loss of earning.
6. Sri B. Venkataratnam, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal had assigned cogent and valid reasons, in arriving at the conclusion, as to the age of the 1st appellant, as well as loss of earning of the deceased, and that no interference is called for with the award passed by the Tribunal.
7. The occurrence of the accident as such, is not in dispute. Though the 2nd respondent made an attempt to avoid its liability, by disputing the existence of insurance coverage, it had ultimately emerged that the vehicle was, in fact, insured with them. The insurance policy was marked as Ex. B-1.
8. The deceased was an unmarried daughter of the appellants herein. Therefore, the age of the younger of the appellants herein, assumed importance, ft was pleaded that the 1st appellant was aged about 38 years, as on the date of death of their daughter. Transfer Certificate of the deceased was filed as Ex. A-6. It disclosed that by the time of her death, the deceased was aged 20 years. The Tribunal took the view that no proof was placed before it, as to the age of the 1st appellant, and on that basis, too the view that the age of the 1st appellant can be treated as 41 years. An observation was made to the effect that the age of the 1st appellant, by the time she gave birth to the deceased, can be taken as 20 years. It must not be forgotten that the appellants hail from a village, and marriages are performed at a relatively younger ages. The possibility of the 1sl appellant giving birth to the child, at the age of 18 or 19 years, cannot be ruled out. In the inquest and various other reports, the age of the 1st appellant was described as less than 40 years.
9. One important aspect of the matter is that having expressed the view that the age of the 18t appellant can be taken as 41 years, the Tribunal proceeded to observe that the deceased would start earning, only at the age of 25 years, and thereby, the age of the younger of the parents must also be increased, in the matter of applying the multiplier. On that basis, the age of the 1sl appellant was treated as 45 years. This approach of the Tribunal does not at all accord, either with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, or the settled law, on the subject. This Court is of the view that the age of the 1st appellant can safely be taken as 40 years, as on the date of death of the deceased. Under the Second Schedule, the multiplier applicable to the persons with age between 35 to 40 years is "16". Therefore, the multiplier that becomes applicable in the instant case is "16", and not "13", as directed by the Tribunal.
10. Now comes the question of determination of loss of earnings of the deceased.
11. The appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,200/- to 1,300/-permonth, by imparting tuitions. By their very nature, such facts are difficult to be proved by documentary evidence. The Tribunal fixed the annual dependency of the appellants on the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-. No basis was indicated for this. Here again, one has to fall back on the Second Schedule. The Parliament itself legislated to the effect that wherever it is difficult to assess the income of a deceased, the national income can be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum (See clause 6 of Schedule 11). A further provision is made to the effect that 1/3rd of the income so arrived at, must be deducted. The result would be the loss of dependency of the appellants would come to Rs. 10,000/- per annum. This in fact is the minimum, under the Motor Vehicles Act. There was no justification for the Tribunal, in taking the loss of dependency as Rs. 6,000/-, per annum.
12. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, towards loss of estate. This aspect of the matter is covered by the Second Schedule itself, and it does not warrant any interference.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the loss of dependency of the appellants would come to Rs. 1,60,000/-. If the amount of Rs. 15,000/-for love and affection is added, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,75,000/-.
14. Hence, the C.M.A. is accordingly allowed, and the compensation payable to the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 1,75,000/-, and the amount shall carry interest, as awarded by the Tribunal. Out of this, the 1st appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the 2nd appellant a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.