Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shriram General Insurance Company ... vs Devaboina Vijaya Kumari on 20 July, 2022
Author: B.Krishna Mohan
Bench: B.Krishna Mohan
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
M.A.C.M.A.No.261 OF 2020
JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6/claimants.
2. The present appeal arises against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.147 of 2014 on the file of Chairman Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa dated 04.01.2018.
3. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal below and the respondents No.1 to 6 herein are the petitioners No.1 to 6/claimants in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal below. The respondent No.7 herein is the respondent No.1 in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal below.
4. The respondents No.1 to 6/claimants filed the above said O.P. under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 475/476 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 before the Tribunal below seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.13,38,000/- for the death of one Mr. Devaboina Nagendra, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner/claimant.
5. The brief case of the respondents No.1 to 6 herein/claimants before the Tribunal below is that on 11.12.2012 at about 11:30 AM, 2 in front of Central Prison, Kadapa, the accident occurred, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP04-TT-6314, in which the deceased Devaboina Nagendra sustained grievous injuries, and died while undergoing treatment in SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati. The accident was witnessed by the father of the deceased, who informed about the accident to 108 Ambulance and shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. A case in Crime No.170 of 2012 was registered under Section 304-A IPC by the Traffic Police, Kadapa against the driver of the auto bearing No.AP04-TT-6314. The deceased was aged about 32 years and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by working as Nowkar in Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Wines, Chennur. The deceased left behind his wife, children and his father as dependents. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners/claimants are leading miserable life and lost their bread winner. The 1st respondent therein is being the owner and the 2nd respondent therein is being the insurer of the crime vehicle and both are liable to pay compensation with joint and several liability.
The owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte and the matter was contested by the 2nd respondent Insurance Company before the Tribunal below. On hearing the matter on merits, the Tribunal below recorded the evidence of PW1 to PW3 while marking EXs.A1 to A6 on behalf of the claimants. Similarly on behalf of the respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined and got 3 marked EX.B1 and EXs.X1 to X4. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence before it came to a conclusion that there was a rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto, and as such, the death took place for the deceased. The Tribunal after deducting the income of the deceased for his personal expenses an amount of Rs.3,750/- per month was determined for the benefit of family maintenance of his family and accordingly, the income was arrived at Rs.45,000/- per annum. As the age of the deceased was taken as '32' years old, the multiplier '16' was applied and accordingly a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- was awarded towards compensation by the Tribunal. For transportation charges, a sum of Rs.5,000/-, towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.50,000/-, and for medical expenses, a sum of Rs.2,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal below. Thus, a total sum of Rs.8,37,500/- was awarded as compensation by the Tribunal below with proportionate costs and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of its realization vide award dated 04.01.2018.
6. Here, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that following the judgment of 'Pranay Sethi' of the Hon'ble Apex Court, a total sum of Rs.70,000/- can be awarded towards transport charges, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Whereas the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards 4 the above said components. However, on the point of rate of interest, the counsel for the appellant submits that awarding 9% interest by the Tribunal below is excessive and it has to be scaled down.
7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the transport charges, funeral expenses and loss of consortium is reasonable and it may not be reduced and in so far as interest portion also is concerned he further submits that 9% of simple interest is not an excessive rate of interest.
8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Pranay Sethi', the said amount of Rs.1,10,000/- under the above said three heads is reduced to Rs.70,000/- and the rate of interest is also reduced to 7.5% per annum from 9%. With these two modifications, the award under challenge dated 04.01.2018 is modified.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw the total deposited compensation amount in terms of the above said modifications strictly in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal below without furnishing any security.
5
Interim order of stay, if any, is deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN Dt.20-07-2022 Yvk