Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Adagari Aruna & Ors. vs Kammampati @ Khambhampati Parameswara ... on 18 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ941, 1998(2)ALD715, 1998(2)ALT797
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J
1. This appeal is filed by the widow, children and mother of late Venkatram Narsaiah who died in a motor accident on 3-9-1993 at 12 Noon at the bus-stand of Husnabad. Late Venkatram Narsaiah who was working as a Hindi Pandit in Baswapur High School was knocked down by an oil tanker bearing No. AHV 9189, coming from Warangal side, while he was walking, due to which the deceased died instantaneously. P.W.2, the Sarpanch of the village who saw the occurrence gave the F.I.R. P. W. 1, the widow of the deceased deposed that on hearing the news, she went and saw the dead body of her husband. P.W.2 has clearly slated that the Tanker was driven by the first respondent. Ex.A-5 is the F.I.R Ex.A-1 is the inquest report while Ex.A-2 is the post-mortem certificate. Ex.A-8 is the certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.253 of 1994 wherein, the first respondent was convicted.
2. Having regard to the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-8, the lower Court rightly, in our view, held that the deceased died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent The Tribunal accepting Ex.A-3, the salary certificate of the deceased, found that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.2,860/-per month. The Tribunal found that the loss of dependency of the appellants is 50% of the said amount and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,59,8007- in all. Dissatisfied with the said award, the claimants filed this appeal.
3. Sri Girikrishna, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal should have accepted Ex.A-6, the Pay Revision Certificate issued by P.W.3, the Headmaster of the School and accordingly fix the loss of dependency. It is also the submission that the lower Court erroneously fixed the dependency at 50% of his salary instead of taking 2/3rd of the salary which would ordinarily be spent by the deceased on his wife and other family members.
4. Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the proposed 5th appellant submits that as the fourth appellant who is the mother of the deceased died and her sole surviving son should be added as a party, so that whatever amount is awarded to the fourth appellant, should be paid to him.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation opposed this.
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased was drawings salary of Rs.2,860/- per month as evidenced by the salary certificate Ex. A3. P.W.3 also proves the same. Therefore, it can be safely taken that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.2,860/- per month. No doubt, the Tribunal has apportioned the dependency at 50% of the earnings of the deceased, but we are of the opinion that the deceased would spend 1/3rd of his salary on himself and 2/3rd on the members of his family. In this view, the dependency of the family would be 2/3rd of Rs.2,860/- which would come to approximately Rs.1,900/-. The age of the deceased was shown as 37 years as per Ex.A-3. There is also no dispute about this, and in the petition itself, the claim of the appellants is that the deceased was aged 38 years. Therefore, applying the relevant multiplier 13.6, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,25,080/- including the sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium and love and affection. We have adopted the multiplier as 13.6 according to the unamended Act as Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has no retrospective effect. We are supported in our view by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Salapuriappa, .
8. Sri Satyam Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for Adagiri Srinivasa Swamy s/o Ramaiah being the sons and legal representative of the deceased 4th appellant, submits that since the 4th appellant died, pending appeal the compensation apportioned towards her share is liable to be distributed among her legal heirs and his client Adagiri Srinivasa Swamy being her son is entitled to a share. Normally, there would not have been any objection for adopting such a course as the compensation payable to the 4th appellant would have to be apportioned and distributed among her legal heirs. However, during the pendency of the appeal, by an order dated 26-3-1997 the 4th appellant was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- which was drawn out by her during her life time. It is also brought to our' notice that about Rs.7,000/- out of the no fault liability of Rs-25,000/- was also withdrawn by her even before the Award was passed by the Tribunal.
9. Having regard to these circumstances and since the 4lh appellant is no more and as her dependency is ceased, we are of the opinion that the amounts already drawn by her are sufficient to satisfy her loss of dependency and she is not entitled to any further amount. Athough Adagiri Srinivasa Swamy may be impleaded as one of the appellants as the legal representative of the 4th appellant, we make it clear that he is not entitled to apportionment of any further amount.
10. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. No costs.