Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Susheela And Ors. vs Ahmad Bi And Ors. on 19 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(4)ALT749
Author: G. Rohini
Bench: G. Rohini
JUDGMENT Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. The appellants herein are the claimants in O.P. No. 212 of 1991 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court, Mahaboobnagar. One C.A. Dhananjayudu, a Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank working in Kolar Gold Field Branch in Karnataka State went to Hyderabad in a Matador van bearing No. ADO 2223 along with his family to attend a marriage function. On 17-1-1991 while returning to Kurnool in the same van around 10-30 p.m. on the National Highway No. 7 the driver of the van drove it in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, could not notice the parked lorry bearing No. TNB 5451 and dashed against the said parked lorry. As a result of the accident, the inmates of the van sustained serious injuries and initially they were taken to Government Hospital, Kurnool. However, on 20-1-1991 the said C.A. Dhananyajudu died in the hospital as a result of multiple injuries received by him in the accident.
2. The first appellant is the wife, the appellants 2 and 3 are the minor children and the fifth appellant is the mother of the deceased Dhananjayudu. Though the fourth appellant father of the deceased was also a claimant before the Tribunal, but however during the pendency of the O.P. the fourth claimant died.
3. All these claimants laid O.P. No. 212 of 1991 before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- in all. According to the appellants, the deceased Dhananjayudu who was aged about 43 years and was a Manager in Syndicate Bank branch at Kolar Gold Field at the relevant point of time and was drawing a gross salary of Rs. 7,407-63. The claimants urged the Tribunal to award compensation at Rs. 8,00,000/- on various grounds.
4. On behalf of the respondents counter was filed opposing the claim. The persons who were travelling along with the decea ;ed Dhananjayudu in the van filed separate O.Ps. claiming compensation as a result of the injuries sustained by them in the accident and the said O.Ps. were disposed of by the same Tribunal along with O.P. No. 212 of 1991 filed seeking compensation as a result of death of Dhananjayudu. On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Matador van ADQ 2223 by its driver or parked lorry No. TNB 5451 without putting parking lights by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief ?
5. Supporting their respective claims on behalf of the claimants eight witnesses were examined and as many as 18 documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-18 and on behalf of the respondents none was examined. However, Exs.B-1 and B-2 the insurance policies were marked.
6. Basing on oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal accepted the claim of the claimants on the question of negligence on the part of the driver of the van and also accepted about the salary being drawn by the deceased at the relevant point of time and the age as indicated by the claimant. However, the Tribunal was of the view that since the deceased was drawing a salary of more than Rs. 7,000/- as reflected under Ex.A-5 his annual income would be more than Rs. 85,000/- and he must have been paying considerable Income-tax and profession tax. Having reached to such a conclusion, for the purpose of determining the net contribution to the family welfare 25% was deducted from the gross income. The Tribunal also deducted one-third amount towards personal expenses. Thus, the Tribunal made a deduction on two counts. However, the Tribunal took into notice the age of the deceased as 43 years and his employment at that relevant point of time as a Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank and also his future prospects. The Tribunal though determined the monthly contribution at Rs. 4,350/- but having regard to his future prospects, decided that Rs. 5,000/- would be his monthly contribution to the family welfare. Thus the Tribunal worked out yearly annual contribution by the deceased to his family around Rs. 60,000/-.
7. In so far as the application of multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal was of the view that as the deceased was aged about 43 years it applied multiplier 8 and determined loss of earnings at Rs. 4,80,000/-. That apart, the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was awarded. It is this award, which is challenged before us on various grounds.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal deducting 25% from the gross salary towards Income-tax and Provident Fund liabilities is per se illegal inasmuch as while awarding compensation, the Courts have been deducting only one third towards personal expenses and no deductions are made on the ground of tax liability or provident fund liability. The Counsel also stated that the age of the deceased at the relevant point of time was 43 years and as per the decision of this Court Bhagawandas v. Mohammed Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137 the relevant multiplier is 1.45 and though the relevant multiplier is 10.45 the Tribunal has applied only 8 which according to the learned Counsel for the appellants is unacceptable. The Counsel also made an endeavour to convince us that the deceased was aged about 43 years and was working as Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank at Kolar Gold Field and had he survived he would have reached top position. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, Counsel submitted that future prospects have also to be taken into consideration while awarding just and reasonable compensation. That apart, the learned Counsel brought to our notice that the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 5,000/-towards consortium to the first appellant being the wife of the deceased and stated the amount awarded under this head should be not less than Rs. 15,000/- and pleaded that the first appellant be declared as entitled for Rs. 15,000/- as consortium.
9. We have heard Sri Srinivas Rao, Counsel for the respondents also in this regard.
10. Having regard to the submissions and the facts of the case, the deceased no doubt was aged about 43 years old and was placed in a better position as a Manager of Bank and he had all the advantage of reaching to top. The Tribunal having considered the age and his future prospects of the deceased awarded reasonable compensation while determining the compensation. However, when we are inclined to examine the matter in detail on the question of deductions, we shall examine to what extent this Court could accept the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellants with regard to granting more compensation taking into account future prospects of the deceased in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas's case.
11. Insofar as the submission about the deduction by the Tribunal at 25% from the gross salary towards liability arising out of the payment of tax and provident fund, we agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that such a deduction cannot be made. As far as the grant of Rs. 15,000/- as consortium, is concerned, it is well accepted by the Courts that the wife of the deceased shall be entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards consortium exclusively for herself and we award Rs. 15,000/- to the first appellant being the wife of the deceased. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled for the following amounts.
12. The deceased was aged about 43 years and as on the date of accident he was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,407-63 ps. which is rounded off to Rs. 7,400/- and after one-third deduction for his personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the family would be around Rs. 4,940/- and thus the annual contribution would come to Rs. 59,280/-. For the purpose of determination of loss of earning in terms of ratio laid down in Bhagwan Das case (1 cited supra) since the deceased was 43 years at the relevant point of time the relevant multiplier is 10.45 which could be rounded of to 11. Since the deceased was aged about 43 years and was a Manager of Syndicate Bank, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas's case (2 cited supra) future prospects have also to be taken into consideration for awarding just and reasonable compensation. While considering the grant of enhanced compensatior(SIC)ng into account the future pros(SIC) in the backdrop of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas's case (2 supra), Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 12-6-2001 rendered in C.M.A. No. 2058 of 1992, (D.B.) (A.P.S.R.T.C. v. G. Jana Bai) examined the pros and cons arising out of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in that case and took a view that the claimant shall be entitled for more compensation while taking into account future prospects of deceased person who had all the requisite qualifications and age at the time of his death. The Division Bench held that as long as the vagaries of uncertainties are associated with life span, it would be difficult to fix any criteria for determining the higher compensation but some guess work has to be done having regard to the age of the deceased, his qualification in a particular specialized field and the position held by him at the time of his death while determining the loss of earnings.
13. In the light of the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 12-6-2001 in C.M.A. No. 2058 of 1992 (3 supra) which is in tune with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas's case (2nd supra), we are of the view that as laid down in Bhagwandas's case (1 cited supra) the correct multiplier applicable is 11 and if two points are raised, multiplier 13 would be appropriate for determining loss of earnings which would meet the ends of justice. Having taken this view, we apply 13 multiplier for the purpose of determining the loss of earning by the family which would work out to Rs. 7,70,640/- (59280 x 13). As we stated earlier, the first appellant-wife of the deceased shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards consortium exclusively for herself. Another sum of Rs. 15,000/- is to be awarded to all the claimants under the Head "loss of estate". Thus, the claimants-appellants in all shall be entitled to Rs. 8,00,640/- which is rounded off to Rs. 8,00,000/-, payable by the respondents. The compensation amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal.
14. From out of the compensation amount awarded by us, the 5th claimant being the mother of the deceased, shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- towards her share along with accrued interest. She shall be entitled to withdraw the same. The first claimant being the wife of the deceased shall be entitled for Rs. 15,000/- exclusively under the head of 'loss of consortium'. After setting apart these two sums (Rs. 50,000/-and Rs. 15,000/-), claimants 1, 2 and 3 are entitled to share equally the remaining amount of compensation i.e., Rs. 7,35,000/-. The first claimant shall be entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from out of her share along with accrued interest. The remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years. The first claimant shall be entitled to withdraw interest on the shares of claimants 2 and 3 which shall be kept in fixed deposit periodically once in six months. If either of the claimants 2 and 3 have attained majority, they should be entitled to withdraw periodical interest once in six months instead of the first claimant who is their mother. However, in case of necessity, the claimants 2 and 3 shall be entitled to withdraw any part of the compensation so deposited towards their share either individually or through their mother, if they have not attained majority, by filing a petition before the Tribunal below.
15. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. No costs.