Partly allowed

Jaladi Siva Kumari and Another v. Chintala Venkata Rama Krishna and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Jul 2024MACMA/2976/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident case. It applied a higher multiplier based on the deceased's age, increased conventional heads using standard revision rates, and corrected interest to the applicable statutory rate, awarding total enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 13,84,208/- with interest at 9% p.a. payable by the insurance company.

Jaladi Siva Kumari and Another Vs Chintala… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2976 OF 2012

¶8

Appeal filed under 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and order dated 02.05.2012 made in M.V.O.P No.1203 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, Guntur district.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Jaladi Siva Kumari, W/o Late Rajendraprasad, Aged about 48 years, residents of Door No. 11-4-133, Donka Road, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District

¶11

Jaladi Sateesh, S/o Late Rajendraprasad, Aged about 29 years. residents of Door No. 11-4-133, Donka Road, Chenchupet, Tenali Guntur District

¶12

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Chintala Venkata Rama Krishna, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged Major, R/o 17-2-80/6, 2nd Line, Priyanka Gardens, Guntur, Guntur District (Ownercum-Driver of Two Wheeler namely Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No.AP 07 AK 1529)

¶15

¶16

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,^Branch No.1, P.B. No.240, D.No.6-4-35, 4/1 Arundelpet, Guntur,^Guntur

. r

District,

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant

¶22

:SRI B PARAMESEWARA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents : NO REPRESENTATION

¶24

The Court made the following JUDGEMENT :

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶26

motor ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2976/2012

¶27

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶28

Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants. No representation for the respondents.

¶29

This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement awarded by the Motor Vehicle of compensation as Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal),^Guntur, on 02.05.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.1203 of 2010.

¶30

The claimants, who are legal heirs of the deceased, Rajendra Prasad filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘the Act’), claiming total compensation of Rs.34,50,000/- for the death of Rajendra Prasad in a road accident on 11.05.2010 at about 10.30 p.m . caused by the offending vehicle Hero Honda Passion No.AP 7 AK 1529, belonging to the 1^‘ Plus bearing respondent, which was being driven rashly and negligently.

¶31

¶32

¶33

resulting to the death of Rajendra Prasad on 31.05.2010 while undergoing treatment for the injuries.

¶34

The case of the claimants inter alia was that the deceased was aged about 52 years and was working as Charge man (Electrical) in Guntur District Mutually^Aided Cooperative Union Limited (Sangam Dairy) and earning Rs.26,689/- p.m. as salary.

¶35

There is no representation for the 2"^^ respondentinsurance company.

¶36

So far as the 1®^ respondent is concerned, as per the office report, notice sent was returned. The award^ofthe Tribunal is ex parte against the 1®‘ respondent. Consequently, we consider it is now not necessary to^issue fresh notice.

¶37

The 2^^ respondent-National Insurance Company Limited filed objections against the petition denying the material allegations and contending that the motor cycle was not insured with the 2"'^ respondent as on the^dateof St accident and there was no valid insurance policy. The 1

¶38

¶39

respondent was also not having effective driving licence and consequently, the respondent was not liable to^pay any compensation.

¶40

The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No.AP 07 AK 1529 and that resulted in death of Jaladi Rajendra Prasad?

¶41

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

¶42

Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation, if any the petitioners are entitled? 9. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and A1 to A12 were exhibited. On behalf of insurance company, RW.1 was examined and B1insurance policy was exhibited

¶43

The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the^riderof the motor cycle of the offending motor cycle. It also recorded that the deceased also contributed in such accident and there was equal contributory negligence^toan extent of 50%. It determined the age of the deceased^as 55 years 9 months (56 years) and the income of the deceased as Rs.32,630/- p.m and the annual income at

¶44

¶45

Rs.3,91,560/and after deducting the income tax, it determined the income as Rs.38,916/- p.m and annual income at Rs.3,50,244/-. 1/3 rd was deducted towards personal and living expenses. It applied multiplier ‘4’. Against the claim of Rs.75,000/towards loss of consortium, it awarded Rs.10,000/- exclusively towards^the first claimant widow. Towards medical expenses also,^the actual medical expenses were awarded. Towards funeral and transportation expenses Rs.5,000/was awarded. Thus, the Tribunal held the claimants entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,68,721/- under all heads. But in view of the finding of the contributory negligence to the extent of 50%, it awarded Rs.5,84,360/- as compensation with interest thereon at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization, whichever^wasearlier. It also made apportionment among the claimants.

¶46

As stated above, the claimants have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. The respondents have not challenged the award.

¶47

9'.

¶48

Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are not challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence and the age of the deceased as also on the monthly income of the deceased.

¶49

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier '4' instead^ofthe multiplier '9', which would be applicable at the age^of56 years, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex^Courtin the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation\ He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded the future prospects, which could be at the^rateof 10%. He further submits that the expenses under the conventional heads have either not been awarded or the law laid down in National awarded not as per • 2 Insurance company limited v. Pranay Sethi, 14. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

¶50

‘(2009*) 6 see 121

¶51

^(2017) 16 see 680

¶52

¶53

¶54

As per Sarla Verma (Supra), the multiplier '9'^would be applicable at the age of 56 of the deceased. 16. About future prospects the claimants would be entitled @ 15% as well in view of para 59.3 of Pranay Sethi (Supra).

¶55

“59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%o, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. ”

¶56

Additionally, the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.48,000/- to each of the claimants being Rs.96,000/for loss of consortium instead of Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/in place of Rs.5,000/- and towards loss of estate Rs.^18,000/- , in view of a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex^Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ i

¶57

Satwinder Kaur and Ors.^ After considering Pranay Sethi

¶58

(2021) 11 see 780

¶59

(Supra), observed that the aforesaid conventional heads are to be revised every three years @ 10%. Accordingly, the three Conventional Heads are increased by 20%.

¶60

The Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5% p.a. In Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh and others/ the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharm a & Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited^, the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded interest @^9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. Also, in KIrthi and another vs.Oriental Insurance Company Limited^, the Apex Court awarded interest @9% p.a.

¶61

Accordingly, we hold that the claimants are entitled for the following amount of compensation, in total, along with interest thereon @9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation. :

¶62

\2015) 1 see 539

¶63

\2021) 6 See 188

¶64

®(2021) 2 see 166

¶65

¶66

¶67

S. No.	Head	Compensation Awarded
1.	Net Annual Income	Rs. 3,50,244/-
2.	Future Prospects (i.e., 15% of the net annual income)	Rs. 52,536/-
	Total	4,02,780/-
3.	1/3"'^ Deduction towards personal expenditure	Rs. 1,34,260/-
4.	Total income	Rs. 2,68,520/-
5.	Multiplier of 9 at the age of 56 years i.e.	9 X 2,68,520/- = Rs.24,16,680/-
6.	Conventional Heads:
	i) Loss of Consortium	Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 2)
	ii) Loss of Estate	Rs. 18,000/-
	iii) Funeral expenses	Rs. 18,000/-
7.	Medical Expenses	Rs. 2,19,737/-
		Rs. 27,68,417/-
8. -	50% towards Contributory Negligence	(Rs. 27,68,417/- /2) = Rs. 13,84,208/-
	TotalCompensation	Rs.13,84,208/-

¶68

¶69

The appellants 1 and 2 would be entitled for payment of the amount as determined by this Court in the proportion as apportioned by the Tribunal.

¶70

The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The respondent-insurance company shall make the payment to the appellants or deposit before the Tribunal failing which the amount shall be recovered as per^law. The appellants shall be entitled to withdraw the same.^No order as to costs.

¶71

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶72

pending, shall also stand closed.

¶73

SD/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE OFFICER

To,

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, Guntur district (with records if any)

¶78

One CC to Sri. B Paramesewara Rao Advocate [OPUC]

¶79

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra^Pradeshat Amaravathi

¶80

4: Three CD Copies

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 25/07/2024

JUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.2976 of 2012

¶86

oF
m
I H SEP 202'! Co
l\0^ Current Section
pesPATC^^

¶87

ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A IN PART

¶88

/■

¶89

¶90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶91

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY

¶92

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶93

¶94

PRESENT

¶95

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARSito03^’

¶96

AND

¶97

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶98

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2976 OF 2012

¶99

¶100

Between:

¶101

Jaladi Siva Kumari, W/o Late Rajendraprasad, Aged^about48 years residents of Door No. 11-4-133, Donka Road, Chenchupet, Tenali Guntur District

¶102

Jaladi Sateesh, S/o Late Rajendraprasad, Aged about 29 years, residents of Door No. 11-4-133, Donka Road, Chenchupet, Tenali Guntur District

¶103

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶104

AND

¶105

Chintala Venkata Rama Krishna, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged Major, R/o 17-2-80/6, 2nd Line, Priyanka Gardens, Guntur, Guntur District (Ownercum-Driver of Two Wheeler namely Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No.AP 07 AK 1529)

¶106

f. \

¶107

(

¶108

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,^Branch No.1, P.B. No.240, D.No.6-4-35, 4/1 Arundelpet, Guntur,^Guntur District,

¶109

...RESPONDENTS

¶110

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri. B Paramesewara Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondents.

¶111

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶112

That the Appeal be and is hereby allowed in part.

¶113

That the claimants be and are hereby entitled for the total compensation amount of Rs. 13,84,208/- along with interest thereon @9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

¶114

That the appellants 1 and 2 are hereby entitled for payment of the amount as determined by this Court in the proportion as apportioned by the Tribunal.

¶115

The respondent-insurance company be and is hereby directed^tomake the payment to the appellants or deposit before the Tribunal, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law.

¶116