Vattikuti Bharathi & 4 Ors. Vs Jangili Krishnam Raju & 2 Ors.

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 06.04.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.930 of 2008.

¶26

Heard arguments of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel representing Sri N.Siva Reddy, the learned counsel for appellants and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶27

The following facts are required to be noticed:

¶28

Sri Vattikuti Venkata Raju @ Babi aged 45 years engaged

¶29

in cultivation of agricultural lands and doing finance business suffered death in an automobile accident that occurred on

¶30

3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶31

22.02.2008. The offending vehicle was a lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-TU-4939. At the relevant time it was driven by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 owns the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 insured the said vehicle. Legal representatives of the deceased who are five in number filed O.P.No.930 of 2008 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. It was alleged that six persons were travelling in an Innova Car from Rayachur to Vijayawada. At about 4:40 A.M. on 22.02.2008 while the vehicle was going on the left side of the road, the offending lorry came on to the wrong side of the road having been driven by the first respondent in a rash or negligent manner dashed the Innova Car on the opposite side causing spot death of the driver of the Innova Car as well as Vattikuti Venkata Raju @ Babi.

¶32

Before the Claims Tribunal the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to contest and were set ex parte. Insurance company/respondent No.3 filed a counter denying the manner of accident described in the claim petition. It was positively pleaded that non-joinder of driver, owner and insurer of

¶33

4 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶34

the Innova Car amounts to non-joinder of necessary parties. The claim made was excessive. It sought dismissal of the claim petition.

¶35

On these rival pleadings, the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry framed the following issues for trial:

¶36

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of R.1 driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 TU 4939?

¶37

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

¶38

1. To what relief?

¶39

The wife of the deceased testified as PW.1 and a cotraveller in the Innova Car who witnessed the incident testified as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, a Junior Assistant of RTO Office testified as RW.1 and Ex.B.1/attested copy of insurance policy and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked.

¶40

5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶41

6. After considering the entire evidence on record and the

¶42

rival submissions and acting upon the oral evidence of PW.2 and the investigative output of the State Police contained in Ex.A.4charge sheet, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident and the resultant deaths were out of rash or negligent driving of offending lorry by respondent No.1. It negatived the contentions raised by the insurance company. Then it considered the quantification of compensation and after a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, it found that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month and his annual income was Rs.54,000/-. 1/3^rd of it was deducted towards his possible personal expenses. After such deduction the annual income was fixed at Rs.36,000/-.

¶43

The age of the deceased was found to be 45 years and accordingly it applied the multiplier ‘14’. It granted compensation

¶44

under the following heads:

¶45

Loss of dependency Rs.	5,04,000-00
Loss of consortium Rs.	10,000-00
Loss ofestate Rs.	15,000-00
Towards funeral expenses Rs.	2,500-00
Transportation charges Rs.	1,000-00
Total: Rs.	5,32,500-00

¶46

6 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶47

Thus, a total compensation of Rs.5,32,500/- was awarded.

¶48

7. The operative portion of the award dated 06.04.2011 reads as below:

¶49

“For the foregoing discussion on issues Nos.1 and 2, this petition is allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.5,32,500/- (Rupees five lakhs thirty two thousand and five hundred only) in favour of the petitioners against R.1 to R.3 with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit into the Court with costs thereof. The rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without costs. R.1 to R.3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation. Two months time is granted to R.1 to R.3 to deposit the said amount into the Court. The petitioners are directed to apportion Rs.5,32,500/- (Rupees five lakhs thirty two thousand and five hundred only) at Rs.2,32,500/- (Rupees two lakh thirty two thousand and five hundred only), Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) respectively. On such deposit, the 1^st petitioner (wife of the deceased) is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) and the remaining amount shall be deposited in any nationalized bank; the petitioners 2 & 3 (children of the deceased) are permitted to withdraw Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each and the

¶50

7

¶51

M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶52

remaining amounts shall be deposited in the bank; the 4^th petitioner (father of the deceased) is permitted to withdraw Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the bank; and the 5^th petitioner (mother of the deceased) is permitted to withdraw her entire amount with accrued interest. The advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).”

¶53

The claimants impugned the said award in the present appeal.

¶54

Learned counsel for appellants strongly contended that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in proper perspective and it granted a meager compensation and it wrongly fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,500/- and ignored the income the deceased was earning towards his finance business. Under the conventional heads it failed to grant appropriate amounts. Therefore, interference of this Court is required.

¶55

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company which alone contested this appeal contended that the claimants urged for exorbitant compensation and the learned Claims Tribunal appropriately considered the evidence on record and

¶56

8

¶57

M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶58

reached to correct conclusions and therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal.

¶59

The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is:

¶60

“In the light of the evidence on record whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate and unjust thereby requiring interference?”

¶61

POINT:

¶62

At the material point of time the offending vehicle was covered by Ex.B.1-insurance policy is not in dispute. The cause of accident and the resultant deaths are out of rash or negligent driving of respondent No.1 as observed by the Claims Tribunal is also not disputed before this Court. Therefore, on those aspects nothing more is required to be stated here. The entire controversy is with reference to the adequacy or otherwise of compensation that was granted.

¶63

The submission of the learned counsel for appellants/claimants is that the deceased was an agriculturist as

¶64

9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶65

well as a person doing finance business and earning money.

¶66

However, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the income of the deceased from his finance business and if the same is considered now his annual income would be more. To find out the maintainability of this submission, the evidence on the record is required to be considered. Soon after the accident F.I.R was registered as per Ex.A.1. Investigation was taken up and an inquest over the dead body was conducted as per Ex.A.3. In both these documents the earliest version about the occupation of the deceased was found mentioned. In both the documents it was stated that the deceased was an agriculturist. It was only when the claim was filed, in addition to the agriculture the claimants contended that the deceased was also doing finance business. One has to record here that it is not the case of claimants that the deceased obtained any licence for doing money lending business. His income tax returns were not filed. To prove that he was engaged in the finance business, neither any accounts were filed nor any person whoever obtained finance from him testified. Thus, the factual assertion made in the claim petition remained an assertion without any tangible evidence. In

¶67

10

¶68

M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶69

such circumstances, it has to be stated that the avocation of the deceased with reference to finance business was only an afterthought. In such circumstances, the approach of the learned Claims Tribunal in not recording any income towards his finance business cannot be found fault with.

¶70

14. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation¹ , their

¶71

Lordships held that where the deceased was married and the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 1/4^th of the income should be deducted towards possible personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the case at hand, the claimants are five in number, and they are the dependents of the deceased. Therefore, 1/4^th of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his possible personal and living expenses. However, the learned Claims Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd. Since the same is not in accordance with law it shall be modified.

¶72

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶73

11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶74

15. The learned Claims Tribunal rightly recorded the monthly

¶75

income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- and his annual income was Rs.54,000/-.

¶76

The contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that towards future prospectus the learned Claims Tribunal did not give its consideration.

¶77

It is true the learned Claims Tribunal omitted to pay its attention in that regard. The occupation of the deceased was found to be agriculturist. The observations of the learned Claims Tribunal that even after the death of the deceased his agricultural land was still available for his legal representatives and the loss was only towards loss of effective supervision. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court 10% of his annual income could be considered to cater to the needs of future prospects. It comes to Rs.5,400/-. Thus, the annual income comes to Rs.59,400/- (Rs.54,000/- + 5,400/-). 1/4^th of it comes to Rs.14,850/-. If this is deducted the net annual income comes to Rs.44,550/-. The learned Claims Tribunal rightly applied multiplier ‘14’. On applying multiplier ‘14’ to the annual income it

¶78

12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶79

comes to Rs.6,23,700/-. The Claims Tribunal granted only Rs.5,04,000/-. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.1,19,700/- shall be granted towards loss of dependency.

¶80

18. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay

¶81

Sethi² , towards the conventional heads their Lordships held as below:

¶82

Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-

¶83

Loss of Consortium - Rs.40,000/-

¶84

Funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/-

¶85

In the case at hand, the learned Claims Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.2,500/towards funeral expenses. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.42,500/- should be granted under these conventional heads.

¶86

Therefore, the point is answered accordingly granting an additional amount of Rs.1,62,200/-.

¶87

13 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 of 2012

¶88

In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the

¶89

compensation awarded in the impugned the award dated 06.04.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry in O.P.No.930 of 2008 from Rs.5,32,500/- to Rs.6,94,700/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The third respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶90

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶91

shall stand closed.

¶92

________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

¶93

Date: 03.03.2025 Ivd

¶94