V.Subhashini, Vs State represented by Superintendent of Police

J. BHARATH KUMAR,, S/O. LATE C...TAYA SANKAR, AGE 20 YEARS. ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/O. D.NO. 4-1123/1, SREE NAGAR COLONY, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶16

...APPELLANT(S)

¶17

AND

¶18

STATE REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR (PTO/GP POLICE TRANSPORT ORGARIZATION, PETLABURZ)

¶19

STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR.

¶20

G STEEFAN, S/O. LATE GUNASEELAN, AGE 31 YEARS, DRIVER (WORKING AS HOME 162 IN CHITTOOR UNIT) RESIDING AT 4- 2265, IRUVARAM, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

2

¶23

VS,J MACMA_69 of 2022

¶24

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtbeg to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the oder and decree made in M.V,O.P. No. 263 of 2016 on the file of The Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor, dt. 11.02.2020

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to declare the petiioner herein in the aforesaid MACMA No. of 2021, as major by discharging him from the guardianship of the 1st appellant and permit him to contest his case, and pass

¶27

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the petitioners to amend the claim amount from Rs.20,00,000/- to Ra. 30,00,000/- and pass

¶29

IA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant permission to the petitioners to file computer generated aside forms 1) Form ITR-V for the Assessment year 2012-13, 2) Form ITR-V for the Assessment year 2013-14, 3) Form ITR - V for the Assessment year 2014-15, as additional evidence in above MACMA, and pass

¶31

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶32

1.G VENKATA REDDY

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP)

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

3

¶37

VS,J MACMA_69 of 2022

¶38

JUDGMENT:-

¶39

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claim petitioners aggrieved by the award dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Chittoor in M.V.O.P.No.263 of 2016, whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,58,000/- as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶40

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶41

The petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are children of one C. Jaya Sankar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The respondent No.3 is the driver of the Sumo bearing No.AP-09-PB0892 belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2. On 08.05.2015, at about 12.15 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding to Vellore on his motorcycle, at Savithramma Women’s College, Chittoor town, the 3^rd respondent, who was driving the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-09-PB-0892 in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which, the deceased fell down, sustained severe injuries and was shifted to Government Headquarters hospital, Chittoor for treatment, where he succumbed to injuries at 03.50 p.m. The incident was reported to Police, who registered a case in Crime No.42/2015 under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the 3^rd respondent and a charge sheet was also filed after conducting investigation against the 3^rd respondent in C.C.No.306/2015 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident and that he used to earn Rs.26,000/- per month by working as a Head Archaka at Sri Ponni Amman Koil, Chittoor.

¶42

4

¶43

VS,J MACMA_69 of 2022

¶44

Seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the accidental death of the deceased, the petitioners filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶45

The 1^st respondent contested the claim petition by filing a counter affidavit denying the manner of the accident as stated by the petitioners. It was further contended that the averments made by the petitioners with regard to income of the deceased are false and that convincing proof has to be put forth by the petitioners. The counter further states that the 1^st respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The 3^rd respondent also contested the claim petition by filing a counter affidavit wherein it was stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and that the petitioners did not implead the insurance company of the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding on the date of accident. The 3^rd respondent further contended that there is no negligence on his part and requested to dismiss the claim petition.

¶46

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

¶47

following issues for trial:

¶48

1) Whether the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of third respondent?

¶49

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent?

¶50

3) To what relief?

¶51

During the course of hearing,P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the petitioners and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of respondents who got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

¶52

The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and material available before it, awarded Rs.6,58,000/- to the petitioners by making

¶53

5

¶54

VS,J MACMA_69 of 2022

¶55

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay. Seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claim petitioners filed the present appeal by contending that the Tribunal, without considering Exs.A6 and A7 coupled with evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.175/- per day i.e., Rs.5,250/- instead of Rs.26,000/-.

¶56

Heard Sri. G. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration for respondent No.1.

¶57

Perused the entire material available on record. The 1^st claimant who is the wife of the deceased got examined herself as P.W.1 and deposed with regard to nature of the accident. In support of her case, she also got examined P.W.2, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence of the accident. P.W.2 categorically stated in his evidence that he does business in Vellore road, Greamspet, Chittoor; that on the fateful day at 12.30 p.m., the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-AV3632 cautiously, at that juncture, the crime vehicle being driven by the 3^rd respondent in rash and negligent manner in high speed dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which he fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries; that the deceased was shifted to Government hospital, Chittoor and later, P.W.2 came to know that the deceased succumbed to injuries. In support of their case, the petitioners got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Though P.W.2 was cross examined by the respondents, nothing adverse could be elicited. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3^rd respondent who is under the direct control of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly answered issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners.

¶58

6

¶59

VS,J MACMA_69 of 2022

¶60

Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the petitioners filed the claim petition by contending that the deceased was working as Head Archaka at Sri Ponni Amman Koil, Chittoor district since 1995 and was earning Rs.26,000/- per month by performing various rituals, marriages and other functions. As the said temple belongs to Endowments department, the petitioners got examined P.W.3, who is the Endowments Inspector, Chittoor Division as well as P.W.4, who is the Archaka of Sri Vinayakaswamy Gudi, high road, Chittoor and Secretary of Chittoor District Archaka Samakya. P.W.3 in her evidence categorically stated that the endowment department directed the trustee of the subject temple to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the deceased and that in addition, the deceased used to get another sum of Rs.25,000/- by doing Alankaram, Astrology, Agamasastra, Kumbabhishekam and Purohitham. P.W.4 also deposed the same in his evidence. It is the case of the appellants that in spite of there being sufficient evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal considered the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,250/- i.e. Rs.175/- per day and Rs.63,000/- annually. As the petitioners are dependents on the deceased, the Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd of the annual income towards his personal expenses and computed the contribution of the deceased to his family as Rs.42,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 45, the Tribunal, after applying the relevant multiplier as per Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another¹ as ‘14’, computed the compensation under the head of loss of dependency as Rs.5,88,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- to the petitioners under the head of loss of estate (Rs.15,000/-), loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/-) and towards funeral expenses (Rs.15,000/-). In total, the Tribunal has

¶61

1AIR 2009 SCC3104

¶62

7

¶63

VS,J MACMA_69 of 2022

¶64

awarded Rs.6,58,000/- to the petitioners as compensation for the accidental death of the deceased.

¶65

The present appeal has been filed on the sole ground that the Tribunal has erroneously considered the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,250/- in spite of there being clear evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. Admittedly, P.Ws.3 and 4, as discussed supra, have deposed during the course of their evidence that the deceased was being paid Rs.6,000/- per month by the trustee of the temple and in addition, he used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month by performing various rituals. In the absence of material proof with regard to the income of the deceased and considering the nature of work of an Archaka, this Court feels it appropriate to consider the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.5,250/-.

¶66

Considering Rs.10,000/- per month as the earnings of the deceased, after deducting 1/3^rd , the deceased would contribute Rs.6,667/- to his family per month. As per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi² , to the age group of 45 years, 25% of the income is to be added towards future prospects. If the same is applied, the amount would come to Rs.8,334/- [Rs.6,667/- + Rs.1667/- (25% of Rs.6,667/-)]. After applying the relevant multiplier as per Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (referred supra) considering the age of the deceased as 45, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency would become Rs.14,00,112/- [Rs.8,334/- X 12 X ‘14’]. Apart from the same, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. On a perusal of the award, it can be observed that claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased

¶67

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶68

8

¶69

VS,J MACMA_69 of 2022

¶70

and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are children of the deceased. In such a case, all the three are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. In the present case, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1, instead of awarding Rs.1,20,000/[Rs.40,000/- X 3].

¶71

In total, the appellants/claim petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.15,50,112/- [Rs.14,00,112/- + Rs.70,000/- + Rs.80,000/-].

¶72

In Tribun	view of the foregoing al under different he	discussion, the ads and amount	compensation awarded s would now become as
S. No	Head of the claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs.	Amounts now altered by this Court
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.5,88,000/-	Rs.14,00,112/-
2.	Funeral Charges	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Loss of Consortium for claimants	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.1,20,000/-
	Total	Rs.6,58,000/-	Rs.15,50,112/-

¶73

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by way of the impugned award dated 11.02.2020 is enhanced from Rs.6,58,000/- to Rs.15,50,112/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition before the Tribunal, till the date of realization. The amount now awarded shall be apportioned amongst the appellants in the same ratio as was apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs.

¶74

9

¶75

VS,J MACMA_69 of 2022

¶76

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶77

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶78

Date:09.07.2026.

¶79

Gss