Single judge dismissed the appeal filed by parents of a deceased minor against an award granting Rs.2,97,000 compensation for their son's accidental death in a motor vehicle accident, upholding the reliance on minimum wage rates.
The appeal was not admitted and the compensation award upholding Rs.2,97,000 was affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
M.A. C.M.A. No.3672 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This M.A. C.M.A. is directed against the Award, dated 1505-2009 passed in O.P.No.169 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judge awarded compensation of Rs.2,97,000/- for the death of deceased Srikanth, who was aged about 18 years as on the date of accident.
The appellants are the parents of deceased Srikanth, who was aged about 18 years on the date of the accident. While the deceased was proceeding to Goods shed road on his bicycle from his house, a lorry bearing No.AP 28 W 9554 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and as a result, he fell down and received serious injuries for which he met with instantaneous death. A case in crime No.854 of 2007 came to be registered against the driver of the vehicle for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. According to the appellants, the deceased was working as a private employee and earning Rs.4,000/- per month and contributing his entire earnings for their maintenance. They field O.P.No.169 of 2008 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and Rule 475/1B of A.P.M.V. Rules read with Section 140 (C) of A.P.M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and where as insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the appellants. The claimants examined two witnesses on their behalf and marked seven
documents to substantiate their claim. The insurer marked the copy of the insurance policy as Ex.B1. The learned Additional Chief Judge framed the following issues for trial.
(1) Whether the death of the deceased K.Srikanth on 14-092007 at about 12.00 hours is due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AP 28 W 9554, by its driver.
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
The learned Additional Chief Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,97,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Accordingly, an award came to be passed on 15-05-2009. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed this appeal.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the Award impugned in the appeal.
The only issue that calls for consideration is :-
Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Additional Chief Judge for the death of deceased Srikanth to the claimants is just and proper?
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.80/- per day, which works out to Rs.2,400/- per month.
In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi Vs. Mohammad Tabbar[1] . In the said case the deceased was aged 35 years and dependents were his widow, four daughters and a son. While
coming to the facts of the case on hand, the deceased was aged 18 years and dependents are his parents, who are aged 44 years and 42 years respectively. Therefore, the said case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. The learned Additional Chief Judge, by referring the Gazette Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh with regard to minimum wages for unskilled labour, has taken the daily earnings of the deceased at Rs.80/- and accordingly annual income has been arrived at.
For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order impugned in the appeal, which reads as hereunder:
“However, as per the petition, the deceased was aged 18 years. A person of aged 18 years will not sit idle without doing any work, he would do some work and earn something, if not Rs.3,000/- per month. As per Gazette Notification issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, the minimum wage for unskilled labour is Rs.80/- per day. Because the Government fixed Rs.80/- per day towards daily wage, the daily income of the deceased should not be fixed less than Rs.80/- per day. Hence, the daily income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.80/-. If Rs.80/- is taken into consideration as daily income of the deceased, his annual income works out to Rs.28,800/-. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was spending his income for the maintenance of the petitioners and on account of the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost Rs.28,800/- per annum and hence, they shall be compensated.
To arrive at compensation, 1/3 of the income expected to be spent on the deceased shall be deducted from his annual income and the balance amount is to be multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age group of the petitioner or the deceased whichever is least. If, 1/3 of the income is deducted from Rs.28,800/-, the balance amount comes to Rs.19,200/-. As per the petition, the deceased was aged 18 years and the second petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased was aged 42 years at the time of accident. The multiplier applicable to the age group between 40 to 45 years is 15 and the multiplier applicable to the age group 15 to 20 years is 16. Because the multiplier applicable to the age group of the second petitioner is lessor than the multiplier
applicable to the age group of the deceased, I have taken the multiplier applicable to the second petitioner into consideration. If Rs.19,200/- is multiplied with 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,88,000/-. Thus the petitioners are entitled for Rs.2,88,000/- under the head of loss of dependency and earnings of the deceased. As per item No.3 of the II Schedule of the M.V. Act, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,000/towards funeral expenses. In all, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.2,97,000/- towards compensation.”
The learned Additional Chief Judge has arrived at the income taking into consideration the minimum wages for unskilled labour and taken the appropriate multiplier. I do not see any flaw in the award impugned in the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal does not deserve for admission and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
04th November, 2009. skmr
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
M.A. C.M.A. No.3672 of 2009
[1] 2008 ACJ 1488
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded below for the death in a motor accident is just and proper?
Whether the deceased's income should be assessed at Rs.3,000 per month instead of the statutory minimum wage of Rs.80 per day?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Laxmi Devi Vs. Mohammad TabbarDistinguished¶14
Laxmi Devi Vs. Mohammad Tabbar
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Parents of deceased Srikanth
Owner of the lorry
Insurer of the vehicle
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
