The HC modulated the MACT award increasing compensation due to error in assessing the deceased's income and mother's age. The court enhanced loss of dependency to Rs.2,68,800 and added Rs.75,000 total with 6% interest.
Further compensation of Rs.1,16,000 with interest at 6% p.a. awarded in addition to the impugned award.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2008
Between:
Marla Chinnammadu and 3 others
..Appellants
AND
Chalasani Ramesh and another
.. Respondents
JUDGMENT:
The appeal is directed against the award dated 13-03-2007 in O.P.No.71 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda.
Marla Ranga, aged about 26 years, was earning Rs.4,000/per month by doing seasonal business and on 3-1-2006, he boarded the Volvo bus AP-31-U-8888, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, to go to Hyderabad. Near Veliminedu of Chityal Mandal, the bus dashed against a stationed lorry at about 4.00 A.M. due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus in high speed. The total damage to the front portion of the bus resulted in grievous injuries to Ranga, who
succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital. Chityal Police registered Crime No.2 of 2006 and the mother and younger brother and younger sisters lost their sold bread winner due to the death of Marla Ranga. Hence, they sought for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the bus jointly and severally.
While the owner of the bus remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer put the claimants to strict proof of the allegations including the reasons for the accident, the earning capacity of the deceased, the fitness of the vehicle and a valid driving licence for the bus driver.
The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. During enquiry, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.B.1 were marked.
The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly relying on Exs.A.1-FIR, Ex.A.2-inquest report, Ex.A.3-scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A.6-charge sheet and other documents to conclude that the rash and negligent driving of the Volvo bus was the cause for the accident and the death of Marla Ranga. The Tribunal considered the probable income of the unmarried deceased to be Rs.1500/- per month in the absence of any documentary evidence and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses from such income, the annual loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/-. Taking the age of the mother at the time of her evidence as 46 years, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 and assessed the total loss of dependency at Rs.1,56,000/- to which it added Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and on the compensation of Rs.1,59,000/-, it considered appropriate to award interest at 7.5% p.a. and
proportionate costs. The Tribunal gave directions about the apportionment of the compensation and disbursement of the same.
The claimants are before this Court against the said award contending that the entire claim of Rs.4,00,000/- ought to have been granted taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and including at least Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and also taking into account the ever rising inflation. Sri Chandra Sekhar Reddy Gopireddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Jeevan Reddy, learned standing counsel for the insurer, are heard. None appeared for the 1st respondent owner of the bus, before this Court also.
Insofar as the conclusions of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the Volvo bus by the driver alone being the cause for the accident and the liability of both the respondents, owner and insurer of the bus, to jointly and severally compensate the claimants justly and adequately for the death of Marla Ranga in the accident are concerned, none of the parties have challenged the same and the said findings have become final.
That leaves only the question of just and adequate compensation to be paid to the claimants.
The Tribunal obviously committed an error in taking into account the age of the mother at the time of her giving evidence before the Tribunal as relevant for the purpose of arriving at an appropriate multiplier. The age of the mother mentioned as 46 years at the time of evidence and as 45 years in the claim petition could also be noted to have been given only in approximation and not in exactitude with reference to any irrefutable document in proof of her date of birth. Given the rustic and illiterate background of the claimants and the nature of beneficial
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the mother for the purpose of calculation of the multiplier as less than 45 years or to be not completing 45 years, in which event the appropriate multiplier that will be applicable as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] is 14.
Coming to the probable income, which the deceased would have been earning, Sri Chandra Sekhar Reddy Gopi Reddy, learned counsel, referred to Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another[2] , wherein the Apex Court was considering the case of a deceased, who was not claimed by anybody to be not working at all. The Apex Court considered assessment of the income of the deceased aged 35 years at Rs.100/- per day to be reasonable and acceptable. That apart, it may have to be noted that the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act assesses the notional income of even the persons not earning any income at Rs.15,000/-p.a. and the deceased, being eldest of the children of the 1st appellant with responsibility to look after his mother, younger brother and two younger sisters, would have undoubtedly occupied himself in some gainful avocation to earn livelihood for all five of them. Even the minimum wages, which would have been payable to unskilled agricultural labourers in or about the time of accident in 2006, would have been somewhere near Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, the deceased, who was stated by PW.1 on oath to be doing seasonal business, which claim is uncontradicted by any evidence for the respondents, can be reasonably presumed to be earning not less than Rs.2,400/- per month. It should also be noted that the inquest report EX.A.2 recorded at the earliest point of time that the deceased was a petty businessman. Independent mediators recorded in Ex.A.2 inquest report that the deceased was doing
seasonal business in and around Vijayawada in coconuts, fruits etc., and in fact, he was going to Hyderabad for purchase of goods for his business. If the probable income of the deceased is, thus, to be assessed at Rs.2,400/- per month by the time of accident, 1/3rd of such income were to be deducted towards personal expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive. The learned counsel for the insurer insisted with reference to Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) that 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted, as the deceased was a bachelor, who left his mother and three siblings. However, the Apex Court observed therein that such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, where the sole bread winner of the family had his life nipped in the bud, leaving his mother and three younger siblings as destitutes, deduction of 1/3rd in the probable income would be just and reasonable. On a monthly loss of dependency at Rs.1600/- and on application of 14 as the multiplier with reference to the mother’s age, the total loss of dependency for the claimants should be Rs.2,68,800/-.
The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and did not award any sums towards loss of estate and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. But, taking into account all such claims, award of Rs.2,75,000/- in total towards compensation would be just and adequate compensation on the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced portion of the compensation, the same can be restricted to 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, while proportionate costs of course shall follow suit.
In the result, the award dated 13-03-2007 in O.P.No.71 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumPrincipal District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. thereon from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs in addition to the compensation awarded by the impugned award and the enhanced compensation shall also be shared between the four claimants equally. No further directions need be given regarding disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time than those incorporated in the impugned award. The appeal is allowed accordingly without costs.
_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J
Date: 13-09-2010
Ksn
[1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] 2008 ACJ 1488
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's probable income and the mother's age for multiplier calculation.
Whether the award of compensation needs enhancement considering loss of estate and inflation.
What rate of interest applies to the enhanced compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherFollowed¶23
2009 ACJ 1298
Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and anotherFollowed¶24
2008 ACJ 1488
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Marla Chinnammadu and 3 others
Chalasani Ramesh
another
G. Bhavani Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
