Appeal against low compensation awarded to son of deceased laborer. Court held legal representatives can claim compensation regardless of dependency. Assessed loss at Rs.2,64,000 plus estate and funeral expenses.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,94,000 including loss of future income, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.
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.
SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI
MA CMA No.3 3 4 of 2 0 1 2
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the claimant before the court below, assailing the judgment, dated 17.11.2011, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.1609 of 2010 on the grounds that the court below did not award adequate compensation; it failed to consider that the deceased is elder member of the family and she was also a working woman and earning Rs.100/ - per day; that it ought to have seen that the appellant is not directly dependant upon the deceased but the deceased is also kartha of the family and the appellant has lost the estate of the deceased; it ought to have seen that the deceased was also contributing her earnings to the family and further all the family members constitute a joint family and they are depending upon each other. On the above grounds, the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment of the court below.
2
the appellant is not dependant on the earnings of the deceased, awarded only Rs.50,000/ -, under no fault liability, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
“ Section 166 of the Act provides for making an application for award of compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified under Section 165(1) . The provision under Section 166(1) expressly provides for making such application by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 166(1) further makes it clear that if all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. From a perusal of the said provision, it is clear that application for compensation can be made not only by dependant but by any legal representative of the deceased. Further, the word legal representative is defined in the Rules by adopting the same meaning of legal representative as defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the judgment in Megjibhai Khimjis case (6 supra), a Division
1 2016(2) ALD 226 (FB)
3
Bench of Gujarat High Court has clearly held that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident, is entitled to maintain claim petition under Section 110- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, if he is a legal representative of the deceased. Such view is approved by the Honble Supreme Court also in Montford Brothers case (5 supra).
4
Rs.100/ - per day. But there is absolutely no evidence adduced in support of the said claim. However, considering the age of the deceased, which is stated to be 50 years, and as the same is not disputed, it can be assumed that she would render services to the family, the value of which, in the least, can be estimated at Rs.3,000/ - per month. Hence, the income of the deceased in the least can be taken as Rs.3,000/ - per month. Out of which, 1/ 3rd has to be deducted towards her personal expenditure, then the loss of monthly income would be Rs.2,000/ - per month and the loss of annual income would come to Rs.24,000/ - per annum. The multiplier relevant for the age of the deceased as per SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATI ON2 is ‘11’. Hence, the loss of future income would come to Rs.24,000/ - x 11 = Rs.2,64,000/ -.
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3 (2013) 9 SCC 54
5
claimed amount. This Court also in ADAM I NDUR MUTEMMA v . RATHOD PEDDI TA4 held that the compensation amount can exceed claimed amount, subject to payment of court-fee.
The civil miscellaneous appeal is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
T. RAJANI , J
August 3, 2018
LMV
4 2015(4) ALD 585 (LB)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a legal representative of a deceased is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act even if not financially dependent on the deceased.
The method for assessing the quantum of compensation and loss of dependency when the deceased was a laborer earning Rs.100 per day.
Whether the compensation awarded under the relevant provision can exceed the claimed amount.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Ganganajou Sowminiva. Alavala Sudhakar ReddyRelied on¶9
Dr. Ganganajou Sowminiva. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy
Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Chella Hanumantha RaoRelied on¶9
Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Chella Hanumantha Rao { 1975 ACJ 344}
Megjibhai KhimjisReferred¶10
Megjibhai Khimjis case (6 supra)
Montford BrothersReferred¶11
Montford Brothers case (5 supra)
Manjuri BerasRelied on¶14
Manjuri Beras case (9 supra)
SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONRelied on¶18
SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PRANAY SETHIRelied on¶19
NATI ONAL I NSURANCE CO. LTD. v . PRANAY SETHI [ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 and batch dated 31.10.2017]
RAJESH v. RAJBI R SI NGHRelied on¶19
RAJESH v. RAJBI R SI NGH
ADAM IN DUR MUTEMMA v. RATHOD PEDDI TARelied on¶23
ADAM IN DUR MUTEMMA v . RATHOD PEDDI TA
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI
Insurer/Respondent
T. RAJANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
