Smt.Dandu Subbamma (Died) v. Mr.Y.C.Ramana Reddy

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2145 of 2004 JUDGMENT:

Having got dissatisfied with the award of Rs.1,43,000/- as compensation by the order and decree, dated 03.07.2003, in O.P.No.827 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the Tribunal'), as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- laid under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), the present appeal is preferred by claimant No.2 seeking enhancement of compensation.

The appellant No.1 - mother of the deceased Dandu Vijaya Bhaskar, whose death occurred on 05.12.2001 due to the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on the same day, is claimant No.1 in the said O.P., while respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the O.P., are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 07/X-1238, respectively. Respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are the father, grandmother and sister of the deceased, respectively, are claimant Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the said O.P. The record discloses that since appellant No.1 died during pendency of the present appeal, her husband and daughter are brought on record as appellant Nos.2 and 3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal in the original petition.

Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for respondent No.1, though, he was served with notice. No representation for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. In the cause title, it is indicated that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not necessary parties.

The present appeal is preferred on the ground that meagre compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- was granted without applying relevant multiplier and taking the income of the deceased at lower rate, though, the decisional law is to the effect that a minimum of Rs.3,000/- is to be taken as monthly wages of un-earning member. Though, the Tribunal, in fact, did not discard the documentary evidence, at the same time, it also did not accept the same by assigning proper reasons. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal went wrong in taking lower income, though, the deceased was a partner in bran business along with the 2nd witness examined as PW.2.

Be that as it may, the Tribunal went wrong in deducting 1/3rd instead of 50% in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co., Ltd. and others2 and Munna Lal Jain and another 1 (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 2 2012 ACJ 2002

v. Vipin Kumar and others3. Further, as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the income of a person working as a coolie or labourer can be taken at Rs.30,000/- per annum. Therefore, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.30,000/- per annum, instead of Rs.15,000/-, and when 50% thereof is deducted towards personal expenses, as the deceased died in unmarried status, his contribution to the family would workout to Rs.15,000/- per annum. The relevant multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is '18' as per the table formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (1 supra). When the said multiplier is applied, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 18). The amount of Rs.

15,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards loss of estate comprising loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of amenities, is maintained. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,85,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eightly five thousand only), as against Rs.1,43,000/- granted by the Tribunal, towards compensation and the same is, accordingly, granted.

Though, the compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- determined exceeds the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, there is no prohibition to award the same in arriving at just and adequate compensation in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others4, Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, 3 (2015) 6 SCC 347 4 AIR 2003 SC 674

Oriental Insurance Company Limited5 and Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others6. However, the petitioners are directed to pay Court fee on the excess amount of Rs.85,000/- within a period of three months from today to the credit of the O.P. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal granted the same at 9% per annum and the same is maintained on the amount of Rs.1,43,000/- granted by the Tribunal, but on the enhanced amount i.e., Rs.1,42,000/- (Rs.2,85,000 - Rs.1,43,000/-), interest at 7.5% per annum is granted from the date of petition till realisation as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh's case (6 supra). Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed in part modifying the order passed by the Tribunal, by enhancing the compensation as indicated above, and confirming the same in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in the instant appeal, stand disposed of.

_________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 24.08.2017 v v 5 2012 ACJ 191 (SC) 6 2013 ACJ 1403