THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.No.313 of 2019 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the Award, dated 05.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1078 of 2016 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,80,000/- towards compensation to the appellants/claimants, the appellants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the said compensation. 2. The Appellants are petitioners/claimants and Respondent No.1 is owner of Innova Car bearing No.AP 27 AN 6666 (herein after referred as ‘crime vehicle’), Respondent No.2 is Insurer and Respondent No.3 is driver of crime vehicle. The appellants are the legal heirs of Pattan Baji (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i).On 25.09.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., while one Pattan Baji, S/o Bikari (deceased) was crossing the road on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 27F 1896 at Addanki – 2 Narketpalli crossr road, Rompicherla, the driver of Innova Car bearingNo.AP27 AN 6666 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died while shifting to hospital. ii) A case came to be registered in Crime No.82 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. iii) On the death of the deceased in a road accident, the claim petition is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 and 3 remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the petition averments and without admitting the factum of manner of the accident, the petitioners shall be put to strict proof of the same and denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased as alleged by the petitioners, and that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Innova Car bearing No.AP27 AN 6666, at the time of accident. The driver of the car is not having regular valid and effective driving license, to drive the 3 vehicle, and there is no valid RC, permit and fitness to the vehicle. The petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties, and non- joinder of the driver and owner of the two wheeler. That the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation and hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry: 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 27 AN 6666 (Innova Car) by its driver on 25.09.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., on Addanki – Narketpalli High Way, Rompicherla, Guntur District and caused death of Pattan Baji? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. 9. Basing on the material placed before it, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Innova Car bearing No.AP 27 AN 6666, held that the claimants are 4 entitled compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by the Respondent No.2. 10. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the Appellants/Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount. 11. Heard Sri K. Siva Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 12. Sri K. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- and evaluating loss of dependency without properly assessing the income of the deceased who is tailor by profession. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a perspective manner. The deceased is aged about 39 years at the time of accident and since he is below 40 years of age, 40% of the income should be added towards future prospects in terms of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and hence, prays to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 5 13. Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased itself. The deceased is also not possessing valid driving license to drive the motorcycle. There is no proper proof showing the income of the deceased. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle are not impleaded in the petition and petition is bad for jon-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there is any flaw in the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants? and 2. To what relief? 15. POINT No.1: In any claim of motor accident cases, the initial burden is upon the petitioners/claimants to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle. 16. It is the specific contention of the claimants that when the deceased was crossing the road on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 27F 1896 at Addanki – Narketpalli crossr road, Rompicherla, the driver of Innova Car bearingNo.AP27 AN 6666 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor 6 cycle, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died while shifting to hospital. 17. To prove the accident, the wife of the deceased who is 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1 and an eyewitness to the accident as PW2. They have also filed Ex.A1 to A5. 18. PW1, wife of the deceased, deposed about the accident. Admittedly, she is not an eyewitness to the accident to decide on whose negligence the accident occurred. PW2 is the eyewitness to the accident. According to PW2, when the deceased was crossing the road on his motor cycle bearing No.AP27 F 1896 on Addanki – Narketpalli cross-road, Rompicherla, Guntur District, the driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP 27 AN 6666 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died while shifting to hospital. Even during the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited denying his presence at the scene of offence. Ex.A1 is copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 is copy of Inquest Report, Ex.A4 is P.M. Report and Ex.A5 is copy of M.V.I. Report. A perusal of the charge sheet also goes to show that the PW2 is shown as eye witness to the incident and it is also not in denial 7 that a case was registered against the driver of the car for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 19. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and there is also contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, but no evidence has been led to prove the same. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company failed to examine any witness and failed to elicit anything contra from PW2 during cross-examination. In the absence of any evidence much less convincing evidence to disprove the accident and negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle, it can be safely held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle became ex parte and did not choose to contest the case. The tribunal, on the analysis of the entire evidence, rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 20. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, it is settled law that, three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death (1) Age of the deceased (2) Income of the deceased and; (3) Number of 8 dependents. Once these facts are determined, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 has prescribed a structured method of calculation as below: "To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death by following well- settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the "loss of dependency" to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate, Where 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 9 the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added." 21. In the present case, the Tribunal after taking into consideration of postmortem report and panchanama of deceased held that the deceased is aged about 39 years as on the date of accident. 22. As regards the dependents, petition has been filed by three petitioners i.e., wife, daughter and mother. Hence, the dependents are taken as three persons. 23. As regards the income, the deceased used to work as a tailor and making of Tarpaulin. Admittedly, as reasoned by the Tribunal, the petitioners have not produced any proof to support the occupation and income as pleaded in the petition. So, considering the nature of work and facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has rightly fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. However, out of the said monthly income of Rs.4,500/-, as there are three dependents, in terms of Sarla Verma's Case (1 supra), 1/3rd is to be deducted 10 towards personal living expenses. Then the amount comes to Rs.3000/- [Rs.4,500/- Rs.1500 (4500 x 1/3)]. In National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed adding of certain percentage of income towards future prospects of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was treated as a self employed and below the age of 40 years, as such, an addition of 40% is made to the income of the deceased, then the amount comes to Rs.4,200/- [Rs.3000/- + Rs.1200/-]. If this monthly income is multiplied by 12 months, then the annual income comes to Rs.50,400/- [Rs.4,200/- x 12]. Since the age of the deceased is 39 years, the multiplier applicable to him is ‘15’ and if the multiplicand is multiplied with the fixed multiplier, the amount comes to Rs.7,56,000/- [Rs.50,400/- x 15]. 24. With regard to the amounts granted by the Tribunal under heads i.e., Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards damage for the motor cycle, this Court finds that the said amounts are just and reasonable and no interference is warranted therewith. 2 2017 ACJ 2700 11 25. However, with regard to loss of consortium to wife and parent i.e., 1st and 3rd petitioners, loss of love and affection to the 2nd petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- each to the 1st and 3rd petitioners towards spousal consortium and parental consortium and Rs.40,000/- towards love and affection to the 2nd petitioner, which would be just and proper. 26. To sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- -- Damage for the motor cycle Rs.15,000/- -- Loss of consortium to 1st and 3rd petitioners. Rs.50,000/- Rs.80,000/- Love and affection to 2nd petitioner. -- Rs.40,000/- Loss of estate and expectation of life Rs.1,50,000/- -- Loss of Dependency Rs.5,40,000/- Rs.7,56,000/- Total Rs.7,80,000/- Rs.9,16,000/- 27. As the offending vehicle Car bearing No.AP 27 AN 6666 is covered by an insurance policy, which indemnify the vehicle 12 owner, and third party in accident claim, which was admittedly in force by the date of accident, the Tribunal rightly holds that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above awarded compensation to the petitioners. 28. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,80,000/- to Rs.9,16,000/-. These points are answered accordingly. Point No.2: 29. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,80,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) to Rs.9,16,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Only), with interest @ 7.5% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier and they are entitled to 13 withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court fee before the Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:04.07.2025 ARB 14 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.No.313 of 2019 DATE: 04.07.2025 ARB