APHC010275522016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1060/2016 Between: Smt. Kati Swarna Kumari, W.g. Dist. & 4 Others and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND P Appalaraju W G Dist 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): B V KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA 2. P KRISHNANJANEYA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (Family Court), West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.949 of 2007 dated 26.11.2009. 2. The appellants are the claimants, who are wife, children and parents of one Kati Narayana Rao (hereinafter called as “deceased”), before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are 2 the driver, owner and insurer of the Auto bearing No.AP 37W 0934 (hereinafter referred as “crime auto”). 3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 07.12.2006 at about 04.30 p.m., while the deceased proceeding from Tadepalligudem to Ungutur and when he reached near Badampudi Junction turning, the driver of the crime auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, resulted the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Then the deceased was shifted to Government Area Hospital at Tadepalligudem, wherein he was declared as dead. ii). The deceased was studied M.A., B.Ed., during the years 1996 to 2001 he was a panchayat member, subsequently, he was Sarpanch of Donthavaram Village from 22.07.2001 to 21.07.2006 and later he was elected as Member of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency, Ungutur Mandal and he would have 3 become a M.L.A. or M.P. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the said crime auto respectively. 4. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement and additional written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to negligence of the deceased, but not 1st respondent; that the 1st respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the crime auto and that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the deceased-Kati Narayana Rao died in a motor vehicle accident on 07.12.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP 37W 0934, driven by its driver-1st respondent? 2.What was the age and income of the deceased? 3.Whetehr the petitioners ae entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 4 4.To what relief?” 6. During enquiry, in all the petitions, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.22 and Ex.X.1 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 policy was marked. 7. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime auto by the 1st respondent, held that claimants in all the petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,69,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the death of the deceased in the accident. 8. It is against the said orders; the present appeal is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer. 10. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal erred in awarding 5 less compensation to the claimants by taking the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- without considering the fact that the deceased is a ZPTC member by the time of incident, cultivating the land an extent of Ac.37.00 cents, doing fertilizers business and earned Rs.25,000/- per month, thereby, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, thereby, the present appeal has no merits and liable for dismissal. 12. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident, involvement of the crime auto in the incident, rash and negligent driving of the crime auto in causing the incident and that no appeal was preferred by the owner and insurer against the findings of the Tribunal. 6 13. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? 14. POINT: It is not in dispute that by the time of incident the deceased was aged about 45 years. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased hale and healthy, being Zilla Parishad Member, doing cultivation and fertilizers business, get monthly income of Rs.25,000/- by the date of incident. To fortify the same, the claimants relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.4 to 8 coupled with Exs.A.5 to A.16. But, the Tribunal taken the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month. 15. On perusal of the testimony of P.Ws.4 to 6 coupled with Exs.A.5, A.7 to A.9 categorically show that by the date of incident the deceased was Member of Z.P.T.C. and get Rs.2,500/- per month as honorarium. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.6 and P.W.7 coupled with Exs.A.10 to A.16 show that he was given license by the Agricultural 7 Department to run a pesticides shop in the year 2005. On perusal of testimony of P.W.8, it is categorical that the deceased used to cultivate his family members land an extent of Ac.37.00 cents on lease. Thereby, by the date of incident, the deceased used to get considerable amount of monthly income as Member of Z.P.T.C., by running a fertilizers shop and cultivating the land on lease. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is appropriate to determine the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.12,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. 16. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to 1 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 8 deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down:- “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 17. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra), in case the deceased was self-employed, an addition of 25% should be made, where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years….. (emphasis supplied) 18. In the present case as per the above said decision, 25% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 45 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased 9 towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.1,87,500/-(Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.37,500/-). 19. In the case on hand, when there are five claimants before the Tribunal depending on the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.1,40,625/-. 20. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr2, at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows : 11………it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident……... 12……… While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are 2 2017 (3) SCC 315 10 taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be……. ……. there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.”……. (emphasis supplied) 11 21. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 45 years is 14. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.19,68,750/- (Rs.1,40,625/- x 14). 22. CONVENTIONAL HEADS:- On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.3, Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others4, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors.5 and Rojalini Nayak and others v. Ajit Sahoo and others6, this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.1,93,600/- towards loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 5 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 17 (2021) 11 SCC 780 12 and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-, respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). 23. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation 1 The annual income of the deceased. Rs.1,50,000/- per annum 2 10% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.37,500/-) Rs.1,87,500/- 3 1/4th to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.1,40,625/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 14. (Rs.1,40,625/- x 14) Rs.19,68,750/- 5 Spousal and Parental consortium (wife, two children and parents) Rs.1,93,600/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 13 7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.21,98,650/- 24. 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.3,69,000/- to Rs.21,98,650/-. It is needless to say that the compensation claimed by the claimants on the remaining heads are not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 25. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference only regarding quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is liable to be considered partly. 26. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part, with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,69,000/- to Rs.21,98,650/- with interest at 7.5% per 14 annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 to 3. The respondent No.3/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant Nos.1 to 3/wife and children are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- each and claimants Nos.4 and 5/parents are entitled for receive an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,48,650/- respectively, the claimant Nos.1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw the same with costs and interest accrued thereon and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon after attaining their majority, till then the same shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank by the Tribunal. 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.SRINIVAS Date: 28.01.2025 Krs 15 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.1060 of 2016 ( Judgment ) DATE: 28.01.2025 Krs