APHC010372412006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Seventeenth day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1090 of 2006 Between: R.Chalva Raju and others ...Appellants and Mrs. P. Santhi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants: 1. C. Prakash Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. N. Rama Krishna 2. Venkateswarlu Paladugu The Court made the following: 2 MACMA.No.1090 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 13.02.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.663 of 2024 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool, awarding compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 02. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: A. Sri C. Aswanth (the deceased) met with an accident on 03.11.2003 at about 5.30 P.M. while driving a car bearing No.KA 04 A 9394, being hit by a lorry bearing No.TN 28 6233, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The police of Peapully Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.80 of 2003. The deceased was employed by the respondent No.3 for the car bearing No.KA 04 A 9394, which was insured by the respondent No.4. The deceased was paid Rs.4,000/- per month towards his salary. He was 38 years old at the time of the accident. Due to his untimely death, the appellants lost their support. Hence, the petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest. B. The respondents No.2 and 3 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2 which is the insurer of the lorry, filed counter opposing the claim while denying the averments made in the petition and further stating that the drivers of both the vehicles are equally liable for occurrence of the accident. It was also contended that the driver of the lorry did not have valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. C. The respondent No.4 filed separate counter denying the claim, but stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 3 MACMA.No.1090 of 2006 driver of the lorry only. Therefore, the respondent No.4 prayed to dismiss the petition. 03. The Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident dated 03.11.2003 took place near Pothudoddi Village, Peapully Mandal at about 5.30 P.M., was due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.TN 28 6223, or there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the car (the deceased) bearing No.KA 04 A 9394? ii. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation claimed? If not, what amount they are liable to pay to the petitioners by virtue of the said accident? iii. To what relief? 04. On behalf of the petitioners / appellants, petitioner No.2 (i.e., wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and R. Narayanaswamy was examined as P.W.2. The following documents were marked on their behalf: Exhibit No. Document A1 C.C. of F.I.R in Cr.No.80 of 2003 of Peapully P.S. A2 C.C. of inquest report. A3 C.C. of P.M. report. A4 C.C. of M.V. inspector‟s report. A5 C.C. of charge-sheet in C.C.No.822 of 2003, J.M.F.C., Dhone. A6 Driving license of the deceased. A7 Salary certificate of the deceased. 4 MACMA.No.1090 of 2006 05. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, but, a copy of the insurance policy pertaining to the lorry was marked as Ex.B1 and a copy of insurance policy pertaining to the car was marked as Ex.B2. 06. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry basing on the oral evidence of P.W.2, who is the eye-witness and documentary evidence of the crime record. 07. The claimants filed Ex.A7 / salary certificate issued by the respondent No.3 showing the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal did not believe the evidence under Ex.A7 as the employer was not examined to prove the authenticity of Ex.A7 and no account maintained by the employer was produced as evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal notionally assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. Nextly, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of his income towards his personal expenses. As per the post mortem report, the deceased was aged about 40 years and therefore, the Tribunal took multiplier 12 as relative factor. Thus, it calculated compensation payable towards loss of contributory income to the family of the deceased as Rs.1,92,000/- (16,000 x 12). The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, besides granting Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.500/- towards transportation charges of the dead body. Thus, in all, compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. 08. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as low, this appeal was filed. 09. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error in ignoring the evidence under Ex.A7 which was issued by the employer of the deceased and that account statements 5 MACMA.No.1090 of 2006 regarding the payment of salary were not produced. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmana Gowda B.M. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, wherein at para No.11 it was held as follows: “When we turn our attention to the salary aspect of the claimant, it would not detain us to modify the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court whereunder it has been held that income of the claimant is to be construed at Rs.3,000/- p.m. The claimant has deposed that he was working as Marketing Executive in a private company called M/s Golden Investments and drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. as per salary certificate Ex.P-6. No doubt the claimant did not examine his employer. On this ground, it cannot be gainsaid by the Insurer that claimant was unable to earn or was not earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. The accident in question had occurred in the year 2007. Even a mason at that point of time was earning not less than Rs.300/- per day or in other words Rs.9,000/- p.m. during 2007. The claimant being a graduate and working as Marketing Executive, his plea of salary being Rs.8,000/- p.m. deserves to be accepted, as it is within proximity of truth and same could not have been ignored by the Tribunal and the High Court on hyper technical grounds.” 10. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier(12) instead of (15) and deducting 1/4th instead of 1/3rd of his income under personal expenses as the number of the dependants is „4‟. He further submitted that the amount of consortium granted only to the wife is low as the appellants / (father and the children of the deceased) are also entitled to filial and parental consortium. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal had rightly assessed the notional income of 1 2023 (14) SCC 275 6 MACMA.No.1090 of 2006 the deceased as no sufficient proof of income of the deceased was placed on record. He further submitted that Ex.A7 was not trustworthy, as it was self-serving and not supported by credible information such as accounts maintained by the employer. He further submitted that it is merely said to have been issued by the respondent No.3 on a printed letter head. Therefore, he submitted that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the notional income of the deceased needs no interference in the appeal. Regarding the employer, he fairly conceded that the relevant multiplier is „15‟. Similarly, he conceded the fact that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration future prospects and erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income instead of 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses. Regarding the failure to grant any amount towards filial and parental consortium, he submitted that they have not sought such relief in the petition or in the grounds of the appeal. 12. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount legally entitled i.e., just compensation can be granted irrespective of the claim made. He further submitted that in all pending matters, the decision of the Supreme Court granting the consortium to parents and children is applicable. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that since the appellants have not raised any claim against the respondents No.3 and 4 even in the appeal, there is no need to make the respondent No.4 liable. 14. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no such ground is taken in the appeal nor is any claim now being argued against the respondents No.3 and 4. 15. Insofar as the salary of the deceased is concerned, except filing Ex.A7, the appellants have not taken any step to examine the respondent 7 MACMA.No.1090 of 2006 No.3 who is said to have been issued the certificate. Though, the evidence beyond reasonable doubt is not required in a motor vehicle accident, reasonable degree of proof to dispel the doubt of creating self- serving evidence shall be placed on record. If the employer had regularly paid the deceased the same amount, it ought to have been reflected in the accounts. There is every possibility of securing the documentary evidence which supports the claim of the appellants. Inspite of denial of the genuineness of Ex.A7, no step has been taken by the appellants to establish its genuineness. The mere oral evidence of P.W.2 who could be a co-driver, without there being any corroborative evidence, cannot be treated as gospel truth. Having no other way, the Tribunal took its decision by notionally fixing reasonable amount of income of the deceased. 16. In the case cited above by the learned counsel for the appellants, the evidence regarding the fact that the deceased was graduate and working as Marketing Executive were proved and the Court took these facts into consideration in believing the claim of the income of the insurer as stated by him, irrespective of the salary certificate produced by him. Therefore, in each case, the proof of salary shall be considered depending on the facts and circumstances. Therefore, in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal regarding the notional income of the deceased. 17. Coming to the future prospects of the deceased, the Tribunal failed to add any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. As he was aged about 38 years, 40% of his income shall be added to his notional income, therefore, his monthly income shall be taken as Rs.2,800/-. Then, it shall be multiplied by 12 to arrive at annual income i.e., Rs.33,600/-. 18. Thereafter, since there were four dependents on deceased, 1/4th of his income shall be deducted towards personal expenses, instead of 1/3rd as was done by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the annual contribution to the 8 MACMA.No.1090 of 2006 family is Rs.25,200/- (Rs.33,600-Rs.8,400). Thus, amount shall be multiplied by 15 i.e., Rs.3,78,000/-. 19. In addition thereto, as rightly claimed by the appellants, irrespective of the heads under which the compensation was claimed, the Tribunal shall award compensation which is just and reasonable. Therefore, father of the deceased and also the children of the deceased are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium. Each one of them is granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of filial and parental compensation. 20. The amount of compensation granted towards the funeral expenses and transportation is very low. Therefore an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges. Thus, in all Rs.4,23,000/- (Rupees four lakh twenty three thousand only) is granted as compensation and the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal stands intact. 21. The appellants / claimants shall pay the Court fee of Rs.23,000/- before the Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 22. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 17.07.2025 NSM 9 MACMA.No.1090 of 2006 39 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1090 of 2006 Date: 17.07.2025 NSM