1 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2532 of 2016 % 21.03.2025 # Chevuru Vijaya Kumar Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy R/O.D.No.27/I/934/4, 7th Cross Road, Lakshmi Nagar, Balaji Nagar, Nellore, Spsr Nellore District and 2 Others. …. Appellants/ Petitioners Versus $ The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Managing Director O/o.Musheerabad, Hyderabad. …. Respondent ! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati ! Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC) < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 2009 (6) SCC 121 (1996) 4 SCC 362 (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657 2017(16) SCC 680 (2018) 18 SCC 130 2021(2) SCC 166 (2017) 16 SCC 680 (2019) 20 SCC 688 (2021) 17 SCC 148 2 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2532 of 2016 # Chevuru Vijaya Kumar Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy R/O.D.No.27/I/934/4, 7th Cross Road, Lakshmi Nagar, Balaji Nagar, Nellore, Spsr Nellore District and 2 Others. …. Appellants/ Petitioners Versus $ The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Managing Director O/o.Musheerabad, Hyderabad. . …. Respondent/s DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 21.03.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ? Yes/No ____________________________ A. HARIHARANADHA SARMA, J 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2532 of 2016 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. The claimants before the III Additional District Judge- -cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, [‘for short ‘MACT’], in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2010 filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, questioning the sustainability of the award and decree dated 08.07.2016 passed therein, on the point of compensation awarded, claiming that the same require enhancement. 3. Respondent herein is the respondent before the learned MACT. 4. The parties will be hereinafter referred to, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that – 5. [i] The 1st claimant is the husband, the 2nd and 3rd claimants are the sons of one Chevuru Swarna Latha [ [herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’], claimed compensation for the death of the deceased in road traffic accident, that occurred on 18.02.2008. The claim was made for Rs.7,50,000/- and the learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.5,53,000/-. 4 [ii] The case of the claimant in succinct is that on 18.02.2008 at about 3.00p.m., while the deceased was proceeding in a Car bearing No.AP 10 AH 8099 on NH5 road, near Maddurupadu Village, one APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 9635 [hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle’] travelling from Ongole to Kavali, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car causing the accident, resultantly the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries and deceased succumbed to the injuries. [iii] A case in Crime No.23 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. [iv] The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 45 years, having shares in Gas Company with an annual income of Rs.1,38,650/- as profit out of the shares, and her death has exposed all the claimants to loss in all respects. Hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-. The case of the respondent, in brief:- 6. The respondent-APSRTC disputed the claim, contending that the claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, avocation, income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants etc.. Further the respondent-APSRTC attributed negligence to the driver of the Car, adding that the driver of the car has no driving licence. 5 7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident had occurred on 18.02.2008 near Maddurupadu village of Kavali Rural Mandal and it was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9635? And whether it resulted the death of the deceased/Chevuru Swarna Latha? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount? 3) To what relief ? Evidence before the learned MACT:- Oral Evidence: 8. [i] On behalf of the claimants, Claimant No.2, son of the deceased was examined as PW1 and one M.Padmakar, eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2. [ii] Claimants relied on copies of Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.A4-Motor Vehicle Inspector report, Ex.A5- Charge Sheet and Ex.A6-Income Tax returns filed by the deceased. [iii] Neither oral, nor documentary evidence is placed on behalf of the respondent-APSRTC. Scope of Appeal: 9. Present appeal is filed by the claimants, questioning the just and adequate nature of compensation awarded. There is no cross appeal, nor cross-objections 6 are filed by the respondent-APSRTC. Therefore, it can be considered that following are out of dispute in this Appeal:- 1) Occurrence of accident 2) Involvement of the offending vehicle 3) Ownership of the APSRTC over the offending vehicle 4) Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5) Entitlement of the claimants for compensation and liability of the respondent-APSRTC 10. Now, the only point that remains for determination in this appeal from the conduct of the parties and the arguments advanced is, just and adequate nature of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Arguments advanced in the Appeal:- 11. [i] learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned MACT ought to have granted more compensation than what claimed taking note of the age, income and avocation of the deceased, by taking note of Ex.A6/Income Tax returns and the learned MACT erred in not taking the future prospects into consideration while taking the income for the purpose of calculation of compensation. [ii] On behalf of the respondent-APSRTC, it is argued that the compensation awarded by the learned MACT itself is excessive; the deceased is a home-maker; the investment made in the form of shares in her name is the 7 only source of income. Therefore, there can be no reduction in the income from the investment. The leaned MACT has taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.4000/- per month, which is excessive. There are no grounds to interfere in the appeal. However, learned MACT while quantifying compensation, ought to have considered the contributory negligence of the driver of the Car, in which the deceased was travelling. The defence taken in the counter of the respondent-APSRTC in that regard is not considered by the learned MACT. If the same is considered, the compensation awarded shall be reduced. [iii] Answering the same, leaned counsel for the appellant, submitted that income out of the investment is no ground to refuse such income as basis. Further the contribution of home-maker for the family is multi-folded and the loss for the family shall be taken into account by doing guess work with the empathetic outlook. Particularly with reference to socio-economic standards of the claimants, plea of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car, is not proved by the respondent-APSRTC with any sort of evidence, therefore, such plea at this appeal stage, deserves no consideration. 12. Perused the evidence on record, grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the observations made in the impugned judgment. 13. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 8 14. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) What is the just and adequate nature of compensation to which the appellants/claimants are entitled for? 2) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.5,53,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. and other incidental benefits are just and adequate Or whether any inference is necessary? If so, on what grounds and to which extent? 3) What is the result of the appeal? Points Nos.1 and 2: 15. Since the points No.1 and 2 are interlinked, they are being discussed and answered together. Analysis of Evidence:- [i] The 2nd claimant, Chevuru Bharath Kumar Reddy, son of the deceased is examined as PW.1. He is aged about 38 years. As per his evidence, the deceased was engaged in a Gas business, earning Rs.1,38,650/- per year and due to her sudden death the family lost protector and also affection, hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-. During the cross-examination, he has stated that he is running Gas agency, his father working as Purchase officer, his brother is engaged in real estate business. No material is placed indicating age proof of deceased. She is home-maker and she was not having 9 any income except shares in the gas company. He is not dependent on his mother. [ii] PW.2, evidence is aimed to vindicate the contention that the driver of the RTC bus was negligent. Ex.A6 is the income tax returns for the year 2005- 2006, indicating income @Rs.1,38,650/- payment of tax is shown at Rs.400/-, which is a self-assessment made. Except the self-serving statement of PW.1, there is no other evidence proving Ex.A6, is the argument of the respondent- APSRTC, which is sound in logical, in the context of the case. It is relevant to note that the evidence of PW.1, son of the deceased, would show that the deceased is a home-maker and except the shares, she possessed in the business, she has no other income. [iii] Learned MACT has taken the view that there can be no reduction in the income out of the share of the deceased, in the business. However, it is relevant to note that in respect of the home-maker or house wife, certain income on notional basis shall be taken for the purpose of calculating the compensation. For taking notional income, several factors like, economical, educational background, age, responsibility on the shoulders of the home-maker, income of the spouse of the home-maker are relevant, which will help the Tribunal, in fixing the income of the home maker and loss to the legal-heirs and dependants. 10 [iv] The other argument is that adding of future prospects arises only in respect of fixed income persons but not in cases of self-employed, and when the income is taken by notional basis in respect of non-earning category, for this argument, the answer is ‘No’. 16. From the factual scenario with reference to the evidence, the income adopted by the learned MACT at Rs.4,000/- though fit to be accepted, for considering addition of future prospects, the same require re-look with reference to views of Hon’ble Apex Court. 17. With regard to awarding of compensation under the heads of loss of consortium etc., also the learned MACT did not consider certain heads. Therefore, this Court finds it proper to examine just and adequate nature of compensation awarded, in the light of the precedential guidance as to quantum. 18. Precedential Guidance: (i) Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.1 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directing adoption of multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 11 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. 14(ii). Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. (ii). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble 12 Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others2 case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. (iii). The actual salary shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three two years in Pranay Sethi’s case. (iv). Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others3, Hon’ble apex court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. 2 2017(16) SCC 680 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 13 Taking Notional Income in respect of Home-maker:- (v). The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kirti and Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.4 at para 12 of the judgment observed as follows: “12. Third and most importantly, it is unfair on part of the respondent insurer to contest grant of future prospects considering their submission before the High Court that such compensation ought not to be paid pending outcome of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] reference. Nevertheless, the law on this point is no longer res integra, and stands crystallised, as is clear from the following extract of the aforecited Constitutional Bench judgment [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi5, “59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” (vi) Further in para 13, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the arguments that no such future prospects ought to be allowed for those with notional income, is incorrect in law by referring Sunita Tokas v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.. 6 With regard to principles of determining compensation in respect of non-earning victims and homemakers, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed at para 18 to 21 as follows: 4 2021(2) SCC 166 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 (2019) 20 SCC 688 14 “18. The second category of cases relates to those situations wherein the Court is called upon to determine the income of a non-earning victim, such as a child, a student or a homemaker. Needless to say, compensation in such cases is extremely difficult to quantify. 19. The court often follows different principles for determining the compensation towards a non-earning victim in order to arrive at an amount which would be just in the facts and circumstances of the case. Some of these involve the determination of notional income. Whenever notional income is determined in such cases, different considerations and factors are taken into account. For instance, for students, the court often considers the course that they are studying, their academic proficiency, the family background, etc. to determine and fix what they could earn in the future. (See M.R. Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [M.R. Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 15 SCC 493 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 84] ) 20. One category of non-earning victims that courts are often called upon to calculate the compensation for are homemakers. The granting of compensation for homemakers on a pecuniary basis, as in the present case, has been considered by this Court earlier on numerous occasions. A three- Judge Bench of this Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197] , while dealing with compensation for the victims of a fire during a function, granted compensation to housewives on the basis of the services rendered by them in the house, and their age. This Court, in that case, held as follows: (SCC pp. 209-10, para 10) “10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at 15 Rs 12,000 p.a. in cases of some and Rs 10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs 3000 per month and Rs 36,000 p.a.” 21. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 664 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1313] , this Court, while dealing with the grant of compensation for the death of a housewife due to a motor vehicle accident, held as follows: (SCC pp. 237-38, paras 26-27) “26. In India the courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc. but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term “services” is required to be given a broad meaning and must 16 be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier.” The above pronouncement has been followed by this Court in its recent judgment in Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Reported in (2020) 7 SCC 256 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 99 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 134] , wherein the notional income of a deceased housewife was calculated for the purposes of granting compensation in a motor accident case.” Referring to the judicial trend in taking contributions of the home-maker and taking income of notional basis, with respect to the home-maker, in para No. 30 of the judgment, it is also observed that – “30. The issue of fixing notional income for a homemaker, therefore, serves extremely important functions. It is a recognition of the multitude of women who are engaged in this activity, whether by choice or as a result of social/cultural norms. It signals to society at large that the law and the courts of the land believe in the value of the labour, services and sacrifices of homemakers. It is an acceptance of the idea that these activities contribute in a very real way to the economic condition of the family, and the economy of the nation, regardless of the fact that it may have been traditionally excluded from economic analyses. It is a reflection of changing attitudes and mindsets and of our international law obligations. And, most importantly, it is a step towards the constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity of life to all individuals. Further in para 41 of the judgment it is also held that, Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled 17 proposition of law. Various methods can be employed by the Courts to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and methods shall be just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. (Vii) In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors.7, the Honourable Apex Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed that in respect of self-employed or in respect of non-earning or not doing any job persons also there is no bar of adding future raise of income or adopting notional income. 19. In view of the precedential guidance referred above, more particularly on consideration of evidence on record, this Court finds that monthly income at Rs.4000/- taken by the learned MACT for the deceased is proper. However, with regard to taking of future prospects into consideration, the age of the deceased being ‘45’, as per inquest and post-mortem and upon considering the age of PW.2, son of the deceased, mentioned as ‘39’ in his deposition in the year 2015 and as ‘33’ in the claim petition, it can be considered that deceased falls between the age group of 40-50, whereby the future prospects can be added at 25%, in view of the observations made in par 12 of the decision in Kirti’s case [cited supra] whereby the income of the deceased including future prospects can be 7 (2021) 17 SCC 148 18 taken at Rs.5000/-, and calculation and quantification of compensation shall be done taking note of the same. 20. From the precedential guidance, the entitlement of the claimant for compensation shall be considered under the heads: 1) Loss of dependency 2) Loss of consortium 3) Funeral and obsequies expenses 4) transport charges 5) Loss of estate 1) Loss of Dependency:- The relevant factors for quantifying under this head are : a) Age of deceased ‘45’ b) Income of the deceased is Rs.5000/-, including future prospects c) Annual income at Rs.60,000/-. d) Since claimants are only (03) members, 1/3rd deduction is permissible, contribution of income of the deceased is at Rs.40,000/-. e) Multiplier applicable is ‘14’, multiplicand is Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, the entitlement of compensation under the head of loss of dependency is [Rs.40,000/- x 14] Rs.5,60,000/-. 19 2) Loss of Consortium: The 1st claimant, husband is entitled for spousal consortium; claimants 2 and 3, being children of the deceased, entitled for parental consortium. Therefore, the entitlement of claimants for compensation under the head of loss of consortium, is [Rs.40,000/- x 3] Rs.1,20,000/-: In the present case, adding of 10% of income for 3 years does not arise as death is prior to the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case. 3) Funeral and obsequies expenses: Funeral expenditure can be granted Rs.15,000/- 4) Transportation Charges: Transportation charges claimed for Rs.5,000/-, and awarded by learned MACT, the same is found fit to be confirmed in the appeal. 5) Loss of estate: Compensation under the head of loss of estate can be granted at Rs.15,000/- 21. In the light of the evidence on record and in view of the precedential guidance, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation in the juxtaposition to what is awarded by the learned MACT under various heads, is as follows: 20 Head Compensation awarded by the MACT Fixed by this Court (i) Loss of Dependency Rs.4,48,000/- Rs.5,60,000/- (ii) Loss of Consortium Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- [@ 40,000/-each entitled for the 3 claimants] (iii) Funeral and obsequies expenses Rs.30,000/- Rs.15,000/- (iv) Transportation Expenses Rs.5,000/-- (v) Loss of estate RS.50,000/- 15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs. 5,53,000 /- Rs.7,15,000/- 22. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest awarded by the learned MACT @7.5%p.a. is enhanced to 9% p.a.. 23. In the light of the above analysis and the findings of this Court, Points No.1 and 2 is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that they are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,15,000/- with interest @9% p.a. and that the compensation awarded by learned MACT Rs.5,53,000/- require enhancement accordingly. Point No.3:- 24. For the aforesaid reasons and conclusions drawn under Points No.1 and 2, and in the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows:- 1) The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,15,000/- with interest @9% p.a., instead of Rs.5,53,000/- @7.5%p.a. 21 2) The claimants are entitled for their respective share of compensation awarded under the head of loss of Consortium and enhanced part under loss of dependency at the ratio adopted by the learned MACT 3) Compensation awarded under the heads of funeral expenditure, loss of estate is allotted to the share of 1st claimant. 4) Rest of the order passed by the learned MACT, stands confirmed in respect of costs, disbursement etc.. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 21.03.2025 Pnr Note: L.R. Copy be marked. (B/o.) Pnr