1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.1545 of 2017 JUDGMENT: I. Introductory:- The APSRTC, the 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P.No.269 of 2013 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam [for short “MACT”], feeling aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 28.02.2017 filed the present appeal. 2. The respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the claimants before the learned MACT. The respondent No.3 herein is the driver employed by the appellant- APSRTC. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as claimants and respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT. Case of the Claimants, in brief, is that: 4. [i] One Dokka Lakshmana Rao [herein after referred as ‘the deceased’] while travelling on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 30/E 1718 as pillion rider, near Yepakarra Cheruvu, Chinna Logidi Village between Pathapatnam to Tekkali road, on 01.11.2012 at about 3.00 p.m., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 /z 9076 [herein after referred as ‘the offending vehicle’] driven by its driver, came in a rash 2 and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, whereby the deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment, on the date of accident itself. [ii] A case in Cr.No.65 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 338, 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently charge sheet was filed against him. [iii] Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. Deceased was aged ‘26’ years and was working as Field Assistant on honororium basis at MPDO Office, after completing his B.Sc.B.Ed., with a monthly salary of Rs.5,297/- under “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme’. Earlier, he was selected as Agent for Agri Gold and was earning Rs.6000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to death of the deceased, the claimants lost his valuable support. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation. 5. Respondent No.1- driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Case of the 2nd Respondent/Appellant-APSRTC: 6. [i] Claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants. 3 [ii] The driver was not negligent, where as the rider of the motor cycle himself was negligent and responsible for the accident and the Petition is bad for non-joinder of the rider and owner and the Insurance Company of the Motor Cycle, and that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent No.1 of bus 10/Z 9076? 2) Whether petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation? if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? Evidence before the learned MACT:- 8. For the Claimant For the Respondents Ex.No. Description Ex.No. Description Ex.A1 Certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.65/2012 of Pathapatnam Police Station. - Nil - Ex.A2 Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.22 of 2013. Ex.A3 Certified copy of Postmortem Report. Ex.A4 Certified copy of MVI Report 4 Ex.A5 Certified copy of Inquest Report Ex.A6 Payment Order issued by MPDO, Pathapatnam Ex.A7 Agrigold Identity Card. Ex.X1 True copy of appointment order of the deceased issued by MPDO, Pathapatnam Ex.X2 True copy of Honorarium Pay particulars. Witnesses examined Witnesses examined PW.1 Dokka Dharma Rao [1st Claimant / Father of the deceased] RW.1 Vatti Mohana Rao [Conductor of the offending vhicle] PW.2 Cheekati Sudhakar [eye witness] PW.3 Temburu Ravi Addl. Programming Officer, MGMRGS, Mandal Parishad, Pathapatnam] Findings of the learned MACT:- 9. [i] The evidence of PW.2, being an eye witness, coupled with other material Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 is sufficient to believe the negligence. [ii] The evidence of RW.1 that he does not know whether Police filed Charge sheet and whether the 1st respondent is accused and responsible for the accident, runs counter to the case of the 2nd respondent-APSRTC. 5 [iii] The other material as to honororium etc., paid and working experience of the deceased with AgriGold show the income of deceased at Rs.10,300/- per month. Upon taking income shown in Ex.X2 @Rs.5,297/- and the income @Rs.5000/- from Agrigold Agency total comes to Rs.10,300/- per month. [iv] In all the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,25,460/- with interest @ 9% per annum as compensation. Arguments advanced in the appeal: For the Appellant -APSRTC: 10. [i] Learned MACT erred in taking income of the deceased under both the jobs, viz., 1) as Agent of Agrigold 2) as Field Assistant at MPDO Office, without sufficient basis. [ii] Income taken is excessive and quantification of compensation is exorbitant. [iii] Learned MACT has awarded more compensation than what claimed, without any basis or rationality. [iv] Learned MACT erred in ignoring the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. 6 For the Claimants:- 11. [i] Claimants are entitled for more compensation than what claimed and awarded. [ii] Future prospects in income are not added. [iii] Age of the deceased is ‘26’ and he has bright future. Therefore, the compensation awarded cannot be found fault under any circumstances. 12. Perused the record. 13. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 14. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 01.11.2012 has occurred due to exclusive rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and the compensation @Rs.15,25,460/- awarded is just and reasonable Or require any interference? If so, on what grounds and to which extent? 3) What is the result of the appeal? 7 Point No.1: 15. The evidence of PW.2 is clear and categorical as to negligence of the driver of RTC bus and Charge Sheet was laid under Ex.A2 against driver of the offending vehicle. PW.2- ‘Cheekati Sudhakar’ is arrayed as LW.2 in Ex.A2- Charge sheet. The argument that PW.2 is not shown as inquestdar does not merit any consideration. 16. In the light of the evidence of PW.2 coupled with entries in Ex.A1-F.I.R., and Ex.A2-Charge Sheet, particularly on taking note of absence of contradictory evidence, from the end of respondents, the evidence on record found sufficient to believe the accident and negligence of the 1st respondent – driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the point touching the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is answered against the APSRTC-appellant and conclusions drawn by the learned MACT in that connection are accepted. Point No.2:- Quantification of compensation:- Precedential Guidance:- 17. Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) 8 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. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. 18. 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 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 9 transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. 19. [i] Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble 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. [ii] 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 [cited 3 supra]. 20. 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 2 2017(16) SCC 680 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 10 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. 21. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.4, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.5. From the observations made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding. Analysis of Evidence:- 22. [i] 1st claimant, father of the deceased as PW.1 deposed about the accident and shifting of the deceased to hospital through 108 ambulance, spending Rs.25,000/- towards transport etc., expenditure while adding that the deceased was working as Filed Assistant on honororirum basis in MPDO Office and getting Rs.5,297/- under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Prior to the same, he obtained agency from Agri Gold India 4 2023 (3) SCC 439 5 1995 (1) SCC 551 11 Ltd., for joining members. He has relied on payment order issued by the M.P.D.O., Pathapatnam, Agrigold Identity Card. [ii] During his cross examination, it is elicited that, the deceased was aged 26years and unmarried; PW.1 do not know whether the job of the deceased is permanent or temporary; whether the deceased received salary or honororium for the work done: Ex.A7 is colour Photostat copy issued by Agrigold. [iii] PW.2, Cheekati Sudhakar stated about the accident, shifting of the deceased to Hospital through ambulance and he has added that the deceased was working as Field Assistant in MPDO Office, besides being an agent of Agri Gold. [iii] PW.3, Additional Program Officer, the MGNREG Scheme, Mandal Parishad, Pathapatnam on summons attended the Court and deposed that the deceased was working as Field Assistant. Ex.X1 is the appointment order of the deceased. Ex.X2 is the honorarium particulars. Nothing important is elicited during his cross-examination. Ex.A6 is the payment order of Rs.5,297/- issued by MPDO. Ex.A7 is Identity Card dated 09.12.2010 issued by Agrigold, which is indicating of Rs.750/- is paid by the Dokka Lakshmana Rao/the deceased and it is not indicating any particulars about the payment of amount to the deceased as a salary etc., and indicating the payment made towards processing charges. No supporting evidence is there for Ex.A7 as to why it was issued, by whom it was 12 issued etc.. None are examined from Agri Gold Company to prove the status of the deceased. Ex.A7 is dated 09.12.2010. Ex.A6 dated 03.11.2012. Ex.X1 is dated Nil. However, simultaneously working for two establishments is not shown with a clear evidence as rightly argued by the appellant. 23. Learned MACT has added income under two (02) heads. Rs.5,297/- as income as Field Assistant and Rs.5000/- as Agent of Agri Gold Company and taken the income at Rs.10,300/- per month. Further the learned MACT deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure observing that there are three dependants. Deceased died unmarried. Therefore, in any event the deduction shall be 50%. 24. Further, what is the commission the deceased was getting while working as Agent is not clear, except the interested evidence of PW.1, father of the deceased. 25. It is also relevant to note that the learned MACT did not add future aspects as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the claimants. For want of convincing evidence, income out of the Agri Gold agency cannot be considered. 26. Though the employment under MGNRG is in private employment, in view of the observations in Prany Sethi’s case cited above and in view of the age of the deceased being below ‘40’, since the employment of the deceased does not come under self-employed status, adding 50% is permissible upon considering the age of the deceased. Then the income of the deceased can be taken around Rs.8000/- and annual income comes to around Rs.96,000/. If 50% is deducted 13 towards personal expenditure, the contribution of deceased to the claimants will come to Rs.48,000/-. Hence, the same can be considered as multiplicand. For the age group of 26 of deceased, multiplier applicable is ‘17’. Then the entitlement of the claimants under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,16,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation at Rs.8,16,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. 27. Claimants being parents entitled for filial consortium @Rs.40,000/- each, towards loss of estate and funeral expenditure, they are entitled for Rs.15,000/- each. Further, towards transportation of dead body etc., they have claimed incurred expenditure Rs.25,000/-, hence, they are entitled for the same. 28. For the reasons stated above, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation under various heads and comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Head Compensation awarded by the MACT Fixed by this Court (i) Loss of Dependency Rs.14,00,460/- Rs.8,16,000/- (ii) Loss of Consortium Nil Rs.80,000/- [ClaimantsNo.1&2 each @Rs.40,000] (iii) Loss of Love and Affection Rs.1,00,000/- - Nil - (iii) Funeral and obsequies expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- (iv) Transportation Expenses -Nil Rs.25,000/- (v) Loss of estate -Nil- Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.15,25,460/- Rs.9,51,000/- 14 29. For the reasons stated above, it is found that the claimants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.9,51,000/- with interest @9% instead of Rs.15,25,460/- awarded by the learned MACT. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Disbursement and apportionment of compensation:- 30. Leaned MACT has directed deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of unmarried daughter of the claimants. Said unmarried daughter is not a party and what are the needs and age of her etc., are not known. Therefore, the directions as to keeping amount in FDR as directed by the learned MACT found not necessary. The claimants being parents they can handle money rationally for their daughter having lost their son. Point Nos.3:- 31. 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.9,51,000/- with interest @9% p.a., instead of Rs.15,25,460/- with interest @9% p.a.. 2) The compensation awarded shall be apportioned equally among both the claimants and both of them entitled to withdraw the same on deposit at once. 3) Deposit shall be made before the learned MACT, deducting the amount what is already deposited. 15 4) No costs in the appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 17.04.2025 Pnr