APHC010608122022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 464/2022 Between: 1. DUDEKULA VANNURABEE, W/O LATE DUDEKULA BAADULLA ,45 ,COOLIE 2. DUDEKULA SAIDABEE,, W/O RAHAMATH BASHA ,AGE 29,COOLIE , 3. DUDEKULA SALEENA,, W/O TADIPATRI CHINNA KHASIM ,AGE 27, COOLIE 4. DUDEKULA RESHMA ., D/O LATE D.BADULLA ,AGE 25 ,COOLIE , 5. DUDEKULA SABEENA ,, D/O LATE D.BAADULLA ,AGE 23, COOLIE , 6. DUDEKULA DADA KALANDHAR,, S/O LATE D.BAADULLA ,AGE 19, STUDENT ALL R/O GANGAMPALLI VILLAGE , RAMAGIRI MANDAL ,ANANTAPUR DISTRICT . ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. SRI VENKATESWARA SWAMY FARMERS ASSOSIATIONS, REP BY IT'S PROPRITER K.SRINIVASULU , GANGAMPALLI VILLAGE ,RAMAGIRI MANDAL ,ANANTAPUR DIST 2. BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COLTD, REP BY IT'S AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, 3RD FLOOR ,6-3- 666/B/6,GOKUL TOWERS, PUNJAGUTTA ,HYDERABAD - 82. 3. DALI HARISH, DRIVER OF TANDT H.NO 1-56, CHANNAMPALLI V KAMBADUR M ANANTAPUR DIST ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobegs to prefer this Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the Motor vehicles accidents claims tribunal IVth Addl Distict Judge cum Spl Judge for trial of offence against the women,Anantapuramu Having aggrieved by the order Dt 15-2- 2 2022 passed in OP 151/2019 for the following among other grounds . IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 163 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble High court and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. G VENKATESULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.464 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Ananthapuram (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟) in M.V.O.P.No.151 of 2019 dated 15.02.2022. 2. The claimants, who are wife and children of one Dudekula Baadulla (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively, before the Tribunal are the appellants herein. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-39-R-5123 and AP-39-AQ- 4683 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”), respectively. 3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 04.05.2019 at about 01.00 p.m., while the deceased was travelling as a coolie in the crime vehicle 4 and when he reached near Kothagudam Village, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, resulted the vehicle turned turtle and the deceased died on the spot due to the injuries sustained in the incident. ii). By the date of incident, the deceased was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and contributed the same for the welfare of the claimants. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the owner, insurer and driver of the crime vehicle. 4. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the deceased, on his personal work, went to Kambadur Village and boarded the crime vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and due to his negligence fell down from the vehicle and died; that the owner has not paid any premium covering the risk of hamalies/coolies, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5 5. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether accident occurred on 04.05.2019 at about 1.00 p.m., near Kothagudam Village due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-39-R-5123 and AP-39-AQ-4683 as resulted in causing death of D.Badulla? 2.Whether petitioners are entitled for claiming compensation and if so what amount and from whom? 3.To what relief?” 6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1and 2wereexamined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 & B2 and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked. 7. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent‟s tractor by the 3rd respondent, awarded an amount of Rs.5,93,000/- to the claimants, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of 6 petition till the date of realization, for the death of the deceased in the accident. The Tribunal also directed the 2nd respondent to pay the amount first and granted liberty to recover the same from owner and driver of tractor, either jointly or severally, by filing an execution petition. 8. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard Sri G.Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer. 10. Sri G.Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and in deducting one-third towards personal expenses. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to award future prospects, contrary to the settled legal position laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. 7 Pranay Sethi. In view of these errors, the learned counsel prays that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to consider and allow the present appeal. 11. As against the same, Sri G.Srinivasu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer submits that no further material is placed on record to establish that the income of the deceased was more than Rs.6,000/- per month, as well even as per the claim, there are more than five persons, therefore, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rdof his personal and living expenses and there is no error on the part of the Tribunal in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants, thereby, prays to dismiss the present appeal. 12. Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether there is any error on the part of Tribunal in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants? 13. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the 3rd 8 respondent in causing the incident. It is also an undisputed fact that the insurer of the crime vehicle did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants and awarded less compensation. 15. Coming to the just compensation is concerned, in the absence of substantial material on record, the Tribunal rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month since he was aged about 55 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, no addition is required to the income of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.72,000/- per annum. 16. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra) in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income should be the warrant where 9 the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years….. (emphasis supplied) 17. In the present case, as per the above said decision, 10% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, as the deceased was aged about 55 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 10% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects his income is determined at Rs.79,200/-(Rs.72,000/- + Rs.7,200/-). 18. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in NationalInsurance 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 deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraph No.30, Sarla Verma lays down: - 12017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 10 “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 Chandra case, the general practice is to apply standardised deduction. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR ® 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.” 19. In the present case, the petitioners have shown six persons as claimants, who are the family members of the deceased. However, it can be seen that among six claimants, two daughters were already married and one claimant is son of the deceased and may be an earning member. Hence, the remaining three claimants, who are the wife and two unmarried daughters, can be said to be dependents on the deceased. Hence, by following the decision of Pranay Sethi (referred to supra), where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd. In 11 the instant case, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and hence it cannot be said that any error was committed by the Tribunal in this regard. Thereby, the quantum is determined as Rs.52,800/- (79,200- 26,400/-). 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 taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, 22017 (3) SCC 315 12 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) 13 21. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 55 years is 11.The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.5,80,800/- (Rs.52,800/- x 11). 22. Furthermore, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate as well Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which requires no interference of this Court. 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.72,000/- per annum 2 10% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.72,000/- + Rs.7,200/- )Rs.79,200/- 3 1/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.52,800/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier (Rs.52,800/- x 11) Rs.5,80,800/- 14 11. 5 Loss of consortium and loss of estate Rs.50,000/- 6 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6) Rs.6,45,800/- 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.5,93,000/- to Rs.6,45,800/-. It is needless to say that the compensation as claimed on the remaining heads is not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 25. In view of the above, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation only. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is liable to be considered partly. 15 26. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part to enhance the compensation from Rs.5,93,000/- to Rs.6,45,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, with costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 3. The respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant No.1/wife isentitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier. The rest of the terms and conditions, as well apportionment made by the Tribunal towards entitlement of compensation to the other claimants, in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. 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. __________________ 16 JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date:08.07.2025 JLV 17 229 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.464 of 2022 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 08.07.2025 JLV