1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.259 of 2017 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. The claimants before the I Additional District Judge- -cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, [‘for short ‘MACT’], in M.V.O.P.No.358 of 2007 filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award and decree dated 25.10.2010, where under the compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- with interest @7.5% was awarded to them as against a claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the respondents 1 to 3 before the learned MACT. Respondent No.4 before the learned MACT is not added as party in this appeal. 4. The 1st respondent is the driver. 2nd respondent is the insurer of lorry bearing No.ADC 1786 [hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle’], 3rd respondent is the owner of Maruthi Omni Car bearing No. KA 22 2544 [ for short referred as ‘Vehicle No.1’] and the 4th respondent before the learned MACT is the insurer of the vehicle No.1. The respondents No.3 and 4 were referred as proforma parties in para 26(vii) at page 7 of claim petition. Respondent No.3 remained absent and ex parte. Respondents 2 and 4 have contested the matter, through their 2 respective advocates. Learned MACT passed the Award against the respondents 1 and 2 alone. 5. 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 – 6. [i] S.Raja @ Jashva [herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’], is son of claimants No.1 and 2, and bother of the claimant No.3. On 30.08.2006 at about 4.45 a.m., when the deceased was traveling from Bangalore in Vehicle No.1, between Chittoor to Palamaner Road, near Mordhanapalli, within the limits of Yedamari Police Station, one lorry bearing No.ADC 1786 [offending vehicle] came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Vehicle No.1, caused the accident, resultantly the driver of vehicle No.1 and deceased sustained injuries and the deceased succumbed to injuries. The negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the reason for the accident and a case in Crime No.65 of 2006 was registered in Yadamari Police Station for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 IPC and Police laid charge sheet after investigation against the driver of the offending vehicle. [ii] The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 20 years, studying III year Engineering at Bangalore. He was a bright student and was working as Manager in a Motor Driving School, earning Rs.5000/- per month by working on 3 part time basis. Due to the death of the deceased, claimants’ life became dark and hence, they are entitled for compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-. The case of the 2nd respondent, in brief is that :- 7. The claimants shall prove the age, occupation, income and educational standard of the deceased. The allegations as to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are incorrect. The driver of the car is responsible for the accident. Since there was collision of two vehicles, coming in opposite directions, the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible. Investigation against the driver of the lorry is the defective and aimed to help the claimants. The claimants shall prove the valid and effective driving license of the driver of the lorry. The claim is excessive. The case of the respondent No.4:- 8. The claimants unnecessarily added respondents 3 and 4 as parties. Claimants shall prove the accident etc. In the event of any liability, only 1st and 2nd respondents are liable. There is violation of terms by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, in the event of any negligence etc., by the driver of the vehicle No.1, the 3rd respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation. In any event, quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. As there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car no liability can be fastened on the 4th respondent. 4 9. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.ADC 1786 and Car bearing No. KA 22 M 2544? 2) Whether the petitioners/claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 10. Evidence before the learned MACT:- Description Remarks Oral evidence: For the Claimants: P.W.1: G.Sreeramulu Father of the deceased P.W.2: R. Vijay Eye witness to the accident. P.W.3: S.Challa Dorai Principal of Driving School, where the deceased is working Documentary evidence : Ex.A1: F.I.R. in Crime No.65 of 2006 of Yadamari Police Station. Ex.A2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement in Cr.No.65 of 2006. Ex.A3: Post Mortem Certificate of the deceased Ex.A4: Accident Information Report Ex.A5: Charge Sheet in C.C.No.300 of 2006. Ex.A6: Salary Certificate of the deceased. Ex.A7: Certificate issued by the Principal New Horizon College of Engineering, Bangalore. Ex.A8: Tuition Fee receipts of the deceased issued by the New Horizon College of Engineering, Bangalore. Ex.A9: Identity Card issued by the New Hortzon College of Engineering Bangalore. Ex.A10: Copy of Insurance Policy of the Lorry. For the respondents - Nil - 5 Findings of the learned MACT: 11. PW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. But PW.2 was traveling in Vehicle No.1. PW.2 stated about the occurrence of the accident and negligence of the driver of the lorry. Identity and involvement of the offending vehicle is established during the course of investigation, on the strength of the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the driver to the owner of the lorry. No steps are taken by the 2nd respondent to dispute the involvement of the offending vehicle and there are no denials in specific by the 2nd respondent. The suggestions given to the PWs.1 and 2 are attributing negligence to the driver of the Car, therefore, it can be taken that there is no dispute as to identity and involvement of the offending vehicle, more particularly in the context of filing of charge sheet by Police, after investigation against the driver of the lorry. Therefore, with the evidence of PW.2 and police record, the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle stands acceptable and issue in that regard fit to be answered in favour of the claimants. 12. With regard to the education of the deceased etc., Certificate issued by the Principal of Engineering College-Ex.A7 and the Identity Card issued by the College - Ex.A9 are the basis. 13. Evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A6-Salary Certificate of the deceased are the basis to consider the income of the deceased. However, the same are under 6 dispute. The details like Attendance Register etc., as to the employment of the deceased are not produced. Hence, the deceased can be considered as non- earning Member. However, in a case between Arvind Mishra Vs. New Insurance Company Ltd., decided on 29.09.2010, the Hon’ble Apex Court taken the income of the Engineering student at Rs.60,000/- per annum, where the victim was studying prestigious Institution. Therefore, the income of the deceased acceptable at Rs.5000/-. Loss of dependency comes to Rs.30,000/- p.a., after deducting 50% towards personal expenditure of the deceased. 14. Average age of claimants No.1 and 2 is 43, therefore, multiplier applicable is ‘14’, whereby the loss of dependency comes to Rs.30,000/-x14 = Rs.4,20,000/- towards loss of estate etc., they are entitled for Rs.5000/-, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, in all the entitlement of claimants for compensation is Rs.4,30,000/-. Scope of Appeal: 15. Claimants are before this Court, questioning quantum of compensation done by the learned MACT. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company nor there are cross-objections filed for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. 16. As per the claim petition itself, owner and the Insurance Company of the Vehicle No.1 for which, the deceased was travelling are proforma parties and no 7 relief is claimed against them. Learned MACT did not grant any relief against them. 17. The owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte all through. 18. Therefore, accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to the accident and entitlement of the claimants for compensation are all out of the scope of the appeal. The only point remains for consideration and determination in this appeal is what is just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled? Arguments advanced in the Appeal:- 19. For the claimants: [i] Adoption of income @ Rs.5000/- p.m. is not correct. [ii] Adoption of multiplier ‘14’ is not correct. [iii] The evidence of PW.3, Ex.A6 and the educational record of the deceased are not fairly considered by the learned MACT. [iv] Compensation awarded is very low and not justified. 20. For the 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company:- 1) Compensation awarded itself is on high side. 2) Contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Car should have been taken into account. 8 3) Fixing of entire liability on the 1st and 2nd respondents is not correct. 21. Perused the record. 22. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 23. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that - 1) What is the just and adequate compensation to which the appellants/claimants are entitled and what is the liability of the 1st and 2nd respondents? and Whether the compensation awarded at Rs.4,30,000/- by the learned MACT require any modification? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 24. 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. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 9 3. Number of dependents. (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. (iii). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others2 2 2017(16) SCC 680 10 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. (iv). 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. (v). 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. Analysis of Evidence:- 25. [i] PW.3, Principal of Driving School has stated that the deceased was working as Manager and Rs.5000/- was paid per month to the deceased as 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 11 salary. Ex.A6 is the Salary Certificate. Ex.A6 would show that the deceased was paid Rs.5000/- per month. [ii] PW.3 confirmed about the issuance of Ex.A6. During the cross- examination, PW.3 stated that he is Proprietor of Driving School. It was simply suggested to him that Ex.A6 is fabricated one. No further cross-examination is done thereon, as to necessity and requirement of Attendance Register and how many other employees are working in the Driving School etc.. Therefore, it can be considered that Ex.A6 is reliable. Anyway learned MACT has taken income of the deceased @Rs.5000/- per month. But the other documents as to the educational qualifications of the deceased as Engineering student, vide in Ex.A7- Certificate issued by the Principal of Engineering College, and Ex.A9-Student Identity Card, require some consideration, which were ignored by the learned MACT. [iii] Future prospects also should be taken into consideration. The accident and death have taken place in the year 2006. Notionally considering socio economic conditions etc., of the year 2006, the income of the deceased is fit to be accepted around Rs.6000/- as against Rs.5000/- taken by the learned MACT. 26. Adding of future prospects in respect of the non-earning group is also settled practice in law, therefore, adding of 1/3rd increase to the income of 12 deceased can be done towards future prospects, with which monthly income comes to Rs.8000/-. Accordingly, the same is taken as income of the deceased. 27. The deceased is a bachelor; hence, 50% of the income is fit to be deducted towards personal expenditure. Whereby the contribution to the claimants will come to Rs.4000/-per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. Therefore, Rs.48,000/- is taken as multiplicand. Awarding compensation under the loss of consortium (‘filial consortium’) to the mother is permissible. 28. Learned MACT has taken the age of the parents of the deceased, but age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration, then the multiplier applicable for the age of the deceased is ‘18’, whereby the entitlement of the claimants comes to [Rs.48,000/- p.a. x 18] Rs.8,64,000/-. Parents are entitled for filial consortium. Under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses @Rs.15,000/- each can be granted, as per the observations in Pranay Sethi’s case. Both the Claimant No.1 and 2 are entitled for [Rs.40,000/- x 2] Rs.80,000/-, under head of Loss of filial consortium. 29. In the light of the evidence on record and in view of the precedential guidance, mentioned above the entitlement of the claimants for compensation in the juxtaposition to what is awarded by the learned MACT under various heads, is as follows: 13 Head Compensation awarded by the MACT Fixed by this Court (i) Loss of Dependency Rs.4,20,000/- 8,64,000/- (ii) Loss of Consortium a) Filial consortium : _Nil- Rs.80,000/- [@ 40,000/-each entitled for the claimants 1, 2] (iii) Funeral and obsequies expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- (v) Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs. 4,30,000 /- Rs.9,74,000/- 30. In the light of the above findings of this Court, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that they are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,74,000//- with interest @7.5% p.a. and that the compensation awarded by learned MACT Rs.4,30,000/- require enhancement accordingly. Respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. 31. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons and conclusions drawn under Points No.1, in the result, the appeal is allowed as follows:- 1) The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,74,000/- with interest @7.5%p.a., instead of Rs.4,30,000/- . [ Save what is already deposited and balance amount shall be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally] 2) The claimants are entitled for apportionment as under : 14 Claimant No.1 - Rs.4,00,000/- Claimant No.2 - Rs.4,00,000/- Claimant No.3 - Rs.1,74,000/- 3) Apportionment shall include the amount already apportioned @Rs.2,00,000/- each to the claimants 1 and 2 and Rs.30,000/- to the claimant No.3. However, the amount apportioned to the share of claimant No.2 shall be equally paid to the claimants No.1 and 3, since she is reported as died. [Save what has been already withdrawn]. 4) Claimant No.1 is permitted to withdraw his share amount at once on deposit. 5) Withdrawal of amount by the claimant No.3 is subject to attaining of majority and permission by learned MACT, as per law. 6) No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 28.03.2025 Pnr