1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.340 of 2017 JUDGMENT: 1. One A. Jyotiraj (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) while on the side of the road on 29.10.2014 met with an accident caused by the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 03 TC 4721 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) and succumbed to injuries. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 being wife and son of the deceased, filed M.V.O.P.No.180 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor (for short “the MACT”) claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,00/- and the same was allowed-in-part granting a compensation of Rs.7,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% by the learned MACT. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted, the present appeal is filed. 2. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the learned MACT and Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured. Case of claimants: 3. The deceased was hale and healthy. Claimant No.1 is the wife and Claimant No.2 is the son and they are the only legal heirs of the deceased. On 29.12.2014 at about 9.30 am, the accident occurred when the driver of the 2 offending vehicle negligently dashed the deceased, while deceased was proceeding on the road. Deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor, for treatment from there to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi. While undergoing treatment in the SVIMS Hospital, the deceased died on 08.03.2015. The petitioners being dependents and legal heirs are entitled for compensation. Case of Respondent Insurance company: 4. The claimants shall prove their relationship with the deceased, death of deceased due to the accident, age, occupation, income of the deceased and loss of dependency of the claimant apart from the negligence of the driver of the auto and valid and subsisting driving licence of the driver of the auto including subsistence of valid effective policy issued by Respondent Insurance Company. It is also claimed by the Respondent's Insurance Company that in any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. Evidence before the learned MACT: 5(i). Claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and she has stated about relationship of herself and claimant No.2 with deceased, age, occupation and income of deceased and their dependency on the deceased adding that, deceased was working in Public Health Department as a contract labour, aged about 32 years getting salary at Rs.8,300/- per month apart from earning Rs.5,000/- by doing business etc. and his monthly income was Rs.13,300/- and 3 he was contributing entire income to the family. Due to his sudden demise the claimants lost everything. 5(ii). PW.2 is one Dr. Mithra working as Municipal Health Officer stated about deceased working in the Municipal Office on outsourcing basis earning Rs.8,300/- per month referring to Ex.A6. 5(iii). PW.3 is one B.V.Ravi Kumar, Doctor-Neurosurgeon stated that he has examined the deceased on 29.12.2014, found injuries and conducted surgeries added that the patient was in bad condition, unable to recover and injuries suffered by deceased would lead to death. During cross-examination it is elicited that PW.2 cannot say whether the death is due to injuries. 5(iv). PW.4 is one P. Chandrasekhar stated about the negligence of the driver of the auto. During cross examination he denied the suggestion as to absence of negligence of driver of offending vehicle and stated that he has not given complainant to police. The claimants relied on documentary evidence Ex.A1- FIR, Ex.A2-postmortem certificate, Ex.A3-inquest report, Ex.A4 Accident Information Report(AIR), Ex.A5-Charge sheet, Ex.A6-income certificate of the deceased. The respondent relied on Ex.B1-insurance policy. It is a package policy. 6. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial: 4 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 03 TC 4721? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? Findings of the learned MACT: 7. While referring to the evidence of PW.1 and 4 and Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A4 - Accident Information Report(AIR), Ex.A5-Charge sheet and evidence of PW.4 - eye witness, the learned MACT believed the negligence of driver of auto and answered the issue relating to negligence against the Respondent Insurance company. 8. While referring to evidence of PW.1 and 2 and Ex.A6, the learned MACT accepted income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- notionally assigning the reason that attendance register of the deceased is not produced by PW.2 therefore the learned MACT cannot consider the income at Rs.8,300/- mentioned in Ex.A6. However, found that the claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads:- Sl.No. Head Compensation 1. Transport expenses Rs.10,000/- 2. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- 3. Damages to clothes and articles Rs.5,000/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- 5. Loss of love and affection Rs.2,00,000/- 6. Loss of estate and dependency Rs.4,48,000/- Total Rs.7,88,000/- 5 Arguments in the appeal: For appellants: 9(i) Learned MACT erred in ignoring Ex.A6, wherein the income is shown at Rs.8,300/-. (ii) The compensation awarded under different heads is very low. (iii) The future prospects are not taken into consideration. For Respondents: 10(i). G ranting compensation under loss of consortium at Rs.1,00,000/- again awarding compensation under loss of love and affection at Rs.2,00,000/- is an error. (ii) The compensation awarded under loss of consortium is exorbitant. (iii)The income taken at Rs.3,500/- notionally is excessive. (iv) The tribunal is correct in ignoring Ex.A6 for want of attendance register (v). The compensation already granted itself is excessive and needs reduction. 11. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by both sides. 6 Scope of Appeal: 12(i) There is no appeal or cross objections filed by the Respondents insurance company. (ii) Appellants are questioning the quantum of compensation granted. (iii) Negligence, death of deceased due to accident, entitlement of claimants for compensation liability of Respondents are all out of dispute. 13. Now the points that remains for determination in this appeal are: 1) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled and what is the liability of the Respondent? 2.) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is sustainable? 3) What is the result of appeal? Point Nos.1&2: Precedential Guidance: 14. 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 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 7 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. 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. 8 15(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. 16. 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 9 Analysis of evidence: 17. PW.1 wife of deceased stated about the employment and earnings of her husband. During her cross examination it is elicited that she did not file any documents to show that her husband was working as outsourcing employee and doing business by selling food products and about his exact income 18. Evidence of PW.2-Municipal Health Officer, Chittoor is relevant for the purpose of considering the income of the deceased which is as follows; As per the records the deceased met with an accident on 29.12.2014 near Reliance Mart, Vellore Road, Chittoor. The deceased was an employee in the Municipal Office as Out sourcing. The Ex.A6 is the certificate issued by my department. As per Ex.A6 the deceased was paying Rs.8,300/- per month. 19. PW.4 is an eye witness to the accident but he has also stated about the employment and income of the deceased, since his evidence is only an addition to evidence of PW.1 oral in nature, it may not have complete bearing. Non production of attendance certificate of the deceased is the ground on which evidence of PW.2 is ignored by the learned MACT. 20(i). Claimants relied on Ex.A6. This court finds it proper and relevant to extract Ex.A6 which is as follows: This is to certify that A.Jayaraj, S/o. A. Subramanyam was engaged as outsourcing worker in Municipal Corporation, Chittoor since 3 and half years and he was paid Rs.8,300/- per month as his salary 10 (wages). He met with an accident on 29.12.2014 at about 9:30 A.M. on Chittoor Vellore Road near Reliance Mart, Chittoor during the course of his employment. Due to injuries he had been taken treatment at SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, during his medical treatment he was succumbed to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident on 08.03.2015 at about 10:45 A.M. while he was in his house. 20(ii). This document is issued by the Health Officer, Chittoor Municipal Corporation and the same is dated 10.03.2016. Ex.A6 is in two parts, one is indicating consolidated wage paid to him at Rs.8,300/- per month and the second part is that he was engaged as out sourcing worker in Municipal Corporation and died on 08.03.2015. The cross examination done by PW.2 found not sufficient to ignore Ex.A6 document. In the context of the age of the deceased and in the light of the evidence of PW.2 and other documents reasonable reliance can be placed on Ex.A6 document. 21. Further, it is also relevant to note that column No.2 of inquest report is indicating that the deceased was working in municipality as P/H contract worker. Further, in Column No.15 also it is mentioned that deceased was working at Municipal Corporation and while he was lifting the garbage and crossing the road, the auto came and dashed. Post-mortem certificate is indicating that the deceased met with road traffic accident and the cause of death is due to injury to vital organ of brain. Any amount of corroboration is there for Ex.A6 and the evidence of PW.2 from other record placed before the Court. It cannot be said that at the time of preparing the inquest, the recitals are got written advisedly to 11 suit the claim. Details mentioned in Ex.A3 as well as Ex.A6 are found natural. When certificate is indicating the salary and when an official witness like PW.2 speaks about such documents without there being any malice attributable to the witness simply ignoring the document found not proper. Non-production of the attendance register, when salary certificate itself is produced cannot be considered as a failure on the part of the claimants. 22. The claimants have discharged their burden probabilising the employment and income of the deceased. If at all the respondents wanted to dispute the credence of Ex.A6 and the credibility of the evidence of PW.2. It is for them to summon further details and place the same before the Court. Without there being any such effort simply attacking the reasonable material placed is not acceptable and unfortunately the same has got positive nod from the learned MACT. This court finds that Ex.A6 and salary mentioned therein is fit to be considered. However, for any reason the deductions like EPF, ESI etc. ought have been deducted, the income may be accepted by reducing 10% of the same. Then the income can be taken around at Rs.7,000/-. However, after adding future prospects etc. as the employment is not permanent, the same can be taken safely at Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, on deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, contribution to family comes to Rs.80,000/- which can be accepted as Multiplicand for the age group of 32 years (deceased). Multiplier applicable is „16‟. Then, the compensation can be awarded under the 12 head of loss of dependency (multiplicand-Rs.80,000/- x multiplier-„16‟) comes to Rs.12,80,000/- . 23. The claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of medical expenses also towards the treatment extended to the deceased. The period of hospitalization can be seen from Ex.X1 case sheet. However, exact medical expenses incurred is not evidenced by any specific document. Even in the claim petition, the claimants prayed for Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenditure. The accident dated 29.12.2014 and date of death 08.03.2015 which suggests survival of deceased for around 70 days. The claimants might have incurred reasonable expenditure towards transportation, attendant charges etc. Under all the heads together, they are entitled for Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The same is assessed notionally and with guess work. Under the other heads like loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, the claimants are entitled for compensation in terms of guidelines of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court mentioned above. 24. In view of the discussion made and in the light of legal position stated etc. the entitlement of claimants for the compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: 13 Head Compensation awarded by the MACT Fixed by this Court (i) (a)Loss of dependency } Rs.4,48,000/- (a) Rs.12,80,000/- (b)Loss of estate (b) Rs.15,000/- (ii) Loss of Consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.80,000/- (iii) Funeral and obsequies expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- (iv) Transportation Expenses and medical expenditure etc. Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/- (v) Loss of love and affection Rs.2,00,000/- -Nil- (vi) Damages towards clothes and articles Rs.5,000/- -Nil- Total compensation awarded Rs.7,88,000/- Rs.14,40,000/- Interest (per annum) 7.5% 9% 25. For the reasons stated above, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is arrived and awarded at Rs.14,40,000/-. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the claimants. Point No.3: 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. (i) Enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,88,000/- to Rs.14,40,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. (ii). Claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.8,00,000/- and Claimant No.2 is entitled for Rs.6,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%. (iii) Claimant No.1 is entitled to withdraw entire amount on deposit. 14 (iv) Claimant No.2 is entitled to withdraw the same on attaining the major subject to major declaration. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:21.03.2025 Knr 15 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.340 of 2017 21st March, 2025 Knr