APHC010028072022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 21/2022 Between: Vanganujru Guru Shekar and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Desi Sunil and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Kadapa (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.508 of 2019 dated 22.11.2021. 2. The claimants, who are children of one Vanganuru Subbarayudu (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”), before the Tribunal, are the appellants. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the owner, insurer, driver and former owner of Toyota Etios Car 2 bearing No.AP 03 BR 6624 (hereinafter referred to as “crime car”), respectively. 3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 09.11.2019 at about 02.50 p.m., while the deceased proceeding on his motorcycle along with one Guru Mohan, when they reached Ramachandrapuram speed breaker situated at Kamalapuram to Yerraguntla main road, the crime car driven by the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resulted the deceased and pillion rider fell on the road and the deceased received head injury and injury to the left eye. While undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries. ii). By the time of incident, the deceased was hale and healthy, earning Rs.500/- per day as Beldari(mason) and contributed the same for the welfare of the claimants. They claimed compensation of 3 Rs.12,45,000/- against the owner, insurer, driver and former owner of the crime car. 4. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the claimants are not the dependents on the deceased; that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased, but not 3rd respondent, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The respondent No.3/driver filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the crime car is validly insured with the 2nd respondent; that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased, but not 3rd respondent, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The respondent No.4/former owner of the crime car filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that she sold the crime car to the respondent No.1 for valuable consideration; that she has no objection to change the policy in the name of respondent No.1; that the respondent No.1 4 did not violate the conditions of the policy, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving by R3 driver of vehicle bearing No.AP03 BR 6624 resulting in the death of rider of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP04 BC 5227? 2.Whether R4 is liable to pay compensation having transferred the crime vehicle bearing No.AP03 BR 6624 on the name of Respondent No.1? 3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from whom and for what amount? and 4.To what relief?” 8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime car by the 3rd respondent, held that 5 claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.7,66,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. 11. Heard Sri V.Lakshmi Harish, learned counsel representing Sri D.Kodanda Ramireddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri A.Satish Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer. 12. Sri V.Lakshmi Harish, learned counsel representing Sri D.Kodanda Ramireddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.6,500/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per month; that the Tribunal ought to have adding the future prospects in view of the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby, the claimants are entitled for compensation as claimed against the respondents. 6 13. Sri A.Satish Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal after considering the material on record rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and that there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddles with the order of the Tribunal, thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the Tribunal granted just compensation as entitled by the claimants? 15. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased, involvement of crime car, rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent in causing the incident. It is also an undisputed fact that the insurer of the crime car did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. 16. It is the only contention that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants, thereby, prays to enhance the compensation. 7 17. Coming to the just compensation, it is the not in dispute that by the date of death the deceased was an earning member. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as Beldari. However, in the absence of substantial proof regarding avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal taken the monthly notional income of the deceased @ Rs.6,500/-, which is nothing but contrary to the eye of law, now a days even an unskilled laborer can earn more than Rs.300/- per day. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.9,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. 18. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance 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 1 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 8 aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraph No.30, Sarla Verma lays down: - “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. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra) in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years….. (emphasis supplied) 20. In the present case, as per the above said decision, 25% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 49 years by the date of incident, which is not in 9 dispute. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.1,35,000/-(Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.27,000/-). 21. In the case on hand, there are two claimants depending on the deceased, thereby, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.90,000/-. 22. 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……... 2 2017 (3) SCC 315 10 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, 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) 11 23. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 49 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.11,70,000/- (Rs.90,000/- x 13). 24. CONVENTIONAL HEADS:- On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.3, Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others4, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors.5 and Rojalini Nayak and others v. Ajit Sahoo and others6, this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.96,800/- towards loss of consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-, 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 5 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 17 (2021) 11 SCC 780 12 respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). In total the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.13,03,100/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 25. 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.1,08,000/- per annum 2 25% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.27,000/-) Rs.1,35,000/- 3 1/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.90,000/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13. (Rs.90,000/- x 13) Rs.11,70,000/- 5 Parental consortium (two children) Rs.96,800/- 13 6 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.13,03.100/- 26. 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.7,66,000/- to Rs.13,03,100/-. 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. 27. 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. 28. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed to enhance the compensation from Rs.7,66,000/- to Rs.13,03,100/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, with costs, from the date of petition 14 till the date of realization against the respondent No.1 to 4. Respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier and they are entitled to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court fee before the Tribunal forthwith. 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. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 13.03.2025 Krs 15 449 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.21 of 2022 ( J U D G M E N T ) DATE: 13.03.2025 Krs