APHC010349022024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 528 and 627 OF 2024 Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2024: Chintakrindi Padmavathi @ Venkata Padmavathi, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Akurathi Siva Sankara Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2024: APSRTC ...APPELLANT(S) AND Chintakrindi Padmavathi @ Venkata Padmavathi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S) in M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2024: KOMMAREDDY DIVAKARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): YALAL ABDULHAFEEZ, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI SANISETTY VENKETESWARLU, LEARNED COUNSEL The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.867 of 2022 dated 04.04.2024. 2 2. Since these appeals arisen out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2024 is preferred by the claimants, who are wife, daughters and mother of one Chintakrindi Ramprasad (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner/APSRTC of the Bus bearing No.AP 29Z 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). 4. M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2024 is preferred by the APSRTC/owner of the said crime bus. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 6. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 23.06.2022 at about 08.30 p.m., while the deceased proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 BK 9139, when he reached near Coca-Cola factory, 3 Atmakuru village, the driver of the crime bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from its behind, resulted the deceased died on the spot. ii). The deceased was aged about 47 years, earning Rs.30,000/- per month by running a jewelry shop and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the driver and owner of the said crime bus. 7. The respondent No.1/driver filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased only, but not this respondent; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The respondent No.2/APSRTC filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the deceased is not having valid and effective driving license to drive the motorcycle by the date of incident; that the accident 4 occurred due to the negligence of the deceased only, but not 1st respondent driver of the crime bus; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29Z 1939 on 23.06.2022 around 08.30 p.m., near Coca-Cola Factory, Atmakuru village and caused the death of Chintakrindi Ramprasad due to grievous injuries to the head of deceased and other multiple injuries? 2.Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the Respondents? and 3.To what relief?” 10. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent/driver himself was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were exhibited. 5 11. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.12,30,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 12. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by the claimants as well APSRTC respectively. 13. Heard Sri K.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2024 and Sri Yalal Abdulhafeez, learned counsel representing Sri Sanisetty Venketeswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2024. 14. Sri K.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal failed to assess the future prospects of the deceased; that the Tribunal ought to have granted filial consortium to the 4th petitioner; that the Tribunal failed to award compensation on the head of parental 6 consortium to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3; that the Tribunal taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, but while calculating erroneously taken as Rs.10,000/- per month, thereby, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. Sri Yalal Abdulhafeez, learned counsel representing Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not driver of the crime bus; that the non-joinder of owner and insurer company of said motorcycle is fatal to the case of the claimants; that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant and thereby, prays to consider the appeal preferred by the insurer. 16. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether there can be any contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident? 7 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling by the time of incident? 3. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? and 4. To what relief? 17. POINT NO.1: On this point, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of the crime bus as well motorcycle of the deceased. 18. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in driving the crime bus, the claimants got examined P.Ws.2 and 4, who are said to be eyewitness to the incident. They categorically testified about the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent, resulted death of the deceased. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4. 8 19. On perusal of Exs.A.1 and A.2 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet respectively, the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent. The testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 categorically show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent. 20. Even R.W.1, who is driver of the crime bus, admitted that during cross examination that he was kept under suspension by the department due to the said incident. He also admitted that police registered case against him and charge sheet also filed under Section 304(A) IPC. Furthermore, there must be cogent evidence to prove the contributory negligence, which is absent in the present case. 21. Having regard to the above it is the clear in vivid terms that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus 9 by the 1st respondent, which requires no interference and no contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 22. POINT NO.2: It is also the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased is fatal to the case of the claimants. 23. In view of the discussion made in point No.1, it is categorical that the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the 1st respondent and no contributory negligence attributed against the deceased in causing the incident. Thereby, there is no requirement for the claimants to made the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle as parties to the proceedings in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited1, wherein it was categorically observed that “The owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue the owner, 1 (2015) 9 SCC 273 10 driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them.” 24. Thereby, the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties has no legs to stand. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 25. POINT NO.3: Coming to the just compensation, it is the specific case of the claimants coupled with testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3, the deceased running a Jewelry shop and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, in the absence of substantial documentary proof to prove the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly assessed the same at Rs.10,000/- per month at paragraph No.20 of its order. It is also to be noted that the Tribunal mentioned at paragraph No.23 that “the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.15,000/- per month”, but when it comes to calculation, taken as Rs.10,000/- per month, thereby, it might be a typographical mistake occurred in the order of the Tribunal. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that, 11 the actual income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum holds good. 26. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2, 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 paragraphs 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 Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 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) 2 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 12 where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 27. 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 aged between 40 to 50 years….. (emphasis supplied) 28. In the present case, as per the above-mentioned decision, 25% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 47 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.1,50,000/-(Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.30,000/-). 29. In the case on hand, when there are four claimants depending on the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.1,12,500/-. 13 30. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr3, 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, 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 3 2017 (3) SCC 315 14 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) 31. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 47 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.14,62,500/- (Rs.1,12,500/- x 13). 32. 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.4, Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 15 and Others5, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors.6 and Rojalini Nayak and others v. Ajit Sahoo and others7, 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.48,400/- to each of the claimants, being Rs.1,93,600/- for loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-, respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). 33. INTEREST: Coming to the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is concerned, it is the contention of the appellant/claimant that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest @ 9% per annum instead of 8% per annum. In Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh 5(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 6 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 17 (2021) 11 SCC 780 16 and others8, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma & Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others9, the Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited10, the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% per annum and in Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others11, the Apex Court while referring to Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors.12 allowed interest @ 9% per annum. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid precedents, on the award amount the claimants are entitled to grant interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. 8 (2015) 1 SCC 539 9 (2021) 6 SCC 188 10 (2021) 2 SCC 166 11 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683 12(2020) 4 SCC 228 17 34. 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.1,20,000/- per annum 2 25% of above(1) to be added as future prospects (Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.30,000/-) Rs.1,50,000/- 3 1/4th to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. Rs.1,12,500/- 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13. (Rs.1,12,500/- x 13) Rs.14,62,500/- 5 Spousal, parental and filial consortium (wife, two children and mother) Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs.48,400/- X 4) 6 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.16,92,400/- 18 35. 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.12,30,000/- to Rs.16,92,400/-. 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. 36. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation and rate of interest entitled by the claimants only and the rest of the findings arrived by the Tribunal requires no interference of this Court. As such, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be considered and appeal preferred by the APSRTC is liable to be dismissed. 37. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2024 is allowed, with costs, to enhance the compensation from Rs.12,30,000/- to Rs.16,92,400/- with interest at 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 19 and 2/driver and owner of the crime bus. The respondent No.2/APSRTC/owner 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 and they are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The earlier apportionment made by the Tribunal regarding entitlement of the claimants towards their respective shares shall remained intact. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court Fee forthwith before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 38. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2024 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 21.03.2025 Krs 20 304 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.Nos.528 and 627 of 2024 ( Common Judgment ) DATE: 21.03.2025 Krs