APHC010099232019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 242/2019 Between: 1. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGAR, BRANCH OFFICER, SITUATED AT CHITTOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT TN.STATE ...APPELLANT AND 1. P THANUJA, R/O.K.VADDEPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. P SAHASRA, R/O.K.VADDEPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR 3. P JAYADEEP, R/O.K.VADDEPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR 4. P SAROJA, R/O.K.VADDEPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR 5. P SUBRAMANYAM, R/O.K.VADDEPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR 6. A VELU, D.NO 32, SHOLINGUR ROAD, RADHA NAGAR, PALLIPATTI, THIRUVALLUR DIST, T.N.STATE ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VISWANATH N 2. TENEPALLI NIRANJAN The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present appeal aggrieved by the Award, dated 02.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.235 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,37,500/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased in a motor accident that occurred on 07.03.2016. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are claimants and Respondent No.2 is the Driver. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in brief, is as follows: a). The 1st petitioner is wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are minor children and petitioners 4 and 5 are parents of the deceased P. Suresh @ Sai, aged about 26 years, who is experienced in playing Band Vayidhyam and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month apart from Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from cultivation. On 07.03.2016 morning at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased left his house to go to Eswara Temple, Thalambedu for Band Vayidhyam on his Hero Honda Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 03 AX 3171. He went to Kongareddipalle and met one M. Suman and 3 while both of them were going on their motor cycles and when they reached near Lakshmi Engineering Works, at that time, one Ashok Leyland DOST Mini Luggage Van bearing No.TN20/CD 6328 belonging to 1st respondent and driven by him in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, his face was slit and divided into pieces and brain came out and the deceased died on the spot. On a report given by the 5th respondent, the SHO of G.D.Nellore Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.103/2016 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the 1st respondent and after investigation filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent who drove the said van in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. 5. Respondent No.2 filed written statement by denying the averments made in the petition contending that the driver of the Mini Luggage Van bearing No.TN 20/CD 6328 possess Non-transport driving license and the vehicle had no permit to ply in Andhra Pradesh. The owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle himself contravened the provisions of M.V.Act and violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the deceased drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and suddenly entered into the middle of the road and in 4 spite of best efforts to escape the accident he could not avoid the accident. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to involvement of two vehicles and the petitioners failed to implead the owner and insurance company of the motor cycle as necessary parties. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mini Luggage Van bearing No.TN 20/CD 6328 or due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Hero Honda Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.AP 03/AX 3171? 2.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 4.To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, the petitioners examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Ex.A1 to A6 on their behalf and on behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 are examined and Ex.B1 copy of policy is marked. In ‘X’ series, Exs.X1 to X3 are marked. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, in the absence of any proof with regard to the income of the claimant, the Tribunal, has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5000/- per month. By adding 50% of the income towards 5 future prospects and deduction of 1/5th towards the personal expenses of the deceased and that since the age of the petitioner is 26 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.11,47,500/-. In addition to the same, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.75,000/- towards consortium to 1st petitioner. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,37,500/- payable with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit along with costs against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/Insurer preferred this appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. Point:- The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that without there being any documentary proof of the income of the petitioner, the Tribunal has erroneously considered the income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded huge compensation of Rs.12,37,500/-. 6 13. On behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner who is wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6 through her. While coming to the cross-examination, she admitted that she is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2 who is father of the deceased and the 5th petitioner therein also filed chief-affidavit and admittedly he is also not an eye witnesses to the said accident. PW3 Mr. K. Suman who is none other than who was also going on another motor cycle along with the deceased and also an eye witness to the accident categorically deposed that on 07.03.2016 morning at about 6.30 A.M., while both the deceased and himself left from Kongareddipalle and on the way in front of Sri Lakshmi Engineering Works while the deceased was going before him, at that time, crime vehicle Mini Luggage Van bearing No.TN 20/CD 6328 driven by 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and his face was slit into parts and brain came out and died on the spot. The Administrative Officer of Insurance Company was examined as RW1 who got marked Ex.B1 and he admitted that the policy was in force on the date of accident. The Junior Assistant of RTO Office was examined as RW2 who deposed that the crime vehicle is registered as non-transport goods vehicle and also that the driver A. Velu is having non-transport driving license and accordingly, got marked Ex.X1 7 to X3 through him. The Tribunal duly considered the evidence of PW3 who was none other than the eye witness to the said accident who has categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot, coupled with Ex.A1 to A6 came to a conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and as such, the petitioners are entitled for compensation and both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 26 years and he was an Artist and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month apart from Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from cultivation. In the absence of there being any documentary evidence to decide the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. To the said income, the Tribunal added 50% of the income towards his further prospects and 1/5th of the income was deducted towards his personal expenses. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 the Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘17’ to the present case. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as the deceased was aged 26 years in terms of guidelines in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed adding of certain percentage of income towards future prospects of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was treated as a self employed and below the age of 40 years, as such, an addition of 40% is to be made to the income of the deceased. Whereas, the Tribunal added 50% of the income instead of 40% towards further prospects and ought to have deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses instead of 1/5th as there are five dependents. 16. Considering the said aspect, this Court is also of the opinion that only 40% can be added towards future prospects of the deceased as he was 26 years as on the date of accident in terms of Pranay Sethi’s Case (Supra) and since there are five dependents, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses as per Sarla Verma’s Case (Supra), and as such, duly considering the notional income of the deceased as Rs.5000/-, if 40% of income is added towards his future prospects, it comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5000/- + Rs.2000/-). After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.63,000/- (Rs.7000/- - Rs.1750/-) x 12). As 2 2017 ACJ 2700 9 per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), if the multiplier of ‘17’ is applied, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,71,000/- (Rs.63,000/- x 17). Besides the compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses which is just, however, Rs.75,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner shall be reduced to Rs.40,000/-. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners 2 and 3 are minors and they are entitled for love and affection. But, the Tribunal has failed to consider the said fact, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards love and affection. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.12,06,000/-. 17. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts reduced and enhanced by this Court, are as follows: S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Amounts now awarded by this Court Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 11,47,500-00 10,71,000-00 2. Consortium to 1st petitioner. 75,000-00 40,000/- 3. Towards Love and affection to petitioners 2 and 3. ----- 80,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 15,000/- Total Rs.12,37,500-00 Rs.12,06,000-00 10 In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.12,37,500/- to Rs.12,06,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner to the petitioners 2 to 4 and rest of the amount is entitled by the 1st petitioner. 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. SUJATHA Date: 01.08.2025 ARB 11 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A..No.242 of 2019 DATE: 01.08.2025 ARB