APHC010419942022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 353/2022 Between: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ANANTAPURAMU. (INSURER OF EICHER VAN BEARING NO AP-07-TA-1458, VIDE POLICY NO.463301/31/2014/14369, VALID FROM 7-8-2014 TO 12.2.2015) ...APPELLANT AND 1. TALARI SIRISHA, W/O. TALARI SHIVA KUMAR. AGED 22 YEARS, 2. TALARI DHAVIN, S/O. TALARI SHIVA KUMAR AGED 2 YEARS. MINOR. REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER- RESPONDENT NO.1 3. TALAN ADINARAYANA, S/O. NARASAPPA, AGED 45 YEARS 4. CHENNA KRISTAMMA, W/O T ADINARAYANA AGED 42 YEARS. ALL ARE HINDUS, R/O GENJIVARIPALLI TANAKALLU POST, KADIRI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. BANDI TAHEER BASHA, S/O. ABDUL FAFROOR SAB MAJOR. HINDU R/O 18/781, ABDULMNA NAGAR, NEAR SARADA COLONY. YEMMIGANUR VILLAGE. KURNOOL DISTRICT. (OWNER OF EICHER VAN BEARING NO. AP-07-TA-1458) 6. C MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O C KHASEEM VALI. AGED 45 YEARS. R/O D NO 11/109. NEAR WATER TANK. SULTHAN MAJEED. KATIKA STREET, YEMMIGANUR. KURNOOL DISTRICT (DRIVER 2 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 OF EICHER VAN NO. AP-07-TA-1458) (AMENDED AS PER ORDERS IN I A NO 406/2016, DT 8-3-2014 7. Y HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO. MAJOR. HINDU. R/O KHAMMALAPADU VILLAGE, NUZENDLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522 660 (OWNER OF EICHER VAN BEARING NO. AP-07-TA-1458 AS PER THE POLICY) (AMENDED AS PER ORDERS IN I.A 1072/2019, DT 23-09-2019) ( RESPONDENT NO 6 IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the decree and award dated 05.05.2022 passed in M V 0 P.No.630 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge. Anantapuramu IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 5 days in filing the above appeal against the proceedings dated 05.05.2022 passed in M V.0 P.No.630 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- Principal District Judge. Anantapuramu including execution proceedings and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings dated 05.05.2022 passed in M.V 0.P.No.630 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu including execution proceedings and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 12.09,2022 passed in 3 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 I,A.No. 2 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A.No. 353 of 2022 in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The appeal is preferred by the insurance company, challenging the order and decree dated 05.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.630 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four lakhs only) to the petitioners/claimants, on account of the death of the deceased, T.Shiva Kumar, in a motor accident that occurred on 02.08.2014. Though the claimants had filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, the Tribunal, following the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court, awarded a higher compensation of Rs.24,00,000/-. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: a) On 02.08.2014 at about 6.00 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding in a Bolero Jeep bearing No.AP-03-TC-0021 from his village to Tammisettipalli Village, on Kadiri-Madanapalli Road, the deceased parked his Jeep on the extreme left side of the road margin, at that time, the crime Eicher Van bearing No.AP-07-TA-1458 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the same and dashed against the Jeep of the deceased. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime 5 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 Eicher Van. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. In this connection, a case in Crime No.89 of 2014 of Tanakal Police Station, under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC was registered. b) It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 28 years, hale and healthy, an expert driver and was maintaining a Bolero Jeep. He was also engaged in agriculture and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, contributing the same to his family. All the petitioners were solely dependent on his income. Due to his sudden demise, the family was left without any source of livelihood. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 4 who are owners, and respondent No.3/driver of Eicher Van bearing No.AP-07-TA-1458 remained ex-parte. 05. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter denying the material averments in the claim petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of their status as legal heirs, as well as the age, occupation, and income of the deceased. It is contended that the deceased, while driving the Bolero Jeep without a valid driving licence, caused the accident due to his own negligence. The petition is stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The 2nd respondent further denied any rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and 6 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the petition. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident on 2-8-2014 occurred due rash and negligent act of the 3rd respondent in driving Eicher Van bearing No.AP-07-TA-1458 of 1st respondent resulting in the death of deceased T.Siva Kumar? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 07. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced; however, Ex.B1/copy of insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondent No.2. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition as follows: “In the result, the petition is allowed with costs awarding compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs only) against the respondents 1 to 4 with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization subject to payment of DCF. 7 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 i) Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs only), an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) is awarded to the 1st petitioner who is wife of the deceased with costs of the petition and interest. Out of the compensation awarded to the 1st petitioner who is widowed wife the deceased at Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) with costs and interest forthwith and her remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only), shall be deposited in any nationalized Bank for a period of 5 (five) years. (ii) The petitioner No.2 who is minor son of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). The said amount shall be deposited in any nationalized Bank till he attains majority. (iii) The petitioners 3 and 4 being parents of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) each. The petitioners 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) each, and the remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) each, shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of 5 (five) years. (iv) The Respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs only) within ONE MONTH from the date of this order. (v) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/insurance company preferred this appeal contending that, in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in fixing 8 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 the notional income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day i.e., Rs.9,000/- per month. It is further contended that the Tribunal wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each to all the petitioners towards love and affection, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1,, wherein it was held that only Rs.15,000/- is permissible under the said head. 10. Heard Mrs.A.Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Mr..N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the claimants. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. There is no dispute with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the absence of any challenge thereto, the said finding, which is well-founded on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, needs no interference. In view of the contentions raised in the present appeal, the only issue that requires consideration is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 9 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a driver and agriculturist, they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the actual earnings of the deceased. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal took the notional income into consideration and fixed the same at Rs.300/- per day i.e., Rs.9,000/- per month, thereby calculating the annual income at Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. As the age of the deceased was 28 years, as recorded in Ex.A2/inquest report, the relevant multiplier applicable is ‘17’ as per the observations in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Accordingly, the loss of earnings was computed at Rs.18,36,000/- (Rs.1,08,000 X 17). As the deceased had four dependents i.e., wife, son and parents, 1/4th of the said amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs. 13,77,000/- (Rs.18,36,000 – 1/4th). Since the deceased was below 40 years of age and self-employed, upon adding 40% of his income towards future prospects, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.19,27,800/- (Rs.13,77,000/- + Rs.5,50,800/-), which has been rightly calculated by the Tribunal. 14. Apart from the said amount, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant alone and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The other 2 2017 ACJ 2700 10 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 petitioners i.e., the minor son and the parents of the deceased, are also entitled to consortium as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’ case (referred supra)’. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- to claimants No.2 towards love and affection and Rs.40,000/- each to petitioners No.3 and 4 towards filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- X 2). 15. As this Court has already awarded Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.2 under the head of ‘love and affection’ and Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.3 and 4 under the head of ‘loss of consortium’, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘love and affection’ is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (referred supra). 16. Thus, the amounts granted under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘love and affection’ are modified by this Court, while the amounts granted under the remaining heads stood confirmed. To sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts now granted in the present appeal in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of future earnings Rs19,27,800/- Rs.19,27,800/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 11 VS,J MACMA No.353 of 2022 Love and affection Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.23,97,800/- Rounded off to Rs.24,00,000/- Rs.21,17,800/- 17. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is party allowed and the order dated 05.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.630 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu, is hereby modified by reducing the compensation awarded to the petitioners from Rs.24,00,000/- to Rs.21,17,800/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 03.03.2026 KGR