M.V.Act - sec. 166 r/w 140 - With out assigning valid reasons , lower court fixed the lowest income against the proved salary and also restricted consortium to the lowest one instead of Rs.15,000/- and failed to give future prospects of young deceased employee at 50 % - PETITIONER RESPONDENT VATTIKONDA SUNEETHA & 3 OTHERS VS K.P. ANJANEYULU & ANOTHER - Reported in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=MACMA&mno=2064&year=2013

M.V.Act - sec. 166 r/w 140 - With out assigning  valid reasons , lower court fixed the lowest income against the proved salary and also restricted consortium to the lowest one instead of Rs.15,000/- and failed to give future prospects of young deceased employee at 50 % - awarded less amount of Rs.6 lakhs and odd instead of Just compensation - Just compensation fixed at Rs.18 lakhs and odd. =
it is proved that the deceased was working as Assistant Manager of Products in Fine Drugs and Chemicals Limited, Hyderabad.  In Ex.A.12 - payslip it is categorically stated that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.10,150/- p.m.
we are of the view that there is no reason for the Tribunal for restricting the earnings of the deceased to Rs.5,000/- p.m.   
In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the earnings of the deceased during the relevant period of time can be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m to assess the loss of dependency.  
If the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,000/- p.m, his annual income would come to Rs.96,000/-.
12      Further, as the deceased was young person, aged 27 years by the date of accident and had experience in drug manufacturing units, on account of future prospects, 50% has to be added to the actual income in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others[1].  
If 50% is added towards future prospects, the annual income would come to Rs.1,44,000/-.
13      As there are four (4) dependents on the deceased, 
1/4th of his earnings have to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, which comes to Rs.36,000/-. 
 In that view of the matter, the actual loss of income would come to Rs.1,08,000/-.
14      As the deceased was aged 27 years by the date of accident, the suitable multiplier is 17 but not 18 as applied by the Tribunal.
 Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,08,000/- X 17 = 18,36,000/-.
15      At the same time, there is also no reason for the Tribunal to restrict the compensation on account of conventional head i.e. loss of estate to Rs.2,500/-.  
Hence we enhance the same to Rs.15,000/-. 
However, we confirm the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and 
Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses.
16      Thus, we hold that, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.18,36,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.2,000/- = Rs.18,68,000/- as compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the accident.

Reported in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=MACMA&mno=2064&year=2013
MACMA 2064 / 2013

MACMASR 36293 / 2005
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
VATTIKONDA SUNEETHA & 3 OTHERS  VSK.P. ANJANEYULU & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDYRESP.ADV. : RAVIKANTH
SUBJECT: MACMA(DEATH)DISTRICT:  NALGONDA



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
&
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
MACMA No.2064 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri RSR, J.)
1        This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) by the claimants in O.P.No.886 of 2004 (old O.P.No.60 of 2003) on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 09.03.2005, passed in the said O.P.
2        By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal below, on the application filed by the appellants/claimants 
under Section 166 r/w Section 140 of the Act awarded compensation of Rs.6,77,500/- as against the total claim of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3        Appellants herein are wife, minor son and parents of one Ramana Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’).  
Before the Tribunal it was their case that on 01.05.2002 the deceased along with his friend Kollu Rama Rao started on their motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 AB 5502 from Hyderabad in order to go to Kodad and when they crossed Kattangur village of Nalgonda District, at about 7.15 a.m, 
one lorry bearing No.APF 5758 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased.  
As a result of the said accident, the deceased fell down and died on the spot.  In connection with the said accident, 
Police Kattangur registered a case in Cr.No.40 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the lorry.   It is stated in the claim petition that prior to the accident, 
the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 27 years and was working as Assistant Manager of Products in Fine Drugs and Chemicals Limited, Hyderabad and was getting Rs.10,150/- p.m. on average towards salary and that he was graduate in B.Sc.  It is further stated that in view of the sudden demise of the deceased, they lost their livelihood and
hence they filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
4        The owner of the lorry was set ex parte.  
The Insurance Company contested the claim petition before the Tribunal by filing written statement.
5        Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants 
the first claimant was examined as P.W.1.  
The pillion rider of the motorcycle, being an eyewitness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2 and to prove the earnings of the deceased, 
the employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.3. 
 Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked as documentary evidence.  
On behalf of the Insurance Company, though no oral evidence was let in, copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1.
6        The Tribunal, taking into consideration the entire material available on record, recorded a finding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.APF 5758.  
Coming to the quantum of compensation, though it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.10,000/- p.m. towards salary, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and by applying multiplier 18, has awarded Rs.6,58,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 
In addition to that, the Tribunal also awarded 
a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife, 
Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the Tribunal, 
in all, has awarded a sum of Rs.6,77,500/- as compensation to the claimants.  
As stated supra, aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal in restricting the total compensation to Rs.6,77,500/-, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
7        In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the deceased was graduate in Science and had seven years experience in drugs and chemical companies and that by the date of accident, the deceased was working as Assistant Manager of products in Fine Drugs and Chemicals Limited, Hyderabad and was drawing a salary of Rs.10,150/- per month. 
 It is further submitted that
though the said earnings were proved under Ex.A.12 and by examining P.W.3, who is the employer of the deceased, the Tribunal has erroneously taken the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- only.   
The learned counsel further submitted that 
there is no reason for the Tribunal for restricting the compensation to the appellants to Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate.
8        On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the deceased was employed in a private limited company and since he was only a graduate in Science, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- and awarded compensation of Rs.6,58,000/- on account of loss of dependency.   
He further submitted that having regard to the evidence available on record, just and reasonable compensation has been awarded and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
9        Having heard the learned counsel on either side, we have also perused the material available on record.
10      From the evidence on record, 
it is clear that the deceased was graduate in Science and had experience in drug manufacturing units.  
From the documentary evidence, particularly, Ex.A.12 coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.3, 
it is proved that the deceased was working as Assistant Manager of Products in Fine Drugs and Chemicals Limited, Hyderabad.  In Ex.A.12 - payslip it is categorically stated that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.10,150/- p.m.  
Further, P.W.3, who was the employer of the deceased, in clear terms, deposed that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.10.150/-.
11      In view of the admitted fact that the deceased was a graduate in Science and had working experience in drug manufacturing units and in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record in the form of Ex.A.12 coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.3, 
we are of the view that there is no reason for the Tribunal for restricting the earnings of the deceased to Rs.5,000/- p.m.   
In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the earnings of the deceased during the relevant period of time can be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m to assess the loss of dependency.  
If the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,000/- p.m, his annual income would come to Rs.96,000/-.
12      Further, as the deceased was young person, aged 27 years by the date of accident and had experience in drug manufacturing units, on account of future prospects, 50% has to be added to the actual income in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others[1].  
If 50% is added towards future prospects, the annual income would come to Rs.1,44,000/-.
13      As there are four (4) dependents on the deceased, 
1/4th of his earnings have to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, which comes to Rs.36,000/-. 
 In that view of the matter, the actual loss of income would come to Rs.1,08,000/-.
14      As the deceased was aged 27 years by the date of accident, the suitable multiplier is 17 but not 18 as applied by the Tribunal.
 Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,08,000/- X 17 = 18,36,000/-.
15      At the same time, there is also no reason for the Tribunal to restrict the compensation on account of conventional head i.e. loss of estate to Rs.2,500/-.  
Hence we enhance the same to Rs.15,000/-. 
However, we confirm the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and 
Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses.
16      Thus, we hold that, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.18,36,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.2,000/- = Rs.18,68,000/- as compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the accident.
17      For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,77,500/- to Rs.18,68,000/- while maintaining the interest at 9% p.a. on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and at 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit.  Out of the said amount of Rs.18,68,000/-, the minor son is awarded Rs.5.00 lakhs, the parents are awarded Rs.2.00 lakhs each and the rest of the amount is awarded to the wife. The compensation awarded to the minor son shall be kept in interest earning fixed deposit in any nationalised bank till he attains majority and after he attains majority, he is also permitted to withdraw the entire amount together with interest accrued thereon, without furnishing any security.  No order as to costs.

-----------------------------------
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.


---------------------------
A.V. SESHA SAI, J.
Date: 08.10.2013
Kvsn*


[1] 2013 ACJ 1403

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.