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
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 |
|
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
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*
Comments
Post a Comment