THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
MACMA No. 1122 OF 2008 AND MACMA No. 281 OF 2014
DATED: 21-01-2014 Between:
Aravapalli Sri Lakshmi Kumari and four others And M. Kasi Reddy and another … Appellant … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
MACMA No. 1122 OF 2008 AND MACMA No. 281 OF 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta)
As both the appeals arise out of the common Award, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
These appeals are filed aggrieved by the Award dated 26-11-2007 passed in M.V.O.P No. 679 of 2005 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur. M.A.C.M.A No. 1122 of 2008 is preferred by the claimants questioning the inadequacy or otherwise of compensation, whereas, M.A.C.M.A (SR) No. 17879 of 2010 is preferred by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as ‘claimants’ and ‘Insurance Company’.
The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased Aravapalli Siva Naga Vara Prasada Rao. Claimant No.1 is the wife; claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children and claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased Aravapalli Siva Naga Vara Prasada Rao. It has been averred in the claim petition that on 15-03-2005 at about 3.30 PM while Aravapalli Siva Naga Vara Prasada Rao was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP-7S- 5684 from Guntur to Pedanandipadu and while he was about to cross Prattipadu outskirts on Pedanandipadu road, lorry bearing No. AP- 27U-5517 came in rash and negligent manner and high speed came in opposite direction and hit the marginally going motor cycle. Aravapalli Siva Naga Vara Prasada Rao suffered severe injuries in the accident and immediately after the accident he was shifted to Sai Priya Hospital, Sambasivapet, Guntur for treatment. While undergoing treatment he died on the same day.
On receipt of report, Prattipadu police registered a case in Crime No. 14 of 2005 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending lorry, investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet against him.
According to the claimants, the deceased was a partner in Super Cotton Mills, Sri Venkata Sai Spinners and that he is also running another firm in the name of Swathi Cotton traders and was earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. The deceased was an income tax assessee and was also possessing a permanent account number from Income Tax Department. After the demise of the deceased, the claimants are said to have relinquished their share in the partnership firms and that claimant No.1 is unable to run the proprietary concern of Swathi Cotton Traders. It is the case of the claimants that they suffered a lot due to sudden demise of the deceased both mentally and financially. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the owner of the lorry and its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed by them.
Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 who is the owner of the lorry remained exparte and the respondent - Insurance Company filed its counter denying the material allegations averred in the petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The respondent – Insurance Company denied the allegations made in the petition with regard to the place, time and mode of accident; sustaining of injuries by the deceased in the accident and his death due to the said injuries. The age, income and health condition of the deceased were denied and it was also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive.
On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-27U- 5517?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
In support of their claim, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A- 1 to A-16 and EXs.X-1 and X-2 were got marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the Insurance Company neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced.
The Tribunal after going through the evidence and the material available on record held on issue No.1 that the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the documentary evidence Exs.A-1 to A-5 clearly show that the accident occurred near Pattipadu Village due to hit of the lorry driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner against the motorcycle of the deceased. Then proceeding to access the compensation, the Tribunal also held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- and accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.
The learned counsel for the appellants - claimants contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side as the Tribunal had taken the net income of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- per month only. The Tribunal has also not granted any amount towards the future prospects of the deceased. The Tribunal has also granted less amount of compensation towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier ‘17’ instead of ‘14’ in view of the fact that the age of the deceased was 44 years as on the date of the accident. He further contends that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side.
Admittedly the Tribunal on a thorough consideration of the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the accident in this case occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. This Court having due regard to the evidence brought on record does not find any valid and legitimate reason to interfere with the same. Further, it seems from the Award that except making an averment that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, no legitimate attempt was made to prove the same.
As regards the quantum of compensation, it has come in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 that the deceased was a partner in Super Cotton Mills and Sri Venkata Sai Spinners along with them. In support of the same, they produced Exs.A-9, A-10 and A-11. The claimants also filed Exs.A-13, A-14 and A-15, the income tax returns submitted by the deceased during his life time. Exs.X-1 and X-2 are also the income tax returns. PW 4, Income Tax Inspector deposed that the deceased submitted returns for the assessment year 2005-2006 by showing his income to be Rs.94,940/- per annum as individual income and for the assessment year 2003-2004 his income was Rs.98,090/- and the returns submitted by the deceased are Exs.X-1 and X-2. Even though it is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum, taking into consideration the evidence of PW 4 and Exs.X-1 and X-2, we deem it appropriate to take the earnings of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- per annum.
The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that as the business of the deceased is being continued by his wife and other family members, there is no loss of future prospects and no amount should be awarded towards future prospects. It has come in the evidence that the wife of the deceased was unable to run the proprietary concern of Swathi Cotton Traders and ultimately closed down the firm and, therefore, future prospects have to be awarded to the claimants.
Since no amount of compensation was awarded by the Tribunal towards the future prospects of the deceased, following the judgment
[1]
of the Supreme Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh , 30% has to be added towards future prospects i.e., Rs.27,000/- giving a total of Rs.1,17,000/- per annum. Since there are five dependants, one-fourth is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses, then contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.87,750/- per annum.
As per the Exs.A-6, A-7 and A-9, the transfer certificate, driving licence and PAN card of the deceased, his date of birth was 15-08- 1961, but the Tribunal erroneously took his age as 34 years instead of 44 years. Therefore, we consider the age of the deceased as on the date of accident to be 44 years. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport
[2]
Corporation , as the deceased was 44 years of age as on the date
of accident, multiplier of ‘14’ would be applicable to the present case and hence, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,28,500/- (Rs.87,750X14). Added to the aforesaid amount, Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of consortium to the wife, another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the children and also a sum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral and transportation charges. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,53,500/-.
Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, it is to be seen that the Apex Court in ABATI BEZBARUAH v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
[3]
GENERAL, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA observed that the
question as to what should be the rate of interest, in the opinion of the Court, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of interest would normally depend upon the Bank rate prevailing at the relevant time.
No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest to be awarded and the rate of interest is normally awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No rate of interest is stipulated under Section 171 of the Act.
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the firm opinion that there cannot be any hard any fast principle in awarding the rate of interest on the compensation so granted and the same is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be. In the light thereof and having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to the interest at 7% per annum.
In the result, M.A.C.M.A No. 1122 of 2008 filed by the claimants is allowed in part awarding a sum of Rs.14,53,500/- together with proportionate costs and interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and M.A.C.M.A (SR) No. 17879 of 2010 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% to 7% per annum.
Out of the said amount of compensation, claimant No.1 who is the wife of the deceased is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Claimant Nos.2 to 4 who are the children of the deceased are held entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- each. Claimant No.6 who is the mother of the deceased is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,53,500/-.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending consideration shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 21st January, 2014 ks
[1] 2013 ACJ 1403
[2] (2009) 6 SCC 121
[3] (2003) 3 SCC 148