* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
+ M.A.C.M.A No.1936 of 2009
%01.09.2014
Between:
Ch. Punyavathi and others. ...
Appellants AND B. Bala Narsimha Raju and another. ….
Respondents ! Counsel for Appellants : Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri C. Prakash Reddy.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2002 ACJ 828
2. 2011 ACJ 2435 (SC)
3. 2013 ACJ 2733 (SC)
4. 2009 ACJ 1298
5. 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.1936 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Award dated 04.12.2008 in O.P.No.1794 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the claimants preferred the instant MACMA on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2) Brief facts of the case are thus:
a) Claimants are the wife, two sons and mother of the deceased—Ch.Madhava Reddy of Girmapur, Medchal Mandal. Their case is that on 21.08.2007 at about 8.30 PM when the deceased was proceeding as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 BE 5216 driven by one Pratap Reddy and when they reached Isukabavi on NH 7, at that time a readymade mixture tanker/lorry bearing No.AP 16 TU 6717 which was proceeding ahead of them while taking ‘U’ turn, suddenly took a reverse turn at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased and thereby the deceased and Pratap Reddy fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. It was averred that the driver of tanker/lorry was responsible for the accident and it was further averred that due to abrupt death of the deceased —Madhava Reddy, the pillion rider, claimants who are his dependants became destitutes. On these pleas claimants filed O.P.No.1794 of 2007 against respondents 1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the offending tanker/lorry and claimed Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation under different heads.
b) First respondent remained ex parte.
c) Second respondent/Insurance Company opposed the claim and denied all material averments in the petition.
d) During trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Policy copy filed by R2 was marked as Ex.B1.
e) With reference to issue No.1, the tribunal having regard to the evidence of PW2—eyewitness coupled with Exs.A1— FIR, A2—charge sheet, A3—inquest report, A4—postmortem report and A5—MVI report held that accident was occurred due to the fault of tanker/lorry driver. Issue No.2 touching quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,78,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of O.P. till the date of realization against respondents as below:
Loss of dependency Rs.3,63,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.3,78,000/-
Hence the appeal by the claimants. Pending appeal 4th claimant—Ch.Venkamma died and other claimants are recognized as her L.Rs.
3) Heard arguments of Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Notice to Respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle was unserved.
However, as he remained ex parte and suffered decree before the Tribunal, his absence will not have any effect in this appeal in the light of decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs.
[1]
Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others .
4) The parties in the appeal are referred as they stood before the Tribunal.
5a) Impugning the quantum of compensation as low, learned counsel for appellants firstly argued that the tribunal gravely erred in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month in spite of the fact that deceased was a skilled carpenter and earning Rs.8,000/- per month which is evident from Ex.A6 —salary certificate issued by Sri Durga Timber Merchants and Saw Mill, Medchal. He relied upon the following decisions and submitted that in those cases the Supreme Court fixed the income of a Coolie and a Polisher as Rs.4,500/- and Rs.5,000/- per month respectively.
1. Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
[2]
Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.
2. Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others v. [3] Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Services
b) Secondly he argued that tribunal failed to take into consideration the future prospects of deceased.
c) Thirdly he argued that having regard to the age of the deceased as 34 years, the correct multiplier would be ‘16’ as per the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi
[4]
Transport Corporation and another only 15.15 as multiplier.
but the tribunal took
d) Fourthly he argued that tribunal failed to grant compensation for funeral expenses and hence as per Rajesh
[5]
and others v. Rajbir Singh and others claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- in this regard and similarly 1st claimant is entitled to Rs.1 lakh for loss of consortium as per the same decision. Thus he prayed to enhance the compensation suitably.
6a) Per contra, while supporting the award learned counsel for 2nd respondent/Insurance Company argued that except the oral assertions of the claimants there is no cogent evidence regarding the nature of avocation and income of the deceased as carpenter and therefore, the tribunal rightly fixed his monthly income as Rs.3,000/- and accordingly computed compensation and there is no need to review the same.
b) He further argued the compensation awarded for loss of consortium was also just and reasonable. He admitted that tribunal failed to award compensation for funeral expenses. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7) In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is:
“Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs enhancement?”
8) POINT: On perusal of the award and hearing both sides, I am of the considered view that compensation awarded is on low side and needs enhancement.
a) Sofaras income of the deceased is concerned, the plea of claimants is that deceased was a carpenter working in Sri Durga Timber Merchants and Saw Mill, Medchal and earning Rs.8,000/- per month as salary. To that effect they filed Ex.A6— salary certificate purported to be issued by the proprietor of said saw mill. However, the award shows that the tribunal did not consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Consequently, the tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. In my view, this fixation is incorrect. It is true that claimants have not examined the concerned person who issued Ex.A6—salary certificate and therefore, there is no proper proof for Ex.A6 to hold that deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month as carpenter. However, Ex.A3—inquest report which was prepared at the earliest point of time of accident shows the occupation of the deceased as carpenter. Hence, the said document can be believed to conclude that deceased was a carpenter as pleaded by the claimants. Needless to say that carpenter is a skilled worker. Therefore, his income has to be fixed basing on the nature of his occupation.
b) In Ramachandrappa’s case (2 supra) the Honourable Apex Court fixed the earnings of a Coolie at Rs.4,500/- per month. Similarly in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza’s case (3 supra) the Apex Court fixed the earnings of a polishing worker treating him as skilled labourer, at Rs.5,000/- per month.
c) Keeping in view the above decisions, the income of the deceased has to be fixed taking ground realities into consideration. The deceased is no doubt a skilled carpenter. It is already held that there is no proper proof that he was working in Sri Durga Timber Merchants and Saw Mill. So, he should be treated only as an independent private worker. It is a known fact that due to indiscriminate felling of trees resulting in ecological imbalance and consequent governmental restrictions of usage of wood and also change in the taste of people from wood to plastic and glass works, the profession of pure wood carpenters was adversely affected to some extent though they did not loose their job altogether. Having regard to such professional vagaries, I am inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and add another Rs.500/- towards future prospects. Thus, the annual income of the deceased which will serve the purpose as multiplicand comes to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12)
d) Coming to dependants, the 4th claimant died. So, the remaining dependants are only three in number. It may be noted that no contra evidence is produced by respondents that the sons of deceased though are majors earning their own income and hence not his dependants. Since the dependants are 3 in number, it is apt to deduct 1/3rd towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased. In such an event the net annual contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.54,000 x 2/3).
e) Now, a suitable multiplier has to be selected. The tribunal having accepted the age of the deceased as 34 years adopted 15.15 as multiplier. I am afraid, the age of the deceased shown as 34 years is not correct. The date of birth of 2nd claimant i.e. first son of deceased as per Ex.A7—SSC certificate is 31.05.1987, which means he was 20 years old by the date of death of deceased. In such an event the age of the deceased by the date of his death cannot be 34 years because it is difficult to accept that he got his first issue at the age 14 years. Therefore, having regard to the age of 2nd claimant the age of deceased by the date of his death can be taken as 41 years. As per the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others (4 supra) the appropriate multiplier for such age is ‘14’ and hence the same is accepted. Thus, loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,04,000/- (Rs.36,000 x 14). So, the claimants are entitled to said amount.
f) Then coming to funeral expenses, as rightly argued, the tribunal did not grant any amount under this head. Therefore, going by Rajesh’s case (5 supra) the claimants are awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
g) Then loss of consortium is concerned, the tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- and the same is impugned. It is true that in the aforesaid Rajesh’s case (5 supra) the Honourable Apex Court awarded Rs.1 lakh for loss of consortium. However, having regard to the fact that the first claimant (wife) lost her husband not in the prime of youth but in her middle age, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium will meet the ends of justice.
Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants under different heads can be detailed as below:
Loss of dependency Rs.5,04,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.5,54,000/-
So the compensation is enhanced by Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.5,54,000/- minus Rs.3,78,000/-).
9) In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and ordered as follows:
a) The compensation is enhanced by Rs.1,76,000/- with proportionate costs. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of O.P till the date of realization.
b) The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them.
c) The existing claimants are entitled to share the compensation amount in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal in its award.
d) No order as to costs in the appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 01.09.2014
Note: L.R Copy to be marked: Yes/ No
Murthy
[1]
2002 ACJ 828
[2] 2011 ACJ 2435 (SC)
[3] 2013 ACJ 2733 (SC)
[4] 2009 ACJ 1298
[5] 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC)