THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY MACMA Nos. 1320 OF 2009 AND 2634 OF 2013 DATED: 20-01-2014 Between:
Smt. Geetha Jakhotia and five others And Mr. S.K. Mohammed Abdul Khader and another … Appellants … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY MACMA Nos. 1320 OF 2009 AND 2634 OF 2013
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 arise out the Award dated 10-07-2008 passed in O.P No. 2191 of 2006 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. M.A.C.M.A No. 1320 of 2009 is preferred by the claimants being not satisfied with the amount of compensation, whereas M.A.C.M.A No. 2634 of 2013 is preferred by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.
The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Sunil Kumar Jakhotia. Claimant No.1 is the wife of the said Sunil Kumar Jakhotia, claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are his children and claimant Nos.5 and 6 are his parents. It was averred in the claim petition that Sunil Kumar Jakhotia was working as a Supervisor in Venkateswara Clearing Agencies, besides working as a LIC agent and also as a commission agent in the transport business and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the family. It was also averred that Sunil Kumar Jakhotia was an income tax assessee. It was further averred that on 22-05-2006 Sunil Kumar Jakhotia was proceeding from Mandamarri to Mancherial on his scooter bearing No.AP-1-B-3373 slowly and cautiously on the left margin of the road and when he reached near Soni Dhaba at about 9.00 PM, one lorry bearing No. AP-11-U-3332 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed while overtaking the complainant’s motor cycle dashed the scooter of Sunil Kumar Jakhotia from behind causing grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the persons who were travelling on the motorcycle with the help of other persons took the injured to the Government Hospital, Mancherial in an auto and from there to Dr. Y.V.S. Prabhakar’s Private Hospital for better treatment wherein the injured died on 23-05-2006 at 6.00 AM. Police registered a case against the driver of the lorry.
It was the case of the appellants that at the time of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 32 years. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the entire family lost their bread winner. The parents lost their son at the old age and claimant No.1 lost his husband at the age of 31 years and the three minor children lost their father. Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending lorry and respondent No.2 being the insurer are liable to pay the compensation as prayed for by them.
Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 – Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2 disputed with regard to the manner in which the alleged accident took place, the amount spent for medicines, transport etc., the age and also the earnings of the deceased. It was contended that it is liable to pay compensation only if it is proved that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed valid driving licence at the time of the accidence and the vehicle is road worthy to ply. It was also contended that the amount claimed by the claimants is highly excessive.
On the strength of the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased died in the accident that took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP-11-U-3332?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
During the course of enquiry, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were got marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company none were examined but insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1.
On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal on issue No.1 held that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6 proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry alone. The Tribunal also held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,04,000/- and accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum.
The learned counsel for the claimants contended that even though the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and his income tax returns were filed in proof of the same, the Tribunal erred in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. He also contended that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards the future prospects of the deceased.
The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has taken the annual income of the deceased on higher side. The income tax returns of the deceased were filed only for one financial year preceding the date of accident and, therefore, the same ought not to have been taken into consideration. Further, PW 3 though issued Ex.A-9 did not produce any records and registers of the Company to prove that the deceased was being paid Rs.5,000/- per month. It was also contended that the rate of interest is on higher side.
Admittedly the Tribunal thoroughly considering 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.
With regard to the question as to what should be the just compensation awarded to the appellants, it is necessary to delve into the evidence on record. The appellants have claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have got examined PWs 1 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-8 to A-11. PW 1 who is the father of the deceased deposed that the deceased was working as a Supervisor in Venkateswara Clearing Agencies drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- apart from working as a LIC agent and also as a commission agent in transport business and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. PW 3 deposed that the deceased worked in their firm as a Manager and was paid salary of Rs.5,000/- per month till his death. The claimants have also filed income tax returns filed by the deceased relating to the assessment year 2006-07. Since the claimants have filed the income tax returns of the deceased for only one assessment year, the same cannot be accepted. However, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased besides working as a Supervisor also worked as a LIC agent, it is just and reasonable to take the earnings of the deceased to be Rs.7,000/- per month or Rs.84,000/- per annum. Since no amount of compensation was awarded by the Tribunal towards the future prospects of the deceased, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh v.
[1]
Rajbir Singh , 50% has to be added towards future prospects i.e.,
Rs.42,000/- giving a total of Rs.1,26,000/- per annum. Since there are six dependants, if one-fourth is deducted towards the personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.94,500/- per annum. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport
[2]
Corporation , as the deceased was 32 years of age as on the date
of accident, multiplier of ‘16’ would be applicable in the present case and hence, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,12,000/-. The amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses of the deceased is confirmed. Added to the aforesaid amount, Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded for loss of consortium to the wife, another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and also a sum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral and transportation charges. Thus, the appellants – claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,87,000/-.
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. 1320 of 2009 filed by the claimants is allowed in part awarding a sum of Rs.17,87,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. M.A.C.M.A No. 2634 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is also 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. 7,87,000/-. Claimant Nos.2 to 4 who are the minor children of the deceased are held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each. Claimant Nos.5 and 6 who are the parents of the deceased are held entitled to receive Rs.1,25,000/- each. The share of the minor children shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank till they attain majority. Claimant No.1 is entitled to withdraw the annual interest accrued on the aforesaid amounts to meet the expenses of the minor children.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending consideration shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 20th January, 2014 ks
[1] 2013 ACJ 1403
[2] III (2009) ACC 708 (SC)
[3] (2003) 3 SCC 148