IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1419 OF 2008 Between:-
The National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, (Sambalpur District), Visakhapatnam District.
…Appellant A n d Pentakota Koteswara Rao and 4 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1419 OF 2008 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14-12-2007 in M.O.P.No.54 of 2006, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I- Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the claim of respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.8,31,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.
3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on account of death of the deceased, who is son of respondents 1 and 2 and brother of respondents 3 and 4. According to the claimants, on 06-11-2004, at about 08-45 a.m., when the deceased was standing at Sunabeda-I bus stand waiting for a bus to go to engineering college at Similiguda, a car bearing No.OR 03B 2794 coming from Koraput side in a rash and negligent manner, dashed agianst the deceased resulting in severe head injury. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Sunabeda for first-aid and thereafter shifted to Koraput hospital. The deceased was referred to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakapatnam for better treatment and while undergoing treatment, he died on 10- 11-2004. The police registered a case in Cr.No.220 of 2004 agianst the driver of the car. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 21 years studying III year B.Tech and he would have earned not less than Rs.15,000/- per month.
4. The 5th respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle, filed a counter and the appellant herein, insurer, also filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
(i) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.OR 03B 2794 resulting in the death of P.Damodora Rao?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so to what amount?
(iii) To what relief?
6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-insurer. Exs.X-1 and X-5 were also marked.
7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. On issue No.2, the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,31,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurer.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month without any basis and the deceased was unemployed.
He would further contend that the tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 1/5th and also erred in applying the multiplier ‘17’ instead of ‘15’.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents- claimants, on the other hand, would contend that the deceased was studying III year B.Tech course and he would have completed the same in few months had he not met with the accident and would have started earning substantial income and because of the accident, the entire family was deprived of the support from the deceased.
10. Admittedly, the deceased was a student studying III year B.Tech. He was not employed by the date of the accident. There is absolutely no basis for the tribunal to take into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month i.e., Rs.72,000/- per annum. In the absence of any evidence to show that the deceased was doing any job or earning any income even while he was a student, the tribunal ought not to have taken the income at Rs.6,000/- per month without any basis and instead the tribunal ought to have taken a notional income into consideration. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the notional income of a person who is not employed can be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum as a guideline. In the present case, the deceased was studying III year of Engineering course and was about to complete his studies. He would have certainly started earning some income on completion of his studies shortly thereafter had he not met with the accident. In the circumstances, having regard to the technical education with considerable potentiality to earn good income, which the deceased was pursuing, it is considered that besides taking the notional income into consideration at Rs.15,000/- per annum certain amount can be awarded towards loss of future prospects of the deceased.
11. The tribunal had rightly taken the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration as the deceased was unmarried and applied the multiplier ‘17’. Thus, taking the notional income into consideration and deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.10,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier ‘17’ suitable to the age of the mother of the deceased, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,70,000/-. Besides the said amount awarded towards loss of dependency, the claimants are also held entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as awarded by the tribunal and also a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards loss of future prospects for the reasons stated above. The claimants are also held entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4 lakhs with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The impugned award is modified accordingly.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
29th June, 2010.
Lrkm.