IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH [29TH] DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1978 of 2008 Between:
The National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada And:
Balpunuri Nagamma & others … Appellant … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1978 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2008 in OP No.338 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 herein, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.4,58,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. Perused the record.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Bhaskar Reddy. The first respondent is the mother, 2nd respondent is the grand mother and 3rd respondent is the brother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 19.03.2005 while the deceased was travelling in a Tempo Trax bearing No.AP 29 T 3485 to go to Hyderabad and when the Tempo reached the outskirts of Itipamula village, a lorry bearing No.AP 11 X 189 coming from Hyderabad side, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the Tempo, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatment in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad.
4. The 4th respondent herein the owner of the vehicle, remained
ex-parte. The appellant-insurer filed counter opposing the claim and
denying their liability to pay the compensation.
5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.
(1) Whether the deceased B Bhaskar Reddy, died due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 11 X 189?
(2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation, and from whom?
(3) To what relief?
6. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-insurer, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 policy copy was marked.
7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 11 X 189 by its driver. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,58,000/- and granted the award for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% income towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd as per the Guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in a recent decision in ‘Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]’. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand would contend that even going by the guidelines as set out in the very same decision, 50% of the income has to be added towards future prospects and having regard to the age of the deceased, the multiplier ‘13’ ought to have been applied in respect of the age of the mother of the deceased.
9. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 22 years and was working as a teacher, having studied B.Sc., B.Ed., vide certificate Ex.A.6. Ex.A.7 is the salary certificate issued by Teja Talent School, Kodad, showing that the deceased was working as Mathematics teacher on a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. In the inquest report Ex.A.2 also it was noted that the deceased was working as a private school teacher. Though the salary certificate Ex.A.7 shows that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the income only as Rs.5,000/- per month. The claimants did not, however, prefer any cross-objections. As per the guidelines of the Apex Court in ‘Sarla Verma’s case (stated supra) an addition of 50% of actual salary has to be made to the salary income towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was aged below 40 years. In the present case, the deceased was employed as a teacher on regular basis and was aged 22 years. Taking the salary of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month as done by the Tribunal and adding 50% thereafter towards future prospects as laid down in ‘Sarla Verma’s case (stated supra), the salary component of the deceased to be taken for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency would be Rs.7,500/- per month and deducting 50% thereof towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the family can be estimated at Rs.3,750/- per month, which comes to Rs.45,000/- per annum. It is not disputed that the mother of the deceased was aged 50 years. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘11’, whereas, according to the decision in ‘Sarla Verma’s case, the suitable multiplier for a person aged 50 years would be ‘13’. Applying the multiplier ‘11’ as done by the Tribunal, the loss of dependency works to [Rs.45,000/- x 11] Rs.4,95,000/- and applying the multiplier ‘13’, it would be much more. The claimants, however, have not preferred any cross-objections or cross-appeal. Under those circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, granting a sum of Rs.4,58,000/-, including a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.3000/- towards funeral expenses, cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable. It is, therefore, held that the award passed by the Tribunal, does not call for any interference by this Court.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
Date: 29.06.2010 bss
[1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)