DATED: 23-01-2014
Between:
Palla Bhagya Laxmi And
MACMA No. 2835 OF 2009
… Appellant The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, 2/789, First Floor, Sairam Towers, Nagarajupet, Kadapa, rep., by its Divisional Manager and four others … Respondents
MACMA No. 2817 OF 2013
Between:
Palla Jalaja and another And P. Dharma Reddy and three others … Appellant … Respondents
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 appeal are filed aggrieved by the Award dated 21-04-2009 passed in O.P No. 815 of 2007 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. M.A.C.M.A No. 2835 of 2009 is preferred by the appellant who is the mother of the deceased aggrieved by the Award of the Court below insofar as it relates to awarding Rs.2,00,000/- towards her share out of the total compensation of Rs.20,18,000/-, whereas M.A.C.M.A No. 2817 of 2013 is preferred by the appellants - claimants being not satisfied with the amount of compensation.
The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the appellants- claimants in M.A.C.M.A No. 2817 of 2013 claiming a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased Palla Sharath Reddy @ Sharath Kumar. The appellants – claimants are the wife and daughter of the deceased Sharath Reddy. It has been averred in the claim petition that on 11-10-2006 at about 6.45 AM near Sirvella Metta Village on N.H 18 road, while Sharath Reddy and others were proceeding in a car, a lorry bearing No.
AP 04 V 0823, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed the car, as a result of which, Sharath Reddy died. Case was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle.
According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.21,197/- per month working as a Sales Officer in Nokia Company. 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.
The 3rd respondent is the father of the deceased who died and the 4th respondent in the claim petition is the mother of the deceased who filed M.A.C.M.A No. 2835 of 2009.
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 negligence of the deceased and that there was no rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The age and income of the deceased was 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 deceased died in the accident on 11-10-2006 due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No. AP 04V 0823?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, from whom?
3. To what relief?
In support of their claim, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A- 1 to A-9 were got marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the Insurance Company none were examined but photocopy of the F.I.R and the certified copy of the insurance policy were marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2 respectively.
The Tribunal after going through the evidence and the material available on record on issue No.1 held that the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 clearly goes to show that the deceased died in the accident that occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal also held that the appellants - claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.20,18,000/- 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.
Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A No. 2817 of 2013 and the mother of the deceased filed M.A.C.M.A No. 2835 of 2009 being aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal in awarding her only Rs.2,00,000/-.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants – claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.M.P No. 4288 of 2009 seeking to enhance their claim from Rs.30,00,000/- to Rs.74,59,500/- and the same was ordered by this Court on 06-12-2013.
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.15,000/- per month in spite of the fact that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.21,197/- as per pay slips Exs.A-7 to A-9. 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.
The learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.M.A No. 2835 of 2009 contended that the appellant being the mother of the deceased and a widow, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation equally on par with the claimants who are the wife and minor child of the deceased.
The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal below is just and reasonable and needs no interference.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
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.
The next question to be considered is as to what should be the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.70,00,000/-.
PW 1, who is the wife of the deceased, in her evidence stated that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was working as a Sales Officer in Nokia Company earning Rs.21,197/- per month and that they are dependent on the income of the deceased who is the bread winner of the family. In support of her claim, she got marked Ex.A-6 letter of appointment of the deceased and Exs.A-7 to A-9, pay slips of the deceased.
As per Ex.A-7, the gross income of the deceased was Rs.21,197/- and the net income was Rs.18,247/-after deducting income tax, provident fund and professional tax. It is well settled that contributions such as insurance premium and provident fund deducted from the salary of a deceased person are to be taken into consideration for arriving at the compensation payable to the claimants. If the amount deducted towards provident fund which is liable to be taken into consideration is added to the net income of the deceased, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.19,527/- per month. The respondent – Insurance Company has not adduced any contra evidence to dispute the same. Taking into consideration Ex.A- 7, we think it appropriate to take the earnings of the deceased to be Rs.19,527/- per month. 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. Rajbir
[1]
Singh , 50% has to be added towards future prospects i.e., Rs.9,763/- giving a total of Rs.29,290/- per month or Rs.3,51,480/- per annum. Since there are three dependants, one-third is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses, then contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.2,34,320/- per annum. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others Vs.
[2]
Delhi Transport Corporation , as the deceased was 29 years of age as on the date of accident, multiplier of ‘17’ would be applicable to the present case and hence, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.39,83,440/-. 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 minor child 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.42,08,440/-.
We are not in agreement with the contention of the appellant in M.A.C.M.A No. 2835 of 2009 that she has to be awarded compensation equally on par with the appellants – claimants. The 1st appellant in M.A.C.M.A No. 2817 of 2013 who is the wife of the deceased was only 28 years of age as on the date of the accident and she has to sustain herself apart from looking after her minor daughter. The widow has lost her companion of life at her young age shattering all her dreams of life and the shock she received is such that it would be permanent in nature and her protector in her youth is lost where the society has no regard for such destitute. Any amount of compensation would not be a substitute for these sufferings of the widow on account of loss of her life partner.
In the circumstances, 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.20,00,000/-. Claimant No.2 who is the daughter of the deceased is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.12,08,440/-. The appellant – mother of the deceased is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The share of the minor child shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till she attains majority. Claimant No.1 is entitled to withdraw the annual interest accrued on the aforesaid amounts to meet the expenses of the minor child.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part, to the extent indicated above.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending consideration shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 23rd January, 2014 ks
[1] 2013 ACJ 1403
[2] (2009) 6 SCC 121