CMA/4734/2004 of Peesapati Sita Ramachari Vs Rabindra Sahu on 31 December 2014

J U D G M E N T:

This appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’),aggrieved by the order, dated 05.02.2004, passed by the Chairman,Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, EastGodavari at Rajahmundry, in O.P.No.1299 of 2002, awardingcompensation of Rs.3,95,000/-.

2. The appellants/petitioners filed the above O.P under Section166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on accountof the death of Peesapati Mohana Krishna (hereinafter referred toas ‘the deceased’), in a motor vehicle accident, that occurred on17.05.2001.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will bereferred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition.

4. The brief averments made in the petition are that on17.05.2001, the deceased along with his friend went toVizianagaram to attend college and while they were returning toVisakhapatnam on a motorbike bearing No.AP.31R.7381 and whenthey reached near Bye-pass road Thagarapuvalasa, a lorry bearingNo.OAG.9837, being driven by its driver at high speed, dashed themotorcycle, as a result, the deceased who was sitting on themotorcycle as a pillion rider sustained grievous injuries andsuccumbed to injuries on the way to K.G.H. Hospital,Visakhapatnam. At the time of accident, deceased was aged 23years, hale and healthy and studying final year ChemicalEngineering in M.V.G.R. College of Engineering, Vizianagaram. The deceased was a brilliant student, who was having brilliantacademic career. Due to the accident, he could not live for a longtime and the petitioners, who are the parents and unmarried sister of the deceased, are deprived of his prospects. The first respondentbeing the owner and second respondent being the insurer are jointlyliable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent remained ex parte.

6. The brief averments made in the written statement filed by thesecond respondent are as follows:

The second respondent put the petitioners to prove themanner of accident, age and income of the deceased and also putthe petitioners to prove that the driver of the lorry bearingNo.OAG.9837, was negligent while driving the lorry and put thepetitioners to prove that they are the dependants of the deceased.

7. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues andto substantiate the claim, the petitioners got examined PWs.1 & 2and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 on their behalf. On behalf of thecontesting respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 gotmarked.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, theTribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,95,000/- along with interestat 9% p.a to the petitioners against both the respondents.

9. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by theTribunal, the petitioners preferred the present appeal.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ petitionersargued that the Tribunal grossly erred in not allowing the full claimof the petitioners, though sufficient evidence was produced; that theTribunal having held that the accident was occurred due to rash andnegligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, ought to haveallowed the entire claim; that the deceased was a man ofextraordinary talent and industry and having an excellent academic

career; that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration theage of the deceased while calculating the dependency instead ofthe age of his mother and relied on the case law reported in AmritBhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance CompanyLimited and others[[1]]; that in view of Sarla Verma and others V.Delhi Transport Corporation and another[[2]], the relevantmultiplier for the age group of 21 to 25 years is ‘18’ and further,argued that the income of the deceased should be taken asRs.12,000/- p.m in view of the case law reported in B. Ramulammaand others v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union, Rep. by A.M.VeluMudaliyar, Bangalore and another[[3]],wherein it is held at paras51 & 52 as follows:

“51. In view of the present salaries, being earned by theComputer Engineers, there cannot be any doubt to say thatthe deceased would have earned minimum Rs. 12,000/- toRs. 15,000/- per month. It has to be seen that nowadaysIVth class employees are also getting minimum Rs. 7,000/-to Rs. 10,000/- per month depending upon their service.The Junior Assistants are also getting Rs. 12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, considering the normalscales being earned by the Government employees andalso the minimum wage scales fixed to the technicalpersons, we are of the view that the minimum salary of atechnical person, who is holding a bachelor degree incomputers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken asRs. 12,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of thegraduates in engineering i.e., B.Tech., cannot be fixed lessthan Rs. 12,000/- per month, otherwise it amounts toneglecting the ground of reality. Similarly those who havecompleted M.Tech., MCA., MBA., the income of suchpersons can be fixed a little higher i.e., at Rs. 15,000/- permonth. This will take care of the additional income whichthey would have earned in course of their service.

52. In view of the above discussion, we are of theconsidered view that the minimum income of B.E. graduatecan be fixed at Rs. 12,000/- per month.”

and prayed the Court to enhance the compensation.

11. Though notice was serviced on respondent No.1, noneappeared to argue on his behalf.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for thesecond respondent argued that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly granted compensationholding that the deceased was not having any income at the time ofaccident and took the relevant multiplier into consideration andawarded reasonable compensation; that the petitioner died as abachelor, and therefore, granting compensation for consortium doesnot arise; that at the most, appellants are not entitled for loss ofestate, funeral expenses and transportation expenses and prayedthe Court to dismiss the appeal.

13. Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel appearing for both parties, the points which are to bedecided in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the appellants/petitioners are entitledfor enhancement of compensation as prayedfor or not?for enhancement of compensation as prayedfor or not?

2. Whether the compensation granted by theTribunal is just and reasonable or not?Tribunal is just and reasonable or not?

14. POINTS 1 & 2: A perusal of the oral and documentaryevidence produced by both sides, shows that there is no disputeabout the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligentdriving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.OAG.9837 and due tothe said accident on 17.05.2001, the deceased died. As per Ex.B1,there is no dispute that the Insurance policy was in force and theinsurance was having coverage of third party risk and therefore,second respondent Insurance Company is liable to paycompensation awarded by the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunalin this regard needs no interference.

15. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded to thepetitioners by the Tribunal is concerned, the learned counsel for theappellants contended that this Court in

B. Ramulamma’s case (third cited supra), fixed the income of thefinal year Engineering student as Rs.12,000/- p.m and basing on thesaid finding, the income of the deceased has to be fixed. A perusal of the Judgment relied by the appellants shows that this Court aftertaking into consideration the evidence of PWs.3 & 4 fixed theincome of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- p.m. In the present case,apart from the evidence of father of the deceased, PW.2 wasexamined. PW.2 was the eye witness and also classmate of thedeceased. He stated that deceased was a brilliant student havingbrilliant career and the deceased did the project work in H.P.C.L,Visakhapatnam and was offered with a job after completion of hisexamination. Both PWs.1 & 2 in their evidence has not stated aboutthe income of the deceased.

16. Admittedly, the deceased was a final year Engineeringstudent aged about 24 years as on the date of his death. It isnodoubt as far as the students, who are about to complete theirstudies are concerned it is very difficult to determine their income.The evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is not helpful in this regard. Therefore,the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly fixedthe income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- p.m i.e., Rs.36,000/- p.a.

17 In a decision relied on by the appellants reported in AmritBhanu’s case (first cited supra), it is held as follows:

“17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of thedeceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent.There may be a number of dependents of the deceasedwhose age may be different and, therefore, the age ofdependents has no nexus with the computation ofcompensation.”

Therefore, considering the said case law, the age of the deceasedhas to be taken to consider the multiplier. Further, in view of thedecision reported in Sarla Verma’s case(second cited supra),1/3[rd] of the amount if deducted towards personal expenses, as thenumber of dependants on the income of the deceased are three, thecontribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.24,000/- perannum. As the age of the deceased was taken as ‘24’ by theTribunal, the relevant multiplier applicable as per the Sarla Verma’s case(second cited supra) is ‘18’ and as such, the total loss ofdependency comes to Rs.24,000/- X 18 = Rs.4,32,000/-. Further,the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate andRs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus in total, theappellants/petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,52,000/[Rs.4,32,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.5,000/-]. Admittedly, theaccident vehicle covered by Ex.B1 policy and it was in force at thetime of accident. Therefore, both the respondents are jointly andseverally liable to pay compensation to the appellants.

18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the appeal ispartly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunalto the petitioners f r o m Rs.3,95,000/- to Rs.4,52,000/-. Therespondents are directed to deposit the amount awarded to theappellants/petitioners within three months from the date of thisorder. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw theamount of 1/3[rd] share each from the compensation awarded. Noorder as to costs.

19. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shallstand closed.

_____________

ANIS, J

Date: .12.2014

sr

[1]2012 ACJ 20022012 ACJ 2002[2](2009) 6 SCC 121(2009) 6 SCC 121

[3]2009 (6) ALT 785 (D.B.)2009 (6) ALT 785 (D.B.)