K. Renuka & 5 Others vs S. Sathya & Another

V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J

The appellants are claim petitioners and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P.No.5 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor.

For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

The claim petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of K. Lakshmi Narayana Rao, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and son of the 6th petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.10.2010.

Facts germane to dispose of the present appeal may briefly be stated as follows:

On 24.10.2010 when the deceased was doing welding work at Nayakallu Bridge on N.H.7 road near Kalluru Mandal, Kurnool District, a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.TN 28AC 3794 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the deceased, due to that, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Ulindakonda P.S., Kurnool District, registered a case in crime No.83 of 2010 against the driver of the said lorry for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle, therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

The 1st respondent was set ex parte.

The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the crime vehicle of the 1st respondent had no valid permit to ply and thereby, the 1st respondent violated the conditions of the policy. Hence, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

Whether the motor vehicle accident on 24.10.2010 at 12.00 noon arose on account of negligence of driver of 1st respondent, resulting the death of the deceased K.Lakshminarayana Rao?

Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

To what relief?

During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked.

At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.3,02,000/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claim petitioners preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

The grounds urged by the appellants/claim petitioners are that the Tribunal erred in restricting the salary of the deceased to the minimum wages and fixing his monthly income as Rs.3,500/- and also erred in applying the correct multiplier to the case on hand for arriving at the loss of dependency.

Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

POINT Nos.1 and 2 : On considering the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the accident, and on considering Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.4-certified copy of charge sheet, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry and due to the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. No appeal was filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,02,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners, by taking into consideration of the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased used to earn Rs.5,500/- per month as Site Supervisor in Soma Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad. In Ex.A.1-F.I.R. and in the complaint given to the police, the avocation of the deceased was mentioned as Site Supervisor. The contention of the petitioners is that the monthly salary of the deceased as on the date of accident is Rs.5,500/- and in support of the same, they got marked the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.A.5. But, the petitioners did not choose to examine any of the competent authority to prove Ex.A.5-salary certificate. The accident occurred in the year 2010. In those days, an ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.4,500/- i.e., Rs.54,000/- per annum. The dependants on the deceased are six in number. So, 1/4th from out of annual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (4) SCJ 91. Having so deducted, the contribution to the family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.40,500/- (Rs.54,000/- - Rs.13,500/-). As seen from Ex.A.1-FIR, Ex.A.2-post mortem report and Ex.A.3-inquest report, the age of the deceased is 58 years. In view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma case referred supra, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is “9” and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.3,64,500/- (Rs.40,500/- x multiplier „9‟). The Tribunal also awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges of the dead body. There is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned Tribunal under these two heads. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Since the compensation awarded under these two heads is very meager, the same is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-respectively. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.4,44,500/- is awarded to the claim petitioners.

The Tribunal in its order held that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the 1st respondent being the owner of the crime vehicle is vicariously liable for the misdeeds of his driver, the crime vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company by the 1st respondent/owner under Ex.B.1-insurance policy, the policy was also in force at the time of accident, and fixed the liability against both the respondents. No appeal was filed by the Insurance company against the said finding. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.4,44,500/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,42,500/- along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw Rs.42,500/- along with total costs and interest on the enhanced compensation amount and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are entitled to withdraw Rs.25,000/- each. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.