AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Neeladri Rao, J.—In O.P. No. 161 of 1981 an amount of Rs. 99,000/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum was awarded to the claimants in the petition filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). R-1 to whom lorry ATT 319 which was involved in the accident belongs and R-3, the insurance company, preferred C.MA No. 889 of 1983 challenging the said award while the claimants filed C.MA No. 1223 of 1984 claiming enhancement.
Late Chadalavada Venkatarao (hereinafter referred to as ''the deceased''), the husband of the 1st claimant, was a member of Rajya Sabha from 1979. When the deceased was proceeding in a car from Vijayawada to Hyderabad on 5.1.1981 the lorry bearing No. ATT 319 and belonging to R-1 was driven rashly and negligently by R-2, the driver and it overtook two lorries ahead of the same and dashed against the car driven by the deceased near Kilesapuram (Mulapadu) at 8.15 a.m. and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident, at the spot. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Judge held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. In view of the material on record, we do not find any reason to differ from the same.
The next important point for consideration is in regard to the amount that has to be awarded as damages.
The Tribunal held that the deceased was getting Rs. 1,000/- p.m. towards emoluments as a member of Rajya Sabha and he was spending Rs. 700/- out of it on his family. Thus the loss of dependency of the claimants, who are the widow and daughters and sons of the deceased, was assessed at Rs. 700/- p.m. The facts that the deceased was a graduate with diploma in Engineering and he was member of Rajya Sabha in 1979 and his turn would end by 1984 are not in dispute. When the Petitioners claimed that the deceased was aged only 44 years at the time of his death while in the petition it was alleged that he was aged 48 years the Tribunal had not given any finding in regard to the age of the deceased at the time of his death, by observing that it does not matter whether the deceased was aged 48 years or 44 years as he was limiting his earning capacity to 10 years only.
We held in Nirmala Narsava v. Vilas Ramachandra Shangda 1989 ACJ 715 (AP), that pecuniary damages towards loss of dependency can be reasonably ascertained by adopting the Actuary''s multiplier and for that the Table referred to in Bhagwandas Vs. Mohd. Arif, , can be adopted. Hence it is necessary to determine the age of the deceased.
It was urged for claimants that by relying upon the age of the deceased as noted in Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report, the age of deceased was stated as 48 years in the petition, but Exh. A-6 vaccination certificate showed the date of birth of the deceased as 11.3.1936. We feel that as the date of birth itself was noted in Exh. A-6, the same can be preferred instead of the age as noted in Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report as it would be a rough estimate. Hence we find the age of the deceased at the time of his death as 44 years.
In Bhagwandas Vs. Mohd. Arif, , itself, it was stated that in choosing the multiplier for persons who like professionals earn for their life and there is no retirement, the multiplier from the Table can be increased approximately by 1 to 2 points. The deceased was a member of Rajya Sabha at the time of his death. The lower Tribunal observed that the possibility of the deceased being considered for second term was bright. Further it was rightly argued for the claimants that as the deceased was having a diploma in Engineering he could have easily earned Rs. 1,000/- p.m., if not more, even if he could not have been considered for membership of Rajya Sabha for second term. As there is no age of retirement for the deceased and as he could have earned for his life, even without being a member of Rajya Sabha, it is proper to increase the multiplier from the Table by roughly 2 points. The multiplier as per the Table is 11.12 and hence the proper multiplier that can be adopted in this case is 13.
It was urged for the claimants that besides Rs. 1,000/- as emoluments, the deceased used to get daily allowance on the days of the sittings and also travelling expenses and those amounts have also to be taken into consideration in evaluating the multiplicand. But it may be noted that travelling expenses would have been spent for the purpose of travelling. There would not have been any possibility of saving from daily allowance when it is necessary for the deceased to stay in Delhi during the sessions of the Parliament when his family would be at his native place. So we feel that the Tribunal was right in ignoring the same while determining the monthly loss of dependency.
So we agree with the finding of the lower Tribunal that it can be fixed at Rs. 700/- .
So the present value of total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,09,200/- (Rs. 700/- � 12 � 13) which can be rounded to Rs. 1,10,000/- . In view of the age of the 1st claimant, the award of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium cannot be held as too high and hence it does not warrant any interference.
In Nirmala Narsava v. Vilas Ramachandra Shangda 1989 ACJ 715 (AP), we held that non-pecuniary damages towards loss of expectation of life and towards pain and suffering of the deceased have to be awarded to the estate. The same was quantified as Rs. 7,500/- under each head in Y. Varalakshmi v. M. Nageswara Rao 1988 ACJ 359 (AP) and we feel the same as just. Hence the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards non-pecuniary damages which would go to the estate of the deceased. The claimants herein are entitled to the same.
In common law no amount was awarded towards funeral expenses vide Clark v. General Omni Bus Company 1906 (2) KB 648. But in England as per Section 3(3) of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1976 and as per Section 1(2)(c) of the Law Reforms Act, 1934, the same is now awarded. As there is no statutory provision in India, we feel that no amount can be awarded towards funeral expenses.
Thus a total amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- has to be awarded towards damages and so the award is enhanced to Rs. 1,30,000/- from Rs. 99,000/- . The same carries interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition for the reasons stated in Nirmala Narsava v. Vilas Ramachandra Shangda 1989 ACJ 715 (AP).
The claim of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 who are the married daughters was dismissed by the lower Tribunal. They have not preferred any appeal against the order of dismissal and it had become final.
In the circumstances, it is proper to award Rs. 15,000/- to each of the Petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 to 9 and the balance of Rs. 40,000/- to the 1st Petitioner from out of the award amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- . The order of the lower Tribunal that the compensation amount payable to the Petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 shall be invested in a nationalised bank till they attain majority is confirmed.
As the award amount is being enhanced, C.M.A. No. 889 of 1983 has to be dismissed and C.M.A. No. 1223 of 1984 has to be allowed in part.
In the result, C.MA No. 889 of 1983 is dismissed but without costs. C.MA No. 1223 of 1984 is allowed in part with proportionate costs. Advocate''s fee is fixed at Rs. 500/- .