S. Meena vs K. Vijay Kumar

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 in O.P.No.2066 of 2005 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘The Tribunal’), the appellants preferred the present appeal.

Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed respondents to deposit the amount.

The appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees TwoLakhs only) for the death of one Sakuntala in Motor Vehicle accident.

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the auto, respondent No.2 is the original owner in whose name policy was standing and respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company Limited.

Heard Sri P. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellants thaton 02.05.2005 the deceased was waiting near ‘Bible House Bus Stop’. At that time, the auto bearing No.AP13U7255 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased and caused severe injuries. She succumbed to the injuries on 03.05.2005 at Gandhi Hospital. A crime was registered by the Police and charge sheet was filed against the driver of the auto. The deceased was doing tailoring and embroidery works and was earning Rs.3,250/- per month and contributing entire income to the appellants. So, the appellants are claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

The Tribunal on considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and as the same vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved by the said quantum, the claimants filed the present appeal.

The tribunal decided the first issue stating that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, which was not disputed by the Insurance Company. The tribunal also decided the second issue stating that the age of the deceased was taken as 52 years and income of the deceased was taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum and 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Whereas the tribunal has not awarded the same to the appellants stating that these appellants are not dependents on the income of the deceased. As such, the tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- for the funeral expenses and also for loss of love and affection. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the tribunal wrongly decided the petition stating that the appellantswere not entitled for the loss of dependency and the same issue was settled by the Hon’ble Apex court in Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and another 2007 ACJ 1279 and also by this Court in Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini vs. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy 2016 (2) ALD 226 (FB) and another full bench decided the said issue stating that the legal representatives who are not dependents are also entitle for the claim. Hence, he prays this Court to consider the appellants as dependents. He also submitted that as per PMA report, the age of the deceased was 45 years, whereas, tribunal has considered as 52 years and proper multiplier would be 14 and also the claim on other confessional heads. He further submitted that the appellants are entitled for the enhancement and prays this Court to enhance the compensation and award the same to the appellants.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants were not dependents of the income of the deceased. As such, they are not entitled for the compensation. He further submitted that as the claim petition was filed under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, they have to restrict the income to an extent of Rs.40,000/- and hence, prays this Court to dismiss the appeal.

Having regard to the rival submissions, as there is no dispute with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company, there is no need to discuss about the same. The tribunal has not awarded the loss of dependency to the appellants stating that they are not the dependents to the income of the deceased. Whereas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera’s case (supra 2007 ACJ 1279) held as follows:

“As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO national Ultramarino vs. Nalini Bai Naique, AIR 1989 SC 1589, the definition contained in Section 2 (11) Civil Procedure Code is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who repreent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression ‘legal representative’. As observed in Gujarat Sttate Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.”

Learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Birender and others 2020 ACJ 759, wherein it is held as follows:

“It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major, married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that claimants were working as agricultural labourers and contract basis and were earning meager income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earnings of their mother and, in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.”

Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Gangaraju Swomini(supra 2016 (2) ALD 226 (FB)), wherein it is held as follows:

“In view of the clear and unambiguous language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that application can be made either by the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased. Though ‘legal representative’ is not defined under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, from Rule 2 (g) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is clear that the definition of ‘legal representative’ is given same meaning as defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera’s case (supra), it is clear that the compensation which is payable on account of no fault liability will form part of the estate of deceased. In that view of the matter, there is no basis for contending that the application is to be filed only by the defendants. As we have held that dependency is a matter to be taken into consideration for award of compensation and merely because one is not dependent, that by itself, is no ground for not entertaining any claim made for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the clear language under Section 166 of the Act and in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera’s case (supra), wherein, it is held that the compensation to be awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act will form part of the estate of deceased, and further, as the Act also provides for compensation on other conventional heads, we are of the view that the non-dependant also can lay a claim by filing application under Section 166 of the Act. It is also to be noticed that the situations may arise, where, one may have suffered injuries inititally but ultimately after filing ac laim, amy have succumbed to such injuries also. In such an event, lot of amount would be spent towards hospitalization etc., and has already discussed in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Montford Brothers’s case (supra), it is common in the Indian society, where, the members of the family who are not even dependant also can extend their support monetarily and otherwise to the victims of accidents to meet the immediate expenditure for hospitalization etc., in such cases, unless the legal representatives are allowed to continue the proceedings initiated by the person who succumbs to injuries subsequently, such claims will be defeated and that will also defeat the very object and intendment of the Act. Any such measure would be wholly unequitable and unjust. Plainly, that would never be intent of any piece of legislation. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehiles Act, 1988 read with Rule 2 (g) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, we are of the view that even the legal representatives who are non-dependents can also lay a claim for payment of compensation by making application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In view of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and full Bench of this Court, it can be held that these appellants are entitled for loss of dependency.

The income of the deceased was Rs.3,250/- on the date of accident. Since the deceased was a bachelor, her personal and living expenses shall be 50% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.1,625/- per month. The tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 51 years whereas, as per the PMA report the age of the deceased was shown 45 years as on the date of accident. Hence,the appropriate multiplier for 45 years is ‘14’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 adopting multiplier 14, her total loss of earnings would be Rs.2,73,000/- (1,625x12 x 14)-. However, the dependents are not entitled for the consortium. No amount is awarded under the head of consortium. Further, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of affection. Whereas, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards transportation which is meager as such this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation charges. As the petition is filed under Section 163 A if the M.V. Act the appellants are awarded an amount of Rs.3,03,000/-. As the 1st appellant is sister of the deceased she is awarded an amount of Rs.2,03,000 and as 2nd and 3rd appellants are daughters of 1st appellant an amount of Rs.50,000/-each is awarded to them.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.3,03,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Three Thousand only). The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally.

The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered above. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.