AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A V Ravindra Babu, J
1) Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 08.12.2015 in M.O.P.No.461 of 2013, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- made by the petitioners on account of death of Vakapalli Peda Yerrayya (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 12.09.2013, awarded a sum of Rs.18,49,377/-.
2) The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3) The case of the petitioners, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim before the tribunal, is that the deceased used to work as clerk in Canara Bank, Vizianagaram. He used to draw salary of Rs.27,109-83 ps. On 12.09.2013 the deceased and his son-in-law went to Gosha Hospital, Vizianagaram on Hero Honda Passion Pro motorbike bearing No.A.P.35-R-4265. On return journey when they reached near chicken centre, Balaji junction, the rider of the Hero Honda Splender Plus motorbike bearing No.A.P.35-Q-0377 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle driven by the son-in-law of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and received head injury and other injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Tirumala Hospital, Sukhibhava Critical Care and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to death due to injuries stained in the accident. The first petitioner is wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are children of the deceased. Due to sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners lost their love and affection. They are dependants upon the income of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed.
4) The first respondent got filed a counter which is adopted by the second respondent. Their contention is that the petitioners have to prove age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. The deceased had no driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed.
5) The third respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that the petitioners have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and their entitlement of compensation and that their relationship. They have to prove the manner of accident. The police authorities did not follow the mandatory provisions of M.V. Act. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed.
6) On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal settled the following issues for trail:
(1) Whether the accident and death of the deceased viz., Vakapalli Peda Yerrayya, is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle (Hero Honda Splendor Plus) bearing No.A.P.25-Q-0377, which is not amounting to culpable homicide, by its driver?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
7) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 were marked. On behalf of the third respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 and Ex.X.5 were marked.
8) The tribunal on hearing both sides and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence found that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., first respondent. The tribunal on overall appreciation of the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs.18,49,377/- towards compensation as against the original claim of Rs.28,00,000/-. The petitioners feeling aggrieved that the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable, filed the present MACMA.
9) Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the point for determination is whether the award, dated 08.12.2015 in M.O.P.No.461 of 2013, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, in awarding compensation of Rs.18,49,377/- as against the original claim of Rs.28,00,000/-, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation?
POINT:-
10) Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that the tribunal erroneously deducted the income tax payable by the deceased twice. In calculating the annual income, the tribunal deducted a sum of Rs.71,307/- i.e., 20% from Rs.3,56,536/- and arrived at the net drawings is Rs.2,85,229/-. In fact the salary certificate marked under Ex.A.7 also contains a deduction for a sum of Rs.874/-towards income tax. There was double deduction, as such, award needs to be interfered with. This is the only contention advanced on behalf of the appellants.
11) M/s.Manimma Medida, learned counsel for the respondents, would seek to support the judgment of the tribunal on the ground that the tribunal rightly deducted the tax component of 20% and the award needs no interference.
12) As seen from the grounds of appeal, appellants contention is also that the tribunal did not award consortium properly in view of the judgment in Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 ACJ 1403 and further the tribunal did not award any amount towards pain and suffering of the deceased when he was alive while he was taking treatment in the hospital.
13) Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the so-called pain and suffering. As evident from the award of the tribunal, the tribunal duly considered the medical expenditure under Ex.A.6 incurred by the deceased while awarding compensation of Rs.63,000/- and included the same in the part of compensation. The pain and suffering suffered by the deceased has to be considered, if he is alive and when there was a claim by the injured. Hence, the contention in the grounds of appeal that the tribunal did not award any amount towards pain and suffering of the injured while he was alive cannot be countenanced. Apart from this the tribunal awarded consortium of Rs.50,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in the grounds of appeal is that the tribunal did not consider the consortium as per the judgment in Rajesh’s case (supra). The aforesaid contention deserves no merits for the reason that according to the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017(16) SCC 680, the conventional heads of compensation of consortium is Rs.40,000/-, funeral expenses is Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate is Rs.15,000/- thereby arrived at Rs.70,000/-. The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In the absence of any appeal by the insurance company, now this Court cannot reduce it to Rs.70,000/-. The contention in the grounds of appeal basing on Rajesh’s case (1 supra) deserves no merits.
14) Now there remained another contention of the appellants counsel that the tribunal unnecessarily deducted the income tax at 20%.
15) It is to be noted that the tribunal considered the net salary of the deceased as Rs.25,836/-. It is multiplied with 12 months thereby arrived at the figure of Rs.3,10,032/-. The date of death of the deceased was during the financial year 2013-14. The income tax slab during the financial year 2013-14 is Rs.2,00,000/-. It is a case that the deceased was getting total salary of Rs.3,10,032/-. Further if the future prospects of 15% awarded by the tribunal is considered, it would amount to Rs.3,56,536/-. The small tax component in the salary of the deceased was only tentative. In the case of employees, they used to deduct income tax every month and at the end of the financial year, especially, last three months full income tax payable by the employee will be recovered. Under the circumstances, simply because a small amount of Rs.874/- was mentioned in the salary certificate, the tribunal was not prevented from deducting the probable income tax payable by the deceased. In fact, there was no effort made by the petitioners during the course of enquiry as to the probable tax component of the deceased for the end of the financial year.
16) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the contention that the tribunal unnecessarily deducted income tax cannot stand to any reason. In fact the petitioners ought to have produced necessary proof at the time of enquiry as to the tax component which was to be deducted from the salary of the deceased had he been alive. Under the circumstances, this Court does not see any irregularity on the part of the tribunal in computing the tax component as 20%.
17) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that absolutely there are no merits in the appeal, as such, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
18) In the result, the MACMA is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. The respondents shall deposit the rest of compensation, if any, within a period of one month from this day.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.