Korapati Mangamma v. Vangalapudi Venkata Rao

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.129 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-11 Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No. 1009 of 2017 dated 21.05.2020.

The claimants, who are wife, son, and marriage daughters of one Korapati Pascal (hereinafter referred to as deceased”), before the Tribunal are the appellants. Respondent Nos.l to 3 are the driver, owner and insurer of Lorry bearing No.AP 05 U 559 (hereinafter referred to as crime lorry”) respectively.

The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 12.08.2017 at about 07.30 p.m., while the deceased discharging his duties and proceeding from Tirumala Dairy Bhimadole Ramachandrapuram in a Van bearing No.AP OY W 3975 (hereinafter referred as “van”), when he reached near Indira Colony, Pullag Village on N.H.-16, the crime lorry driven by the Dt respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing 2 horn, dashed the van of the deceased from its behind, resulted the deceased fell down from the van cabin, received multiple injuries and died on the spot, ii). The deceased used to get monthly income of Rs.25,000/- and contributed the same for the welfare claimants. They claimed compensation Rs. 18,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the crime lorry.

The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the van. but not respondent; that the crime lorry is not having valid fitness and permit by the date of incident; that the respondent No. 1 is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 3

1. Whether Korapati Pascal deceased in the case died in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 05 U 559?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed if so against whom? and

3. To what relief?”

During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l to 5 were examined and Exs.A.l to A.7, X. 1 and X.2 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, none were examined. however, Exs.B.l and B.2 ration card of the claimants and insurance policy were marked.

On the material, the Tribunal, having come to conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the crime lorry by the Dt respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.7,03,600/-, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 4

It is against the said awardj the present appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation.

Heard Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer.

Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal erred in taking the proper multiplier applied to the age of the deceased and deduction of living and personal expenses at l/S^d instead of 1 /4th; that the Tribunal ought to have add the future prospects in view of the pronouncements of HonlDle Supreme Court, thereby, the claimants are entitled for compensation as claimed against the respondents.

Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer submits that the Tribunal, after considering the material on record rightly calculated the compensation entitled \- the claimants and that there are no valid grounds urged by 5 the appellant to meddles with the order of the Tribunal, thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal.

Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the Tribunal granted just compensation as entitled by the claimants?

POINT: It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the incident and that both the crime lorry and the van were involved. It is also undisputed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the insurer of the crime lorry did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal.

It the only contention that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimants, thereby. prays to enhance the compensation.

Coming to the just compensation, it is the not in dispute that by the date of death the deceased was an earning member by working in Tirumala Milk Products Private Limited and as per Ex.A.7 pay slip for the month of August 2015 his gross s 6 salary was at Rs.9,422/-. Thereby, Tribunal rightly determined the actual monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,008/- after made statutory deductions and conveyance allowance, which comes to Rs.96,096/- per annum.

As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi^, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows:

39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lai Jain. Three aspects need to be clariifed. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraph No.30, Sarla Verma lays down: - “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra case, the general practice is to apply standardised deduction. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR® 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (l/3’'fi where the 2017(6) ALT 60 (SC) 7 number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 one- fourth (1/4^^) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5-’^) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.”

As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra) in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 .... (emphasis supplied)

In the present case, as per the above said decision, 10% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 56 to 60 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 10% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.l,05,706/-(Rs.96,096/- + Rs.9,610/-).

In the case on hand, there are five claimants depending on the deceased, thereby, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4* from the 8 income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.79,279/-.

Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja & Anr2, at Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 held as follows : vs Atul Dande 11 is now a settled principle, repeatedly again by this Court, stated and restated time and that in awarding compensation the multiplier IS logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of method or permanent disability suffered accident

12. While applying the multiplier method, future a method consideration. life and career prospects on advancement in taken into In proceeding under Action 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having applied taking ^ 2017(3) see 315 9 regard circumstances capitalizing multiplicand appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method accepted method for determining ensuring payment compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty awards country. (emphasis supplied)

The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e. 56 to 60 years

The total dependency is determined at Rs.7,13,511/- (Rs.79,279/- x 9).

CONVENTIONAL HEADS: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in, Pranay Sethi (supra). Magma National 10 Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.3, Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others^, United India Insurance Co. Ltd V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors.^ and Rojalini Nayak and others v. AJit Sahoo and others^, this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.2,42,000/- (Rs.48,400/- X 5) towards loss of spousal and parental consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-, respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). In total the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,91,811/- against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3(2018) 18 see 130 ^(2022) see OnLine Se 1683 3 (2022) see OnLine Se 1683 17(2021) 11 see 780 11

INTEREST;- The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of @ 8% per annum. In Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and others^, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma & Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others^, the Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited?, the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% per annum and in Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others^^, the Apex Court while referring to Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Orsdi allowed interest @ 9% per annum. Thereby, the claimants are entitled to grant h2015) 1 see 539 H202i)6see iss ■^(2021) 2 see 166 '°(2022) see OnLine Se 1683 "(2020) 4 see 228 12 interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization on the award amount.

A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation The annual income of the! Rs.96,096/- deceased. per annum 110% of above(l) prospects to be|(Rs.96,096/- future Rs. 1,05,706/- + Rs.9,610/-) !l/4th to be deducted astRs.79,279/- personal deceased. expenses Compensation arrived at application multiplier 9. (Rs.79,279/- Rs.7,13,511/- X 9) Spousal consortium four children) Parental (wife Rs.2,42,000/- (Rs.48,400 X 5) Loss of estate Rs. 18,150/- Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) compensation Rs.9,91,811/- .J... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 13

Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference enhancing compensation from Rs.7,03,600/- to Rs.9,91,811/-. It is needless to say that the compensation as claimed on the remaining heads is not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

In view of the above, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation only. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is liable to be considered.

In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part to enhance the compensation Rs.7,03,600/- Rs.9,91,811/- interest at 9% per annum, with proportionate costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent No.l

3. Respondent No. 3/insurer deposit compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled receive the enhanced compensation amount 14 equally in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier and they are entitled to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Eluru, East Godavari District.

2. One CC to Sri. B V Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri. Mallikharjunarao, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate.[OPUC]

5. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

6. Three CD Copies 'I \ HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.129 of 2022 C9 21 JUN 2(l2i K Co front Sec sSiS PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY .THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 129 OF 2022 Between:

1. Korapati Mangamma, W/o Late Paskolu, SC-Mala, Female, Age 45 years, R/o D.No.2-61, Pothunuru (V), Denduluru (M), W.G.District.

2. Korapati Raju, S/o Late Paskolu, SC-Mala, Male, Age 21 years, R/o D.No.2-61, Pothunuru (V), Denduluru (M), W.G.District.

3. Natta Jyothi, W/o Venkateswara Rao, SC-Mala, Female, Age 27 years R/o Vemulapalli (V), Ligapalem (M), W.G.District.

4. Katikitala Asa, W/o Jacob, SC-Mala, Female, Age 25 years, R/o Chettunapadu (V), Bhimadole (M), W.G.District.

5. Nellapalla Swapana, W/o Santha Kumar, Age 23 years, R/o Pedapadu Post and Mandal, W.G.District. ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND

1. Vangalapudi Venkata Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Hindu, Male, aged about 30 years. Driver of the Lorry No. AP 05 U 559, R/o D.No.4-121-14A-1 , Weekers Colony, Tadepalligudem, W.G.District.

2. Vangalapudi Srinivasu, S/o Venkata Rao Hindu, Male, aged about 30 years. Owner of the Lorry No. AP 05 U 559, ,R/o D.No.4-121-14A-1 , Weekers Colony, Tadepalligudem, W. G.District.

3. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.., Rep by Manager, Reg.office Sadan Cl Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110 017 ...RESPONDENTS Appeal Linder Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Order and decree made in MVOP No. 1009/2017 dt. 21.08.2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon haring the arguments of Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, for the Appellants of Sri R Mallikarjuna Rao for the Respondents No.1 & 2 and Sri Gudi Srinivasu for Respondent No.3. The Court doth order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Macma be and is hereby allowed in part. hereby 2. That compensation enhanced Rs.7,03,600/- to Rs.9,91,811/- with interest at 9 percent per with proportionate costs from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents No.1 to 3.

3. That the Respondent No.3/Insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this Judgment before the Tribunal.

4. That on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier and they are entitled to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon.

5. That the Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Eluru, East Godavari District.

2. Three CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.129 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA