D MANGATAYARU ANOTHER & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.1 and also the method of calculation as & Ors.

#1. D MANGATAYARU ANOTHER, W/O D VENKATA REDDY, HINDU, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS BUT MAJOR PROP:M/S SRINIVASA TRANSPORTS D6 & 7 MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, VISAKHAPATNAM, R/AT FLAT NO.102, SECTOR-IV, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. (OWNER OF CRIME VECHILE CRANE BEARING NO.AP 31 AF 4799) 2

#2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, OPP:POLLOCKS SCHOOL, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtaggrieved by the Judgment and decree dt.20-06-2013 passed in O.P.No.705 of 2011 on the file o the in the court of the Chairman, MACT-cum-1st Addl Dist Judge at Visakhapatnam. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(MACMAMP 2655 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 88 days in representation of the appeal IA NO: 2 OF 2014(MACMAMP 2656 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 76 days in filing the present appeal Counsel for the Appellant(S):

#1. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. .

#2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE

#3. C PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.3099 of 2014 JUDGMENT: Introductory:

#1. One Gandi Sanyasi (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") died in a road traffic accident. His legal heirs and dependents laid a claim seeking compensation vide M.O.P.No.705 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam (for short "the learned MACT"). Under the award and decree dated 20.06.2013, the learned MACT allowed the claim for an amount of Rs.13,80,400/-. Questioning the same as inadequate, the petitioners / claimants filed the present appeal.

#2. Respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the crane bearing No.AP 31 AF 4799 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured.

#3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners/claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the proceedings before the learned MACT. Case of the claimants: 4(i). The deceased was an employee in Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam and was earning Rs.26,000/- per month. He was aged about '55' years. On the fateful day on i.e. on 24.12.2010 at about 01:45 p.m., the deceased was 4 proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 U 1906 from Scindia towards Dockyard. When he reached near the Naval Dockyard bridge, the offending vehicle driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased from his behind causing crush injuries over the head resulting in spontaneous death. (ii). A case in Crime No.450 of 2010 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently a charge sheet was laid against him. Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the unemployed children of the deceased. They are legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for accident. RespondentNo.1, being owner and respondent No.2, being the insurer are liable to pay compensation.

#5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:

#6. The petitioners shall prove the accident, death of the deceased due to the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants and their entitlement for compensation. Evidence: 5 7(i). Claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1. An eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. P.W.3, an employee of Dockyard was examined to prove the occupation and income of the deceased. (ii). The petitioners relied upon Ex.A1-attested copy of FIR, Ex.A2-attested copy of post-mortem certificate, Ex.A3-attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A4- attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A5-copy of Insurance Policy, Ex.A6-copy of certificate of registration of the offending vehicle and Ex.A7-pay certificate issued by Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. Ex.X1 authorization letter for P.W.3. Ex.X2 is the salary particulars of the deceased. Ex.X3 is the family particulars with nomination and Ex.X4 is the date of birth certificate of the deceased. (iii). No evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents. Findings of the learned MACT:

#8. While referring to the evidence of eye witness and the crime record, learned MACT believed the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and fixed the liability on the respondents, answering the point relating to negligence in favour of the claimants. While referring to the age, occupation, income and evidence of P.W.3 as well as the pay slips, the learned MACT accepted the net salary of the deceased at Rs.21,100/- and by applying multiplier '8' and deducting towards the personal expenditure, awarded Rs.13,50,400/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral 6 expenditure, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all, the learned MACT awarded Rs.13,80,400/-. Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants: 9(i). The compensation awarded under the heads of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium are not correct. (ii). The learned MACT failed in taking total gross salary of the deceased as basis. (iii). The compensation awarded inadequate and hence requires enhancement. For respondent-Insurance Company: 10(i). The compensation already awarded by the learned MACT is excessive. (ii). There are no grounds to enhance the compensation. Scope of the appeal:

#11. The appeal is filed by the claimants. Therefore, the findings regarding negligence, entitlement of the claimants for compensation and liability of the respondents to pay the same are all out of dispute. Whether the compensation of Rs.13,80,400/- awarded by the learned MACT is proper is the only subject matter of this appeal.

#12. Heard both sides extensively. Perused record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. Points: 7

#13. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the compensation of Rs.13,80,400/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or requires any interference? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential guidance: 14(i). For having uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court provided guidelines as to adoption of multiplier depending on the age of the deceased in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.1 and also the method of calculation as to ascertaining multiplicand, applying multiplier and calculating the compensation vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the Judgment. (ii). Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others2 case directed for adding future prospects at 50% in respect of permanent employment where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where deceased is between 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, in respect of self employed etc., recommended addition of income at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years and at 10% where the deceased is between 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 2 2017(16) SCC 680 8 50-60 years. Further, awarding compensation under conventional heads like loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenditure at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is also provided in the same Judgment. (iii). Further in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others3, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the compensation under the head of loss of consortium can be awarded not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents of the deceased under the heads of parental consortium and filial consortium. Just Compensation:

#15. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows:

#10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,