K.rehana & Anr and Others v. P Balaram 2 Others and Others

Judgment

Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 09.04.2014 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2010.

Heard arguments of Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri S.Agastya Sarma, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

#3. The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri Konda Venkata Ramana aged 37 years was an Assistant Manager in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. On

21.10.2009 he was travelling in a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-16-TV-6962 and at about 4:00 P.M. near Siva Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 3 Sai Kshetram, Kanchikacherla a lorry bearing registration No. AP-16-W-0088 came the opposite direction rashly or negligently and dashed the car. In this collision Sri Konda Venkata Ramana died. His wife and minor daughter filed M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs.48,30,000/-. The driver of the offending lorry was shown as respondent No.1, the owner of the offending lorry was shown as respondent No.2 and the insurer was shown as respondent No.3. Before the Claims Tribunal the driver and owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter stating that it was the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling who was at fault and non-impleadment of driver, owner and insurer of Indica Car was fatal. That the driver of the offending lorry did not have a valid driving licence. That excess compensation was claimed. It prayed for dismissal of the claim.

#4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 4 1) Whether the deceased viz., Konda Venkata Ramana was died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.10.2009 at 4 p.m. at Siva Sai Kshetram, Kanchikacherla, due rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Oil Tanker bearing No.AP-16-W-0088? 2) What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount? 4) To what relief?

#5. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 and Ex.B.1-insurance policy were placed for consideration before the Claims Tribunal.

#6. After a detailed analysis of the evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal found that the subject matter accident was reported to police, and they registered Crime No.189 of 2009 and issued Ex.A.1-F.I.R. wherein the allegations were against the driver of the offending lorry. After considering the direct evidence of PW.2 who witnessed the incident and recording that there was Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 5 no contrary evidence placed on record by respondent No.3- insurance company, it concluded saying that the death of Sri Konda Venkata Ramana was out of rash or negligent driving of offending lorry by its driver and there was no fault on part of the driver of the Indica Car. It further considered Exs.X.1 and X.2 which disclosed about the gross and net salary particulars of the deceased and held that the deceased was earning Rs.2,01,501/- per year. Considering that he was employed in a private bank, it thought it fit to add Rs.50,000/- per year towards his future prospects. Thus, the multiplicand was arrived at Rs.2,51,500/-. Following the ruling of their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 and considering the age of the deceased as 37 years it applied multiplier ‘15’. Since there were only two dependents, it deducted 1/3rd of the annual income towards possible personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, it granted Rs.25,15,035/- and stated that it was towards loss of estate. Towards loss of consortium Rs.10,000 and towards funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- were 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 6 granted. Thus, total compensation of Rs.25,30,035/- was granted. It recorded findings that the driver of the offending lorry had a valid and effective driving licence and as per Ex.B.1, the insurance policy was in force by the time of accident. It passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is allowed in PART, awarding total compensation of Rs.25,30,035/-(Rupees twenty five lakhs thirty thousand and thirty five only) in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents together with proportionate costs of the petition and with subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till date of realisation; ii) that the 3rd respondent, who indemnified 2nd respondent, is directed to deposit the entire amount in the Court within one month from the date of this order; iii) that the 1st petitioner being the wife of deceased is entitled Rs.10,30,035/- towards her share; iv) that the 2nd petitioner being minor daughter of the deceased is entitled Rs.15,00,000/- towards her share; v) that on such deposit made by R.3, the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest thereon and costs; Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 7 vi) that the 2nd petitioner share amount shall be kept in FDR in State Bank of Hyderabad, Civil Courts compound, Vijayawada till she attained majority; vii) that the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest on the FDR of 2nd petitioner every year for welfare of the 2nd petitioner; viii) that the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).”

#7. Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the present appeal is preferred.

#8. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error as it failed to grant adequate compensation conventional further inappropriate rate of interest was granted though by the relevant time the nationalized banks were awarding 9% interest.

#9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company fervently argued that the findings of the Claims Tribunal are in accordance with facts and law and granting 7.5% interest is only in tune with the rulings of this Court and there is no merit in the appeal and prays for dismissal of it. Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 8

#10. The points that fall for consideration in this appeal are:

#1. Whether under the conventional heads the impugned award failed to grant compensation in accordance with law?

#2. Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to 9% interest? POINT Nos.1 and 2:

#11. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2, towards the conventional heads their Lordships held as below: Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/- Loss of Consortium - Rs.40,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 9

#12. In the case at hand, towards loss of dependency the Claims Tribunal arrived at Rs.25,15,035/-. As per the statute, the Tribunal is supposed to grant further amount towards loss of estate. However, the Claims Tribunal did not grant anything towards loss of estate but mentioned the loss of dependency as loss of estate. Towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses a total amount of Rs.15,000/- alone was granted. Since the same is not in tune with law and the precedent an additional amount of Rs.55,000/- is granted under these conventional heads.

#13. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as below: “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.— Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.”

#14. The accident and the resultant death took place on

21.10.2009. The Claims Tribunal awarded 7.5% interest. According to the learned counsel for appellants/claimants, 9% Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 10 interest was prevalent by then. That seems to be correct. Therefore, 9% interest is awarded. Both the points are answered accordingly.

#15. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 09.04.2014 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2010 from Rs.25,30,035/- to Rs.25,85,035/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The third respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per their entitlement mentioned in the award of the Claims Tribunal along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 11 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 16.04.2025 Ivd ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 12 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014 Date: 16.04.2025 Ivd