M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ITS MANAGER CLAIMS), GUDEM PLAZA & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 is ‘5’. Thus

#2. M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ITS MANAGER CLAIMS), GUDEM PLAZA, REPRESENTED BY D.NO.43-18-17, SIVA SANKAR MCTORS LANE, NEW COLONY. VENKATA RAJU NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM.

#3. BOYI DHARMA, S/O MODDU, AGED 29 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE AUTO RESIDENT OF GARUDAGUCA VILLAGE, ARAKU VALLEY MANDAL. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High CourtAggrieved by the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 271 /2015, dated28.05.2019 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum II addl. District Judge, Visakhapatanam, IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to condone the delay of 1382days in filing the above appeal, and Counsel for the Appellant(S):

#1. A S C BOSE 3 VS,J MACMA_469 of 2022 Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. N RAMA KRISHNA

#2. The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA_469 of 2022 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the appellants/claim petitioners aggrieved by the award dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in M.V.O.P.No.271 of 2015, whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.45,000/- as against the claim of Rs.13,00,000/-.

#2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

#3. The 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the grand daughter and petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are daughters of Paramasiva Thalavar Chinnadurai (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The 1st respondent is the owner, 2nd respondent is the insurer and 3rd respondent is the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-31-TC-2086. On 12.04.2013, at around 09.00 a.m., while the deceased was standing at Padmapuram junction to fetch an auto to reach Araku valley, the auto bearing No.AP-31-TC-2086 being driven by the 3rd respondent, dashed the deceased due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to Government hospital, Araku and later to K.G.H. Government Hospital, Visakhapatnam for further treatment. The deceased, after taking treatment as in-patient on several occasions in various hospitals, died on 21.10.2013. The accident was reported to Police who registered a case in Crime No.28/2013 against the 3rd respondent for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 72 years as on the date of accident and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by working as quarry contractor. Seeking compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for the accidental death of the deceased, the petitioners filed claim petition before the Tribunal under 5 VS,J MACMA_469 of 2022 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994.

#4. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were set exparte. The 2nd respondent contested the claim petition by filing a detailed counter affidavit contending that there is no nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased. It further contended that it has no contractual obligations to indemnify the 1st respondent and that the 2nd respondent need not pay any compensation to the petitioners.

#5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident dt.12-04-2013 is the out come of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TC 2086 (auto rickshaw) by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? 3) To what relief?

#6. During the course of trial, the petitioners got examined P.W.1, got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

#7. The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and material available before it, awarded Rs.45,000/- to the petitioners by holding that respondent No.2 is severally liable to pay. Seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claim petitioners filed the present appeal by contending that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under the head of medical expenses, as claimed.

#8. Heard Sri. Harsha, learned counsel representing Sri. A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. N. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 6 VS,J MACMA_469 of 2022

#9. Perused the entire material available on record. In order to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent, the 1st petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and reiterated the manner in which the accident had occurred. The petitioners relied on Ex.A1 – FIR in crime No.28/2013 registered against the 3rd respondent. Ex.A4 is the charge sheet filed by the police against the 3rd respondent after conducting investigation. Thus, the Tribunal held that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident that was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent. However, though the Tribunal observed that the deceased had sustained a head injury, two injuries in the left fronto-parietal region, and an injury to his right shoulder, it concluded that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained by him and the cause of his death, as the accident took place on 12.04.2013 and the deceased died on 21.10.2013. This Court is of the opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased, particularly the head injury and the injuries in the left fronto-parietal region, are of serious in nature and would have long-lasting consequences. The fact that the deceased died about six months after the accident does not, by itself, break the link between the accident and his death, especially since the injuries from the accident were serious and continued to affect his health.

#10. Now, coming to quantum of compensation, the petitioners claim that the deceased was aged 72 years as on the date of accident and that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as quarry contractor. Further, the petitioners claimed that they have incurred Rs.8,00,000/- towards treatment of the deceased for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Though the petitioners filed medical bills issued by different hospitals contending that such amount has to be reimbursed to them, no doctors were examined on their behalf to prove that the said claim is legit. 7 VS,J MACMA_469 of 2022 In the absence of any cogent oral evidence to prove that the petitioners have incurred Rs.8,00,000/- towards treatment of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded Rs.21,080/- towards medical expenses. Further, considering the fact that the deceased sustained two injuries, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.4,000/- towards attendant charges. In total, the Tribunal computed the amount of compensation as Rs.45,080/- and the same was rounded off to Rs.45,000/-. The same is not in dispute and need not be altered.

#11. However, it can be seen that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of dependency on the ground that there is no nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased. The Tribunal arrived at such conclusion on the ground that the petitioners had failed to examine any witness to establish that the deceased died due to the severity of the injuries sustained by him. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal, ought not to have drawn such an adverse inference merely on the ground that no witness was examined to establish a direct nexus between the injuries and the cause of death. Had the accident not occurred and the deceased had not sustained such grievous injuries, he would have continued to remain alive for some more years. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

#12. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 72 years as on the date of accident. Though it is claimed that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, no document was filed to prove the same, thus, this Court feels it appropriate to consider the income of the deceased as per minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labour in the year 2013, which is 8 VS,J MACMA_469 of 2022 Rs.182/- per day. The monthly income of the deceased would become Rs.5,460/- [Rs.182/- X 12]. It can be seen that the 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the grand daughter and petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are children of the deceased. However, petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are married and are living separately. Thus, they cannot be treated as dependents on the deceased. As the 1st petitioner is the sole dependent on the deceased, 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses, thus, the amount which the deceased contributes to his family would be Rs.3,640/- [Rs.5,460/- - Rs.1,820/- (1/3rd of Rs.5,460/- )]. The relevant multiplier applicable as per Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 is ‘5’. Thus, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency would become Rs.2,18,400/- [Rs.3,640/- X 12 X ‘5’]. Further, the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Thus, the amount of compensation payable to the 1st petitioner in addition to Rs.45,000/- which was already awarded by the Tribunal, as discussed supra, would be Rs.2,88,400/- [Rs.2,18,400/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/-].

#13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and amounts would now become as under: S. No

#2. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Amounts now altered by this Court Loss of dependency Funeral Charges - - Rs.2,18,400/- Rs.15,000/- 1AIR 2009 SCC3104 9 VS,J MACMA_469 of 2022

#8. Loss of estate Loss of Consortium for 1st claim petitioner - - Rs.15,000/- Rs.40,000/- Transport Charges Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Medical expenses Rs.21,080/- Rs.21,080/- Attendant Charges Rs.4,000/- Rs.4,000/- Total Rs.45,080/- ~ Rs.45,000/- Rs.3,33,480/-

#14. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by way of the impugned award dated 28.05.2019 is enhanced from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.3,33,480/- along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization of the said amount. It is needless to state that the 1st claim petitioner alone is entitled for such compensation. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date:13.08.2026. Gss ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA