Introductory:

1. One Addala Srinu @ Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") died in a motor vehicle accident / road traffic accident that occurred on 20.02.2013 at about 07:00 p.m. near Mallepalle NH-16 Road. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District & Session Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry (for short "the learned MACT) passed judgment and decree dated 03.02.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.359 of 2013 filed by the parents and sisters of the deceased, awarding compensation of Rs.4,74,000/-, as against the claim made for Rs.8,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with incidental directions as to deposit, apportionment etc. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 4455 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"). Respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company.

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.

4. The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 23 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Clerk in Andhra Sabarimalai Temple at Sankavaram. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased when he was on his stationed motorcycle. The respondents are liable to pay compensation and the petitioners being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation claimed.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of respondent No.3-Insurance Company:

6. The petitioners shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of deceased due to the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants and entitlement of the claimants for the compensation claimed.

Evidence:

7. On behalf of the claimants, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1. One Chikkala Rambabu, an eye-witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. P.W.3-Kuchimanchi Srinivasa Rao, Managing Trustee of Andhra Sabarimala Trust, Siddivaripalem, Sankavaram, deposed about Ex.A7 salary certificate stating that the deceased was working as Clerk for about three years prior to the death.

8. Further, the claimants relied upon Ex.A1-attested copy of FIR, Ex.A2-attested copy of Inquest Report, Ex.A3-attested copy of Post Mortem Report, Ex.A4- attested copy of MVI Report, Ex.A5-attested copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.A6-Transfer Certificate and Ex.A7-Salary particulars of the deceased.

9. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. Only Ex.B1-copy of Insurance policy got marked.

Findings of the learned MACT:

10. While referring to the crime record and the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, the learned MACT believed the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. While referring to the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A7, the learned MACT adopted the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting 50% towards personal expenditure, arrived at Rs.18,000/- as the multiplicand. Applying multiplier ‘18’, the learned MACT arrived at Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of dependency and further awarded Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenditure and cost of litigation. In all, total compensation of Rs.4,74,000/- was awarded.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the appellant:

11. When Ex.A7-Salary Certificate is placed and competent witnesses are examined to show the income of the deceased, the acceptance of notional income at Rs.100/- per day by the learned MACT is not correct and the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is very low. Hence require interference and enhancement.

For the respondents:

12. Awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenditure etc. is irrational. The compensation awarded is excessive and there are no grounds to interfere and appeal is fit to be dismissed.

13. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

Scope of appeal:

14. The appeal is filed by the claimants. Therefore, the entitlement of claimants for compensation and liability of the respondents to pay the same etc. are out of dispute. Just and adequate nature of compensation awarded alone is the subject matter of the present appeal.

15. Points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

               1) Whether the compensation of Rs.4,74,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case or whether it requires any enhancement, if so, on what grounds and to which extent?

               2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

Precedential guidance:

16(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. (2009 (6) SCC 121) 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 Others (2017(16) SCC 680) 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 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 Others ((2018) 18 SCC 130), 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:

17. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others ((2013) 9 SCC 54), 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, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280)

               “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to “make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just‟. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be “just‟. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.”

               The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213]

               11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim.

Analysis and findings:

18(i). Ex.A7 is in the form of a statement. P.W.3-Managing Trustee of the temple, deposed stating that Rs.10,000/- was paid to the deceased as monthly salary. Ex.A7 is the salary particulars.

               (ii). During cross-examination, he has stated that there are no registers like attendance register, acquittance register etc.

19. As per transfer certificate of the deceased, his date of birth is 02.04.1989. The date of accident is 20.02.2013, by which date the age of the deceased must be around '23' years. Even as per the Inquest Report and Post-mortem certificate also, the age of the deceased is ‘23’ yeas.

20. Although the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A3 are not clear and categorical terms with reference to the usual and systematic maintenance of records, the same cannot be completely brushed aside.

21. Upon considering socio economic circumstances of the year 2013, the year of the accident and upon considering evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, this Court finds it to proper to accept the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month i.e. at the rate of Rs.150/- per day. Further, 30% can be added to the income towards future prospects in view of the age and nature of employment of the deceased, whereby the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.5,850/- per month and Rs.70,200/- per annum.

22. After deducting, 50% of the income of the deceased towards the personal expenditure, the contribution of deceased to the family can be accepted at Rs.35,100/-, which can be considered as multiplicand. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is ‘18’, whereby the loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,31,800/-. Hence the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,31,800/- under the head of loss of dependency.

23. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the conventional heads i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate and claimant Nos.1 and 2 / parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under filial consortium.

24. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows: