Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The Managing Director vs Jyothi Peraiah 4 Others on 10 March, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1722 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. The respondent No.2 (The Managing Director, APSRTC) in
M.V.O.P.No.244 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole, [‘for short ‘MACT’], filed the present appeal
invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, questioning the
sustainability of the award and decree dated 26.06.2015 passed therein.
3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and respondent No.5 herein
is the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 7658 [herein after referred as
‘offending vehicle’]. He remained ex parte before the MACT.
4. The parties will be hereinafter referred, as and how they are arrayed
before the learned MACT.
The case of the claimants, in brief, is that –
5. [i] The 1st claimant is the husband, the 2nd and 3rd claimants are her
daughters and 4th claimant is the mother of one Jyothi Marthamma [ [herein after
referred to as ‘the deceased’]. On 24.06.2013, the deceased went to attend her
employment as labourer in bricks Kiln of Thokala Venkateswarlu and while she
2
was crossing the road near the Kiln between Sankarapuram and
Thimmayapalem villages road, within the limits of Addanki Police Station, the
offending vehicle/APSRTC bus coming from Darsi side came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the deceased, whereby she sustained injuries all
over the body and she was shifted to Government Hospital, Addanki from there
to Venkata Ramana Hospital, Ongole, but while undergoing treatment, she
breathed her last on 25.06.2013.
[ii] A case in Crime No.126 of 2013 was registered in Addanki Police
Station for the offences under Section 338 and 204-A IPC against the driver/1st
respondent.
[iii] The deceased was aged about 35 years working as coolie, earning
Rs.200/- per day and also attending domestic works like cooking, washing,
cloths, housekeeping etc., and in all she was earning Rs.10,000/-. Due to the
death of the deceased, the claimants lost financial and every support of the
deceased. Hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
The case of the 2nd respondent, in brief:-
6. The claimants shall prove their relationship with the deceased, negligence
of the driver of the RTC bus, age, occupation and income of the deceased,
dependency of the claimants etc., and in any event, the quantum of
compensation claimed is excessive.
3
7. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for
trial:
1) Whether the deceased died on account of the injuries received in the
accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing
No.AP 10 Z 7658 by the first respondent or was there any contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased as alleged by the second
respondent?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for and
from which of the respondents?
3) To what relief the petitioners are entitled?
Evidence before the learned MACT:-
Oral Evidence:
8. [i] Claimant No.1 was examined as PW1. He has stated about the
relationship of the claimants with the deceased, her age, occupation and income
and death of the deceased due to accident as well as employment of 1 st
respondent by the 2nd respondent, registration of the case by Police and the
cause of death of the deceased is due to accident.
[ii] Further, one Jyothi Narayanamma said to be an eye witness to the
accident, was examined as PW.2 on behalf of the claimants and she has stated
about the accident and negligence of the driver of the bus.
[iii] On behalf of the respondents, M.Obaiah, driver of the bus was
examined as RW.1. He has stated that when the bus reached near Brick Kiln, he
4
has observed that one tipper was stopped on the left side of the road, he has
blown horn and while crossing the tipper, one pedestrian i.e., the deceased, was
crossing the road from back side of the tipper without noticing the bus. He has
applied sudden break, but the deceased dashed the right side corner of the bus
and fell on the road and sustained head injury; using the cell phone, the
deceased has tried to cross the road negligently, which is the cause of the
accident.
Documentary Evidence:
9. Documentary Evidence:-
For the Claimant For the Respondents
Exhibit Description Exhibit Description
No. No.
Ex.A1 Certified copy of First Information
Report in Cr.No.126/2013 Addanki - Nil -
Police Station.
Ex.A2 Certified copy of charge sheet in
Crime No.126/2013 of Addanki
Police Station.
Ex.A3 Certified copy of inquest report in
Crime No.126/2013 of Addanki
Police Station.
Ex.A4 True copy of the Postmortem Report
Ex.A5 Family Member Certificate
5
Findings of the learned MACT:
10. [i] By referring to the evidence of PW.2, an eye witness and the recitals
in Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Charge Sheet etc., learned MACT opined that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus.
Accordingly held that issue in favour of the claimants.
[ii] With regard to the entitlement of the claimants and quantification,
learned MACT believed their relationship, taken the income of the deceased at
Rs.3,000/- per month accepted Rs.2,500/- as contribution, applied multiplier ’16’,
fasten the liability on the 2nd respondent/appellant awarded a compenstaion of
Rs.4,62,000/- with interest @6% p.a. and made apportionment Rs.2,37,000/- to
husband and Rs.75,000/- each to other claimants.
Grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal and Arguments advanced in
the appeal:-
11. [i] Negligence of the deceased in crossing road is ignored by the
Tribunal, quantification of compensation done is not correct. The claim is not
supported by sound evidence, for taking income of the deceased @Rs.3,000/-
per month. Quantum of compensation award is excessive.
[ii] For claimants, it is argued that the rate of interest granted is low, the
quantification of compensation done required enhancement, even in the absence
of the appeal by the claimants.
6
12. Perused the Record.
13. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both
sides. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that –
1) Whether the pleaded accident and negligence of driver of the offending
vehicle as its cause and contribution of negligence of the deceased, are
acceptable in the light of the evidence and facts and circumstances?
2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? if so, for what
quantum?
3) Whether the impugned award and decree dated 26.06.2015 are
sustainable in law and on facts?
4) Whether any interference is necessary? If so, on what grounds and to
which extent?
5) What is the result of the appeal?
Points No.1:
14. The evidence of Pw.2 is clear as to negligent driving of offending vehicle
by the respondent No.1. The evidence of RW.1, the driver of RTC bus indicating
that he has noticed a Tipper parked on the road side and he has blown horn also.
It indicates that he is conscious of the fact that there is possibility of some others
coming from behind of the Truck and the visibility of the persons and vehicles
crossing the Truck. He has also stated that he applied breaks and the deceased
hit on the right side of the bus. The steering will be on the right side of any
vehicle. Driver from steering side can have better opportunity to notice, who and
7
what is coming from right side. It is not the case that, the deceased has come
into contact on left side negligently crossing. Therefore, opportunity to prevent
the mishap is more on the part of the 1st respondent/driver is not mere probability
and it is something clear than certainty. The material like absence of any
departmental proceedings against the driver, acquittal of the driver in criminal
proceedings pursuant to the Ex.A2, would have been some source of strength for
the stand of the appellant; such material is not placed on record. Therefore, this
Court concurs with the finding of learned MACT as to the negligence of the driver
of the offending vehicle.
15. In Motor Vehicle Accident claims cases, while disputing the negligence, if
the following efforts are put in, they will throw some light:
1) There must be denial.
2) There must be some evidence at least by the parties.
3) There must be at least oath against oath and tested by cross-examination.
4) Examination of eye witnesses reflected in charge sheet filed by Police is
preferable. However, the same cannot be the thumb role, if the presence
of such witnesses examined is probable at the scene of offence, at
relevant time.
5) The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies the
negligence, it will have its own importance, at least in cases of contributory
negligence.
8
6) In cases of serious disputes as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles,
summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or
improbabilities will have considerable impact.
7) The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor Vehicles Inspector Report
indicating the damage to the vehicles etc., will have its own effect to
vindicate the stand of the parties.
8) However, no stick jacket and standard formula is possible and each matter
has to be considered on its own merits and facts and circumstances
including the relevant and reliable evidence placed before this Court.
9) Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter.
16. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex
Court made in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC1, which reads as under:
“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic
view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be
possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said
purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective
stories set forth by both the parties..”
17. In the present case, the solitary evidence of RW.1 without there being any
further material, indicating the contribution of negligence of the deceased, this
Court finds that the conclusions drawn by the learned MACT does not require
any interference on this part.
1
(2009) 13 SCC 530
9
18. Accordingly, the point is answered against the appellant and in favour of
the claimant.
Point No.2:-
Entitlement:-
19. The claimant No.1 is the husband, claimants 2 and 3 are the children and
claimant No.4 is mother of the deceased. Ex.A5 is Family Member Certificate.
The relationship is also not in serious dispute except vague and formal denial.
Further the death of the deceased due to the accident is also clear from the
record. Hence, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation is clear.
Quantum:-
20. Precedential Guidance in quantifying the compensation in case of
claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:-
The judgments which can be considered as locus classicus that guides
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and the Courts concerned, in the process of
quantifying the compensation mainly are as follows:
(1). Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Anr.2:-
The Honorable Apex Court, referring to relevant principles relating to
assessment of compensation in cases of death, in the light of earlier judicial
pronouncements, to have uniform approach and consistency in awarding
2
2009 (6) SCC 121
10compensation, felt need for the awarding ‘just compensation’, which is not merely
the Tribunal considers it just, but it shall be just, adequate, fair, and equitable
compensation with reference to facts and circumstances of each case.
Accordingly, issued certain guidelines.
Relevant observations are made at Para 18 and 19 of the judgment, while
observing that there shall be addition of further prospects to the income and
deduction towards personal and living expenses and selection of appropriate
multiplier. Finally, the Honorable Apex Court referred to multiplier that can be
adopted is what mentioned in column number 4 of Table provided in the
judgment as contemplated in Trilok Chandra3’s case, clarified in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie4 .
Para Nos.18 and 19, and the table provided in Sarla Verma‘s case [cited
supra] are extracted for better appreciation:–
“18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for
assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependants.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
3
(1996) 4 SCC 362
4
(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657
11
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of
the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the
deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and
consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed
evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle
accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine
compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of
the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the
deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses.
The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family,
constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career,
the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining
the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having
regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The
multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the
deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by
such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency” to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be
added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another
conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the
12head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of
pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of
any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be
added.
……
40. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [(2005) 10
SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] (for claims under Section 166 of the MV
Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the
Second Schedule for claims under Section 163-A of the MV Act (with
appropriate deceleration after 50 years):
Age of the Multiplier scale Multiplier Multiplier scale Multiplier specified Multiplier actually used in
deceased as envisaged scale as in Trilok in Second Column Second Schedule to the
in Susamma adopted by Chandra’s case in the Table in MV Act (as seen from the
5
Thomas Trilok as clarified in Second Schedule quantum of
6 7
Chandra Charlie to the MV Act compensation)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Upto 15y – – – 15 20
15 to 20y 16 18 18 16 19
21 to 25y 15 17 18 17 18
26 to 30y 14 16 17 18 17
31 to 35y 13 15 16 17 16
36 to 40y 12 14 15 16 15
41 to 45y 11 13 14 15 14
46 to 50y 10 12 13 13 12
51 to 55y 9 11 11 11 10
56 to 60y 8 10 09 8 8
61 to 65y 6 08 07 5 6
Above 65 5 05 05 5 55
[(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335]
6
[(1996) 4 SCC 362]
7
[(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657]
13(2). National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others:- 8
In this case, the Honorable Apex Court, after referring to the observations
in Sarla Verma‘s case cited supra, issued certain guidelines, the relevant
paragraphs are 59.3 to 59.8 they are:
“59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual
salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the
deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should
be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50
to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as
actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as
the necessary method of computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal
and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras
30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ)
770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in
Sarla Verma‘s case read with para 42 of that judgment.
8
2017(16) SCC 680
1459.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the
multiplier.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000,
Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
(3). MAGMA General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and
Others9
In this case the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the point that whether loss
of consortium, include “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial
consortium” in a case of death. It was a case of death of Bachelor, and claim
was made by father and sister, etc., relevant observations are made in Para Nos.
21-23 as to who are entitled for consortium, observations are as follows:-
“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ)
248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss
of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial
consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to
his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the9
(2018) 18 SCC 130
15deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation”. [Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a
parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training”.
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes
great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest
agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued
for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status
and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognised that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value
of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a
compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to
the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent
has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental
consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle
accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this
16
count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine
Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep
Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in
Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3
Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on
which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
Analysis of evidence and findings on the point of quantum:-
21. [i] Recitals in F.I.R. and inquest, indicating that the deceased was
going for attending work at Kiln, this suggests that she was attending labour
work. As per Charge sheet, age of the deceased is referred as 35 years. As per
inquest, the age of the deceased is referred as 35. Mentioning of age and
inquest cannot be considered as pre-planned one, therefore, the age of the
deceased can be accepted as 35. The income taken at Rs.3,000/- by the
learned MACT, is fit to be accepted taking into the socio economic circumstances
and background from which the deceased hails and also the year of accident
viz., 2013, which shall be inclusive of future prospects. If the income is taken at
Rs.3,000/-, 1/4th of the same towards personal expenditure of the deceased, if
deducted, the same comes to Rs.750/-, whereby the contribution comes to
Rs.2,250/-.
[ii] The compensation under the other heads like loss of estate, funeral
expenditure, loss of consortium to spouse, children and parents contemplated
under the authorities cited above. Those aspects and heads are not properly
17
added by the learned MACT. Hence, revisit is necessary whereby the
compensation awarded gets increased. There is no appeal by the claimants one
aspect. However, on this point, this Court finds proper to rely on the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
E.Suseelamma and others10, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para
50 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
“50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled
for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light
of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position
regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also
being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just
compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can
enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or
cross-objection by the claimants.”
22. In the light of the evidence on record and in view of the legal preposition of
law and reasoning stated above, comparative table as to the entitlement of the
claimants for just and reasonable compensation, under various heads considered
and granted by the Tribunal is as follows:
Head Compensation awarded Fixed by this Court
by the MACT
(i) Loss of Dependency Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.4,32,000/-
(ii) Loss of Consortium Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,60,000/-
[@ 40,000/-each entitled for the
4 claimants]
[ for the 1st claimant only]
(iii) Loss of Care, Guidance, love and - -Nil-
affection towards children
[
10
2023 SCC Online AP 172
18
(iv) Funeral and obsequies expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-
(vi) Loss of estate Nil 15,000/-
(vii) Attendant Charges and - -
Transportation Expenses
Total compensation awarded Rs. 4,62,000 /- Rs.6,22,000/-
23. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest awarded by the
learned MACT @6%p.a. is enhanced to 7.5% p.a..
24. In the light of the analysis made and the findings of this Court, Points No.2
is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that they are entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,22,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a..
Point Nos.3 and 4:-
25. For the reasons stated and the conclusions drawn in Points No.1 and 2,
the impugned award and decree dated 26.06.2015 are sustainable in law and on
facts except in regard to enhancement of compensation from Rs.4,62,000/- to
Rs.6,22,000/-. Points No.3 and 4 is answered accordingly
26. Point No.5: For the aforesaid reasons and conclusions drawn under
Points No.1 to 4,
[i] In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the
observations of the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance
19
Company Limited‘s case cited supra, the award under challenge is modified as
follows:-
1) The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,22,000/- with interest
@7.5% p.a., instead of Rs.4,62,000/- @6%p.a.
2) The claimants are entitled for their respective share of compensation
awarded under the head of loss of Consortium.
3) Compensation awarded under the heads of funeral expenditure, loss of
estate are allotted to the share of 1st claimant.
4) Rest of the order passed by the learned MACT, stands confirmed in
respect of withdrawal of compensation amount by the minor claimants.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 10 .03.2025
Pnr
[ad_1]
Source link