M. Nityananda Rao and Another vs Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation

Elepi Dharma Rao, J.—The facts leading to the filing of this civil miscellaneous appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.1991 in O.P. No. 1196 of 1990 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad are briefly as follows:

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 38,022 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation towards compensation for the death of the deceased, who was son of the petitioners herein, in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20.7.1990 at about 10.30 p.m. The deceased M. Vinaya Chandra Vadhan was proceeding by walk from CB CID Office bus-stop side to Ashoka Hotel side at Lakdikapul and when he reached the road divider to cross the road, and was standing on the divider, an APSRTC bus bearing No. AAZ 4323 on route No. 225 belonging to Falaknuma Depot, dashed the deceased from front right side of the bus as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of the accident, the deceased was studying in Intermediate second year and was a brilliant student. He always used to secure good marks in his studies and the petitioners, who are his parents, had an ambition to educate the deceased up to M.B.B.S. and the deceased was also ambitious to become a doctor, but for the untimely death of the deceased, who was young in age.

The Tribunal framed the following two issues on the basis of the pleadings and marked Exhs. A-1 to A-6 on behalf of the petitioners:

(1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount?

(2) To what relief?

The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and on analysing the documents, Exhs. A-1 to A-6, held that the accident did occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased.

Coming to the determination of compensation as claimed by the petitioners, the Tribunal examined PW 1, father of the deceased and determined the age of the deceased as 18 years at the time of accident and considering Exh. A-5, bona fide certificate and following the dicta laiddown by this court in Bhagawan Das v. Mohd. Arif 1987 ACJ 1052 (AP), fixed the annual contribution to the petitioners at Rs. 1,800 and adopting a multiplier of 12.79 appropriate to the ages of the parents, awarded a sum of Rs. 23,022 for the loss of future earnings. It further awarded a sum of Rs. 7,500 towards loss of life expectancy and Rs. 7,500 towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Thus in all, it awarded a sum of Rs. 38,022.

Not satisfied by the award passed by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that fixation of annual dependency of the petitioners on the deceased at Rs. 1,800 is bad in law and the compensation awarded under both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is very low when compared to the mental ability of the deceased. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly estimated the future capacity and financial support which the deceased would have made, had he not died in the accident. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that as per the judgment of this court in Amati Hymavathi and Another Vs. Nissankararao Srikrishnamurthy and others, , wherein the learned single Judge of this court has laid down certain guidelines for determination of compensation payable to the parents, who are dependent on the deceased child. The learned counsel has also relied on some of the cases decided by the learned single Judge in Amati Hymavathi''s case (supra).

The deceased in C.M.A. No. 615 of 1990 was aged 15 years and this court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000 from Rs. 32,500 awarded by the Tribunal. In C.M.A. No. 707 of 1990, the age of the deceased child was 15 years. Though this court intended to award Rs. 1,00,000, but the claimants claimed only Rs. 40,000, therefore, the court granted only Rs. 40,000. In another appeal, C.M.A. No. 1006 of 1990, wherein the deceased was a child of 15 years, this court granted Rs. 97,000. In another appeal C.M.A. No. 1517 of 1990, the deceased child was aged 13 to 14 years. When the Tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000 as the compensation, this court enhanced it to Rs. 75,000. In yet another appeal C.M.A. No. 170 of 1991 the deceased was aged 12 years. The claim was Rs. 50,000 but the Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000 and this court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000. In C.M.A. No. 206 of 1991 the age of the deceased was 12 years and the claim was for Rs. 90,000. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 59,000, taking the age of claimants into consideration, this court dismissed the appeal confirming the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. In C.M.A. No. 542 of 1992, the age of the deceased child was 6 years and the claim was made for Rs. 38,500, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 25,000 and this court enhanced it to Rs. 35,000.

Based on the above judgments of this court, the counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the award amount deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 38,022 to Rs. 1,00,000 claimed by the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shanti Bai and Others Vs. Charan Singh and Others, . In the said case, the deceased was aged 18 years belonging to a labour class. Taking into consideration the earning of brother of the deceased at Rs. 10 per day and his age, the Apex Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000 exclusive of Rs. 40,000 awarded by the Tribunal, totalling to Rs. 1,50,000. Therefore, the appellants have laid down the foundation on the above referred judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this court for enhancement of the compensation.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the R.T.C., mainly relied on the deposition made by the father of the deceased, PW 1, in his chief and cross-examination, wherein he has admitted that he was working as Director in Information and Broadcasting Department, Govt. of India and earning Rs. 4,000 per month and he is having eight years of service. If he retires, he may get Rs. 1,600 per month by way of pension and after retirement he and his wife need not depend upon his sons. She further submitted that the petitioners'' eldest son is studying Engineering and in future he will also support his parents and, therefore, the petitioners are not solely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. Therefore, she contends that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no need to interfere with it.

One thing has to be considered here, though the petitioner, PW 1, has stated that after retirement he and his wife need not depend upon his sons, may not be taken into account while determining the quantum of compensation payable to them as per law. In a fit of agony of losing his son, he might have stated so, but the petitioners cannot waive their right to receive the compensation to which they are entitled under law. Therefore, I reject the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the decisions of both the Supreme Court and this court, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned single Judge in Amati Hymavathi and Another Vs. Nissankararao Srikrishnamurthy and others, , taking the ages of the deceased children and the nature of work and their educational and social status, enhanced the compensation. The Apex Court in Shanti Bai and Others Vs. Charan Singh and Others, , for the death of a child of 18 years belonging to labour class and taking the income of his brother at Rs. 10 per day, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 1,50,000. In the instant case, the father of the deceased (PW 1) was working in Central Government (Information and Broadcasting) and his elder brother was studying engineering. Therefore, had the deceased completed M.B.B.S., his contribution would have been more than Rs. 150 p.m. to the parents apart from the contributions made by his brother. Therefore, I am very much convinced for the enhancement of compensation. If we consider the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court and this court, in the judgments referred to above, the petitioners are certainly entitled to more than Rs. 1,00,000, as the deceased was studying in second year Intermediate and was of a good calibre and was planning to study M.B.B.S., after completion of Intermediate. Therefore, the dependency fixed by the Tribunal is too low. As such the compensation of Rs. 38,022 awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000.

In the result, the C.M.A. is allowed setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal enhancing the compensation from Rs. 38,022 to Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. But in the circumstances of the case without costs.