Madishetty Shobha Rani vs J. Saidulu and Others

Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The Claimant, wife of the deceased by name Sri M. Manikyam, filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award (Common Order in O.P.1301 and 1407 of 2000) of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, ''Tribunal'') in M.V.O.P. Nos. 1407 of 2000 dated 22.08.2002, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,40,200/-(Rupees one lakh forty thousand two hundred only) as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only), against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 viz., owner and Insurer of crime vehicle for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''), amended as per MACMAMP No. 5732 of 2013 order dated 29.11.2013 to comply by payment of Deficit Court Fee by dated 06.12.2013, enhancement of claim to Rs. 6,00,000/-.

Heard Sri M. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-The New India Assurance Company Limited (Insurer of crime vehicle) Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the appeal against 1st respondent-owner of crime vehicle (Auto) is dismissed for default. In this regard, in Meka Chakra Rao Vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others, , the Division Bench of this Court at para-12 held that statutory liability of the insurance company, in the absence of the owner of the crime vehicle in the appeal filed by the claimants, can be decided and maintainable as held in The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harijana Babakka and Others, for fixing statutory liability, the presence of the owner at the appellate stage is not necessary. The same was also quoted with approval in G. Aravind Kumar Rao Vs. Md. Sadat Ali and United India Insurance Co Ltd. . Thus, the contention that the appeal is not maintainable without impleading owner of the vehicle as co-respondent against the insurer of the vehicle is not sustainable and thereby it can be taken up for hearing. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as submissions during course of hearing in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount and the interest taken only 9% p.a. instead of 12% and went wrong in not taking earnings of deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. but taken Rs. 9,00/- p.m. and not properly awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love, affection, care and protection etc., and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for, whereas it is the contention of the insurer-the main contestant to the appeal that for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere in enhancing the quantum of compensation, but for if at all to reduce the rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 7 1/2% p.a. as per the settled expression more particularly from the fact of no proof filed from the kirana business like any Registration Certificate, licence or professional tax and thereby sought for dismissal of the appeal with costs.

Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?

To what result?

POINT-1:

The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 14.11.2000 due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle (Auto bearing No. AP 24 U 1954) that belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex.A. 4 policy, the auto turned turtle, as a result of which the deceased by name Madishetty Manikyam s/o Eswaraiah, aged 30 years, resident of Manyamchelka street, Nalgonda district, doing kirana business, who was traveling in said auto sustained multiple injuries and died, which occurrence is covered by Ex.A. 1 First Information Report in Cr.No. 86 of 2000 u/s 304A IPC and Ex.A. 5 charge sheet. The Tribunal from the oral and documentary evidence on record awarded compensation in all of Rs. 1,40,200/- with 9% p.a. against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly, to be entitled by the claimant(wife) and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (parents) of the deceased.

Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James 1965(1) All.E.R-563, it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly 1963(2) All.E.R.432 remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in LORD v. in 555 All.E.R (1) 1969 Cleaver, Parry Morris>observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required. The appeal claim herein is thus confined to the quantum from the contention of not correctly taken the multiplicand and multiplier with future prospects in earnings and on the quantum of consortium and funeral expenses etc., in arriving a sum for awarding just compensation.

In this regard, it is well laid down by the Apex Court (Three Judges Bench) in the latest expression in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, referring to the earlier expressions in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, that compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be assessed and awarded by the Tribunal set up u/s 166 of the Act. The expression ''just compensation'' has been explained in Sarla Verma''s case (cited supra) holding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. ''Just compensation'' is an adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation.

From the above legal principles and in the factual matrix of case, it is since proved that the appellant who is no other than wife of deceased Manikyam filed the appeal along with her in-laws as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the appeal and the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle (auto bearing No. AP 24 U 1954) as respondent Nos.1 and 2 to whom the appeal against the 1st respondent was dismissed for non-payment of batta vide order dated 04.01.2012, having been aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal out of the claim made by her of Rs. 2,00,000/- in granting Rs. 1,40,200/- with interest at 9% p.a. on the quantum.

It is during the pendency of the appeal the claim was amended to Rs. 6,00,000/- which was allowed as per orders in A.S.M.P. No. 5732 of 2013 dated 29.11.2013 and the deficit court fee was also paid before the Registry as directed thereon in USR No. 2300 of 2013 paid proved vide bank receipt enclosed to the order.

The fact that the deceased was aged about 30 years is proved from Ex.A.3 PM report apart from the evidence of P.W.1 no other than the claimant-wife of the deceased and as per Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, followed in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , and another three judge bench in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, of the said multiplier table, the multiplier that is applicable for a person who is aged 31 to 35 is 16 and hence the multiplier 16 as rightly taken by the tribunal, though for a persons aged between 26 to 30 the multiplier is 17 not taken 17 as the exact age is not proved by the claimants of which the claimant-wife of the deceased was aged about 27 years from her own say in the claim petition. Now coming to the earnings of the deceased the claim is that from the kirana business earnings at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. basing on facts, as per kirana business for which rightly concluded by the Tribunal admittedly not proved from like Registration Certificate (R.C.) or even any professional tax or any accounts to believe. Then, the earnings of the deceased is to be estimated is no doubt, the Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably estimated at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. for any non-earning member and even for housewife as domestic contribution. The deceased aged about 30 years, the earnings can be assessed as on the date of accident i.e. 14.11.2000/- at Rs. 3,000/- p.m., leave about any increase for the future prospectus, as per Rajesh(Supra) from the claimants are three in number, if 1/3rd is deducted for personal expenditure of the said earnings of the deceased it comes to Rs. 2,000/-x12x16 = Rs. 3,84,000/-,for loss of consortium to the 1st claimant of Rs. 1,00,000/-,for funeral expenses of Rs. 25,000/- and for loss of estate of Rs. 5,000/- in all comes to Rs. 5,14,000/- which is just compensation to award.

Now coming to the rate of interest From the settled proposition of law in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, , and latest expression in Rajesh (supra)three judge Bench and in D.D.A. and Others Vs. Joginder S. Monga and Others, ; that while awarding reasonable rate of interest the steep fall in the bank interest rate since past several years has to be kept in mind and awarded therefrom interest at 7.5% p.a. as reasonable and the rate of interest to be awarded u/s 171 of the M.V. Act at 7 1/2% p.a. As per the expression in Ranjana Prakash and Others Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, the appellate Court also got the discretionary power under Order LXI Rule 33 C.P.C. to award reasonable rate of interest. Having regard to the same and from the discretionary power of the appellate Court the interest awarded by the Tribunal is high and the same is reduced to 7 1/2% p.a. from date of claim petition till realization. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.

Point No. 2:

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation of Rs. 1,40,200/- to Rs. 5,14,000/- with interest at 7 1/2% p.a. from the date of claim petition i.e. 18.12.2000 on Rs. 2,00,000/- till dated 03.12.2013 when Deficit Court Fee paid on the awarded claim and thus from dated 04.12.2013 till date of payment of deposit with notice on Rs. 5,14,000/- as per order in MACMAMP No. 5732 of 2013 dated 29.11.2013. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, as above directed to deposit within one month said amount with interest with notice, failing which the claimants can execute and recover. Out of said compensation amount, R.3 and R.4-parents of the deceased who are senior citizens each entitled to 1/5th and remaining 3/5th entitled by the claimant. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimants are permitted to withdraw Rs. 1,00,000/- each out of the same, and rest of the amounts be invested in Fixed Deposits for three years Any further permission for withdrawal is subject to merits can be considered by the Tribunal. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.