AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The 2nd respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. to the claim petition is the appellant herein, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award dated 18.07.2011 in M.V.O.P. No. 19 of 2008 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam, (for short ''the Tribunal'') filed this appeal against the four claimants who are none other than the wife, minor son and parents of the deceased by name K. Satyanarayana, aged about 45 years, Fair Price Shop dealer, impugning the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal of Rs. 3,93,000/- is excessive and exorbitant. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as welt as Sri B. Venkata Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. V. Durga, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2.
2(a). The contentions in the grounds of appeal in the nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal went wrong in granting exorbitant and high compensation ignoring the fact that the deceased was more than 45 years and the multiplier applicable that is even as per the Sarla Verma''s case upto person''s age of 45 years is 14 and not 15 and thereby to reduce the compensation to a reasonable extent so also by contending that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is 9% per annum is on high side as per the settled expressions of Apex Court, hence to reduce the rate of interest.
2(b) The respondents 1 to 4 who are none other than the claimants supporting the award of the Tribunal contended that for this Court while sitting in the appeal there is nothing to interfere and that even the multiplier is reduced the multiplicand can be more and so also entitled to loss of consortium of Rs. 1,00,000/-, funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- that whereas properly awarded by the tribunal hence to uphold the award passed by the tribunal, by dismissing the appeal filed by A.P.S.R.T.C.
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 amount 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 25.03.2004 the petitioner and his wife were proceeding towards Parigi, Ranga Reddy District on his motor cycle and when they reached near the outskirts of Nandarpur Village, Pargi Mandal, one tanker bearing No. AP 12 U 3141 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result, both of them fell down and the claimant sustained multiple fractures and injuries and shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment which occurrence is covered by Ex. A1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 118 of 1996.
Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, it is apt to mention the famous quote of Lord Morris 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. 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 L.J. 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 Parry v. Cleaver 1969(1) All. E.R.-555 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. 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 the compensation in case of death for loss of dependency and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially to the children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred for transport and funeral 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 for said injuries sustained from 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, at paragraph Nos. 1 and 7 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 (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 position, coming to the factual matrix of the case, the fact that the age of the deceased was 45 years as per Ex. A1 FIR, Ex. A5 Post Mortem report and as even as per the claim petition, the 1st claimant mentioned her age as 40 years and the age of the claimants 3 and 4 as 63 and 60 years respectively, to say the age of the claimant is about 44 or 45 years and as per Sarla Verma''s for case the person whose age is between 41-45 the multiplier applicable is 14. Thus, the tribunal wrongly adopted multiplier 15.
Now coming to the earnings of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month based on Ex. A3 F.P. Shop control order in proof of his income estimated by the Tribunal which is reasonable and however the fact remains that as per the Apex Court''s expression in Rajesh (supra) not only for salaried employees but also for daily wage earners and of them for those upto 40 years, the increase be at 50% and upto 50 years the increase be at 30% as prospective earnings and if that is taken Rs. 3,000/- per month X 30% = Rs. 900/-, Rs. 3,900/- per month is the estimated earnings of the deceased including prospective earning capacity and the claimants are more than three, the tribunal has rightly taken as 1/4th for the personal expenses of the deceased as per Sarla Verma''s case and Rajesh (supra); thus it comes to Rs. 2,925 X 12= Rs. 35,100/- X 14 (multiplier) = Rs. 4,91,400, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- consortium to the wife of 1st claimant, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate, in all it comes to Rs. 6,26,400/-. No doubt as held by the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and Others Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, the claimants the appeal filed by the insurer though entitled to substantiate the claim awarded by the tribunal on one or other ground they cannot claim enhancement of compensation in the absence of any cross objection or separate appeal and even the appellate Court also under Order 41 Rule 33 has no such power. Having regard to the above, though the claimants are entitled to more than Rs. 6 lakhs from what is referred above, there is nothing to interference with the amount of Rs. 3,93,000/- awarded by the tribunal so far as the quantum of compensation concerned but for to dismiss the appeal on that account.
However, coming to the rate of interest, at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal, from the settled proposition of law Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , interest is awarded at 71/2% per annum by modifying and reducing from 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.
POINT -2:
Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is partly allowed while confirming the compensation of Rs. 3,93,000/- for nothing to interfere however reduced the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7 1/2% per annum and in all other respects the award of the tribunal holds good. There is no order as to costs in the appeal. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this appeal, shall stand closed.