HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. NO.411 OF201112-12-2013 Smt.Ratnamma, W/o.Late Durgaiah, Aged about 44 years, Occ: House wife R/o.H.No.43, Izzathnagar, Kondapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and another...APPELLANTS Smt.Bhagwanth Kaur, W/o.Surender Singh Aged major, Occ: Buseinss,R/o.H.No.15-1- 405/2, Old Feelkhana, Hyderabad & another...RESPONDENTS Counsel for Appellants: Sri P.V.Sanjeeva Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred 1.1963 (2) All.E.R- 432 2.1969 (1) All.E.R-555 3.2013 ACJ1403= (4) ALT35(SC) 4.2009 ACJ12985.2003 ACJ126.(2005) 6 SCC2367.2009 ACJ12988.2013 (4) ALT35(SC) THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.411 OF2011JUDGMENT
:
1. This appeal is filed by the claimants who are wife and minor son of deceased bus driver Durgaiah against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (owner and insurer of the bus) impugning the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.1527 of 2000 dated 10.04.2007, awarding compensation of Rs.4,76,000/- as utterly low, as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- (since amended from Rs.5,00,000/- pending appeal as per order passed in MACMA MP No.6287 of 2012 dated 06.12.2013 to Rs.7,00,000/- by payment of deficit court fee under Rule 475 of the A.P M.V Rules, 1989 and on condition of not entitled to interest on enhanced claim (if considered on merits) before this date).
2. Heard Sri P.V.Sanjeeva Rao, learned counsel for appellants and Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent - National Insurance Co. Ltd. The respondent No.1 owner of the crime vehicle was left unserved with notice is called absent with no representation and thus taken as heard the respondent No.1 for the absence to decide on merits and perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. 3 (a). The contentions in the grounds of appeal 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 at a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and rate of interest and awarded very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed with proper earnings and prospects and with correct multiplier as well as conventional sums and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation. 3 (b) Whereas the learned counsel for Insurer contended that the award of the tribunal is just and for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere. 3 (c) Now the points arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. 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 at just compensation and with what rate of interest?.
2. To what result?. POINT-1:
4. The facts of the case, as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal, are that, on 28.03.2000 the deceased who is the husband of 1st appellant and father of 2nd appellant was taking the children of the school from Mehdipatnam to Chirec Public School, Kondapur by driving the school bus (bearing No.AP9 4872), that when reached the vicinity of Damber & Company near Dargah, Old Bombay Road, the lorry (bearing No.AP9 8383) came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner trying to overtake another lorry came on wrong side of the road and dashed the bus, as a result, he sustained fractures of the leg, head injury and other injuries all over the body breathed lost on say day while undergoing treatment in Apollo Hospital. Based on the Ex.A9 salary certificate as well as evidence of PW.3 shows salary of the deceased as Rs.2,400/- + Rs.600/- per Kg + Rs.1,000/- for extra work incentive (over time) total Rs.4,000/- and the Tribunal therefrom rightly assessed the deceased salary as Rs.2,400/- per month and after 1/3rd deduction for personnel expenses with '16' multiplier and with other conventional sums and also Rs.1,39,770 towards medical expenses, in all awarded to Rs.4,76,000/-.
5. 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 LJ in Charle red House Credit Vs Tolly1 remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry Vs. Cleaver2 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.
6. In this regard, it is well laid down by the Apex Court (Three Judges Bench) in the latest expression in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh3 at paragraph Nos. 1 and 7 referring to the earlier expressions in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation4 and Nagappa v Gurudayal Singh5 that compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be assessed and awarded by the Tribunal set up under Section 166 of the Act. The expression 'just compensation' has been explained in Sarla Verma`s case (4thcited 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.
7. From the above legal position coming to the factual matrix of the case, the fact that the deceased was aged about 37 years as per Post Mortem report as well as the finding at para No.10 of the judgment of the tribunal since not in dispute . Then the multiplier applicable as per Sarla Verma's case is 15. As per evidence of PW.3 and E.A9 salary certificate, salary at Rs.2,400/- per month was rightly taken by the Tribunal and even 50% increase to it for future prospects as laid down by Rajesh (supra), it comes to Rs.3,600/- per month X12= Rs.43,200/- per annum X15(multiplier) = Rs.6,48,000/-. Coming to the deduction of personal expenses of deceased, since only wife and son are the two dependants and even for the appellants to rely on para Nos.31 & 32 of Sarla Verma (supra) there is no any observation but opinion on those facts and several expressions including said Sarla Verma's (supra) and Rajesh (supra) say that the deduction for personal expenses depends upon number of dependants and if the number of dependants are 3 - 1/3rd, 4- 6 - 1/4th and above 6 - 1/5th as it all depends upon how many dependants he has to contribute to arrive the sum but for in case of bachelor/ spinster to say expenditure be more and even parents and other dependants of sister/ brother to deduct 1/2 and if more than 3 dependants including widow mother to deduct 1/3rd, other than that there is no decision to say if dependant is wife, to deduct only 1/3rd and not half to appreciate said contention. It is particularly from the fact that wife/ husband as the case may be getting for the status the loss of consortium as an additional sum, it is that just to deduct half of amount for personal expenses of deceased and then it comes to Rs.3,24,000/- and loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st claimant- wife; funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-, loss of estate of Rs.6,000/-, loss of care and guidance to the minor child-2nd claimant Rs.21,000/- and medical expenses Rs.1,39,770/-, rounded to Rs.1,40,000/-, in all it comes to Rs.6,15,000/- is the just compensation to award.
8. Coming to the rate of interest, the interest at 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal since in dispute, from the settled proposition of law in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya6, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Corporation7 and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh V. Rajbir Singh8, interest is awarded at 71/2% per annum by modifying and enhancing the rate of interest from 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered. POINT -2:
9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing from Rs.4,76,000/- to Rs.6,15,000/- with interest at 71/2% per annum from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with notice. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit said amount after deducting of an amount already deposited for balance to deposit with interest within one month from today, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal holds good. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO,J Date:12.12.2013