Andhra Pradesh High Court - AmravatiM.Rameswary Alias Rajeswari vs V.Haridoss on 22 November, 2022Bench: B V ChakravarthiBVLNC,J                                                 MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 1 of 15                                             Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\n       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI\n\n                     M.A.C.M.A.No.286 OF 2021\n\nJUDGMENT:This   appeal   is   preferred    by   the   Appellants/claimants,\n\nchallenging       the      award     dated        17.01.2019     passed     in\n\nM.V.O.P.No.87/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-\n\ncum-VI Addl.District Judge, Ananthapuramu at Gooty, wherein the\n\nTribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of\n\nRs.9,98,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till\n\nthe date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of\n\nMarthala Ramaprasad Reddy in a motor vehicle accident.2.      For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in\n\nthe lower Court.3.      As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an\n\napplication U/s.140 and 166 ofMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity\n\n"the Act") claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the\n\ndeath of Marthala Ramaprasad Reddy, who is the husband of the 1st\n\npetitioner, father of the petitioners No.2 and 3 and son of the\n\npetitioners No.4 and 5, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on\n\n24.04.2015.BVLNC,J                                         MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 2 of 15                                     Dt: 22.11.20224.      The facts show that on 24.04.2015 at about 04.00 p.m., the\n\ndeceased Marthala Ramprasad Reddy and one Mule Bala Eswara\n\nReddy being hamalies, left in the tractor-cum-trailer bearing No.AP 04\n\nX 8422 & 8423 and loaded the slabs and left Kanakadripalli village at\n\nabout 05.00 p.m. to go to Bukkarayasamudram Village for unloading\n\nthe said slabs, and while so at about 08.45 p.m., when they reached\n\nthe area of Muchukota Kanuma, the crime lorry bearing No.TN 04P\n\n1914 (cement boozer) came in opposite direction i.e., from the said of\n\nAnanthapuramu driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner\n\nand dashed against the tractor-cum-trailer, and as a result, the\n\ndeceased and Bala Eswara Reddy crushed under the wheels of the\n\ntractor-cum-trailer, sustained severe injuries, and immediately, they\n\nwere shifted to Govt. Hospital, Tadipatri, but doctor declared brought\n\nthem 'as dead'. On the report of tractor driver, SHO, Peddapappur P.S.\n\nregistered FIR in Cr.No.65/2015 for the offence punishable U/s.304-Aof Indian Penal Codeagainst the 3rd respondent/driver of lorry and\n\ninvestigated into. The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 30\n\nyears at the time of accident, and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month\n\nas hamalie (loading and unloading of slabs). The 1st respondent being\n\nowner, the 2nd respondent being the insurer and the 3rd respondent\n\nbeing the driver of the crime lorry bearing No.TN 04P 1914 are jointly\n BVLNC,J                                                MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 3 of 15                                            Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\nand severally liable to pay compensation.             Due to death of the\n\ndeceased, the petitioners lost their financial support and 1st petitioner\n\nbeing the wife of deceased, lost company of her husband at an early\n\nage, conjugal bliss. The petitioners depended on the deceased for their\n\nlivelihood. The petitioners spent Rs.40,000/- towards transportation\n\nand funeral expenses.5.      Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company,\n\nfiled a counter resisting while traversing the material averments with\n\nregard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased,\n\nmanner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of\n\nthe offending vehicle, expenses, and liability to pay compensation, and\n\ncontended that the petitioners 2 to 5 are not depended upon the\n\nearnings of the deceased.          The accident occurred out of sheer\n\nnegligence and rashness on the part of driver of tractor-cum-trailer, in\n\nwhich deceased was travelling, and the driver of tractor did not have\n\nthe valid driving license at the time of accident.        Therefore, the 2nd\n\nrespondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.It is further contended that the driver of offending vehicle i.e., 3 rd\n\nrespondent also did not have valid driving license at all at the time of\n\naccident and because of such contravention committed by the owner of\n\nthe offending vehicle i.e., 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent need not\n BVLNC,J                                            MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 4 of 15                                        Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\nhold any responsibility to pay the compensation to the family of\n\ndeceased. The owner of offending lorry No.TN 04P 1914 had no valid\n\nR.C., tax, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident,\n\nand therefore, on that ground also, the 2nd respondent need not pay\n\nany compensation to the petitioners. Since the owner and driver of the\n\noffending vehicle failed to produce any such document as required\n\nU/s.149(2) of M.V.Act 1988, it shall be presumed that they do not have\n\nsuch documents, and hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any\n\ncompensation.6.      The 1st respondent got filed vakalat, reported no counter and the\n\n3rd respondent/driver of offending vehicle remained exparte.7.      On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal\n\nframed the following issues:1. Whether the deceased Marthala Ramaprasad Reddy died in a\n        road accident occurred on 24.04.2015 at 08.45 p.m. at\n        Muchukota Kanuma? If so, whether the said accident occurred\n        due to rash and negligent driving of Cement Boozer bearing No.\n        TN 04P 1914 by its driver?2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary\n        parties i.e., owner and insurer of tractor, trailer bearing No.AP\n        04X 8422/8423 on which the deceased was proceeding?BVLNC,J                                                MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 5 of 15                                            Dt: 22.11.20223. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to\n        what amount and from whom?4. To what relief?8.      To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to\n\n3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no\n\noral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B-1 was marked with consent.9.      The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to\n\n3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, held that the accident took place due\n\nto the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Cement Boozer,\n\nand further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3\n\ncorroborated     by    Exs.A-1   to   A-5,   awarded   a   compensation    of\n\nRs.9,98,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till\n\nthe date of deposit.10.     The plea of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is that the\n\naccident occurred out of sheer negligence and rashness on the part of\n\ndriver of tractor-cum-trailer, in which deceased was travelling, and the\n\ndriver of tractor did not have the valid driving license at the time of\n\naccident.      Therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any\n\ncompensation to the petitioners. It is further contended that the driver\n\nof offending vehicle i.e., 3rd respondent also did not have valid driving\n BVLNC,J                                           MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 6 of 15                                       Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\nlicense at all at the time of accident and because of such contravention\n\ncommitted by the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., 1st respondent,\n\nthe 2nd respondent need not hold any responsibility to pay the\n\ncompensation to the family of deceased.11.     The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on\n\nthe contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to\n\nthe rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent/driver of Cement\n\nBoozer bearing No.TN 04P 1914.12.     The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3\n\ncoupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, awarded an amount of Rs.9,18,000/-\n\ntowards loss of dependency; Rs.15,000/- towards transport and\n\nfuneral expenses; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection; and\n\nRs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner; total\n\nRs.9,98,000/-.13.     The contention of the appellants/claimants is that the deceased\n\nwas earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of accident, but the\n\nTribunal restricted the monthly income as Rs.4,500/-, and therefore,\n\nthe Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased and awarded\n\nlesser amount towards compensation, though the claimants are\n\nentitled to the claim amount of Rs.20,00,000/-.BVLNC,J                                            MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 7 of 15                                        Dt: 22.11.202214.     The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that\n\nthe Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as\n\nRs.4,500/-, though the evidence of P.W-3 owner of the tractor proves\n\nthat the deceased was earning Rs.500/- per day. The learned counsel\n\nfurther submitted that the claimants are entitled to loss of future\n\nearnings also, but the Tribunal did not award any amount towards\n\nloss of future earnings.15.     The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company\n\ncontended that the Tribunal rightly fixed the income of the deceased at\n\nRs.4,500/- per month, as no reliable evidence was produced by the\n\nclaimants to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per\n\nmonth.16.     In the light of above rival contentions, the points that arise for\n\nconsideration are1. "Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the\n        deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month instead of Rs.10,000/- per\n        month as claimed by the appellants?"2. "Whether the claimants/appellants are entitled to loss of\n        future earnings?"17.     POINT No.1: The claimants contended that the deceased was\n\nearning Rs.10,000/- per month as Hamali at the time of accident. The\n BVLNC,J                                              MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 8 of 15                                          Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\nclaimants to prove their contention have examined the first claimants\n\ni.e., wife of the deceased as P.W-1, owner of the tractor as P.W-3,\n\nwhere the deceased was working as Hamali.18.     The claimants except the self serving statement of P.W-1 did not\n\nadduce any reliable evidence proving the income of the deceased at the\n\ntime of accident. P.W-3 deposed that deceased worked with him as\n\nHamali, and he used to pay Rs.500/- per day. As rightly pointed out\n\nby the Tribunal, he did not produce any record to prove the payments\n\nmade by him to the deceased towards hamali charges. Further, P.W-3\n\nin the cross-examination deposed that he used to pay a monthly salary\n\nto the deceased, which is contrary to his statement in the chief-\n\nexamination. Under the said circumstances, the Tribunal correctly did\n\nnot believe the evidence of P.W-3.       The Tribunal considering the\n\namount paid to NREGA workers at the time of accident, fixed the\n\nincome of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day, as coolies under NREGA\n\nscheme were paid Rs.200/- per day at that time. In that view of the\n\nmatter, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the finding of the\n\nTribunal on fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day.\n\nAccordingly, the point is answered against the appellants.19.     POINT   No.2:   The   Tribunal   delivered     the   judgment    on\n\n17.01.2019, but did not consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex\n BVLNC,J                                               MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 9 of 15                                           Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\nCourt in the case of National Insurance Company Limited and\n\nPranay Sethi and others1, for awarding amount towards loss of future\n\nearnings, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person having a\n\nfixed income can be awarded amount towards loss of future earnings\n\nat 40% if the deceased is below 40 years and at 25% if the deceased is\n\nabove 40 years. In that view of the matter, the claimants are entitled\n\nto amount towards loss of future earnings. The deceased age was fixed\n\nas 30 years by the Tribunal.          The multiplier 17 was applied as per\n\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and\n\nanother Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others2.\n\nTherefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,18,000 x 40/100 =\n\nRs.3,67,200/- in addition to Rs.9,18,000/-, towards 40% of loss of\n\nfuture earnings. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the\n\nappellants.20.      The claimants No.2 and 3 were aged around 4 ½ and 2 years\n\nrespectively on the date of claim petition, and they are the children of\n\nthe     deceased    and   the   1st   petitioner.   The   Tribunal   awarded\n\nRs.40,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner only.1(2017) 16 SCC 68022009 ACJ 1298\n BVLNC,J                                               MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 10 of 15                                          Dt: 22.11.202221.     The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General\n\nInsurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and\n\nothers3 held in para 8.7 as follows:"A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt\n        with the various heads under which compensation is to be\n        awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of\n        Consortium.In legal parlance, consortium is a compendious term which\n        encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, and filial\n        consortium.The right to consortium would include the company, care, help,\n        comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is\n        a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include\n        sexual relation with the deceased spouse. 3 Spousal consortium is\n        generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a\n        husband−wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse\n        for         loss      of        company,          society,        co−\n        operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.4 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature\n        death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection,\n        society, discipline, guidance and training. Filial consortium is the\n        right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental\n        death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child32018 ACJ 2782\n BVLNC,J                                                      MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 11 of 15                                                 Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\n       causes great shock and agony to the parents and 3Rajesh and\n       Ors.      vs.   Rajbir   Singh        and    Ors.    (2013)     9    SCC     54\n       4        BLACK'S    LAW         DICTIONARY           (5   the       d.     1979)\n       family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose\n       their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love,\n       affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.\n\n\n       Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the\n       status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions\n       world−over have recognized that the value of a childs consortium\n       far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in\n       the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit\n       parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on\n       the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a\n       compensation       for   loss    of    the   love,    affection,    care    and\n       companionship of the deceased child.The Motor Vehicles Actis a beneficial legislation aimed at\n       providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine\n       claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or\n       unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be\n       awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.\n\n\n       Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents\n       in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count5.\n       However, there was no clarity with 5 Rajasthan High Court in\n BVLNC,J                                                MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 12 of 15                                           Dt: 22.11.2022Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj);Uttarakhand High Court inSmt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep\n       Kumar& 6 Ors. respect to the principles on which compensation\n       could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be\n       governed by the principles of awarding compensation under Loss\n       of       Consortium   as   laid   down   in   Pranay   Sethi   (supra).\n       In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father\n       and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for\n       loss of Filial Consortium."22.    In the case on hand C-1 is the wife of the deceased, and she is\n\nentitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium as per the above judgment\n\nof the Hon'ble Apex Court, C-2 and C-3 are minor children of the\n\ndeceased, and C-4 and C-5 are parents of the deceased. In view of the\n\nabove judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, C-2 and C-3 are also\n\nentitled to parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- each.23.    Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of\n\nRs.9,98,000 + 3,67,200 + 40,000 + 40,000 = Rs.14,45,200/- (Rupees\n\nFourteen Lakhs, Forty Five Thousand and Two Hundred only).                 The\n\nrecord reveals that the petitioners obtained court fee exemption\n BVLNC,J                                              MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 13 of 15                                         Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\ncertificate from the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Gooty, on\n\n02.09.2015. Therefore, the petitioners have to pay the required court\n\nfee, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989.24.    The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of\n\npetition, till the date of realisation. I do not find any ground to interfere\n\nwith the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the\n\ndate of petition, till the date of realisation.25.    In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, the impugned order is\n\nto be set aside, and it is held that the appellants/claimants are\n\nentitled to a total compensation of Rs. Rs.14,45,200/- (Rupees\n\nFourteen Lakhs, Forty Five Thousand and Two Hundred only), with\n\ninterest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition, till the\n\ndate of actual payment. There shall be no order as to costs.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit\n\nthe entire compensation amount of Rs.14,45,200/- (Rupees Fourteen\n\nLakhs, Forty Five Thousand and Two Hundred only) along with the\n\naccrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment.On such deposit, the 1st Appellant/1st claimant being the wife of\n\ndeceased, is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,45,200/- (Rupees Five\n\nLakhs Forty Five Thousand and Two Hundred only) and she is\n BVLNC,J                                               MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 14 of 15                                          Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\npermitted to withdraw Rs.5,45,200/- along with the accrued interest\n\nthereon. The Appellants No.2 and 3/claimants No.2 and 3, being the\n\nminor children of the deceased, are entitled to an amount of\n\nRs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) each, and the said amount of\n\nRs.3,00,000/- each, shall be deposited in any nationalised bank, till\n\nthe Appellants No.2 and 3 attain majority, and after attaining majority,\n\nthe Appellants No.2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw Rs.3,00,000/-\n\neach, along with the accrued interest thereon.         The Appellants No.4\n\nand 5/claimants No.4 and 5, being father and mother of the deceased\n\nare entitled to an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty\n\nThousand        only)   each,   and   they   are   permitted   to   withdraw\n\nRs.1,50,000/- each, along with the accrued interest thereon. The\n\nappellants/claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before\n\nthe Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, within one\n\nmonth from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment.As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall\n\nstand closed._________________________________\n                                         B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J\n22.11.2022\n\npsk\n BVLNC,J                                 MACMA 286 of 2021\nPage 15 of 15                            Dt: 22.11.2022\n\n\n\n\n       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI\n\n\n\n\n                M.A.C.M.A.No.286 OF 2021\n\n\n\n\n                  22nd November, 2022\n\npsk