1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE; FAMILY COURT CUM VII
ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Sri S.Madhava Rao,
Judge, Family court-cum- VII Addl. District
& Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
FRIDAY THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER,2013.
M.V.O.P.NO.385 of 2012
Between:
1. Smt.Begari Pentamma,w/o Late Ramulu,aged 50 years, occ:Household.
2. Begari Krishna,s/o Late Ramulu,aged 30 years, occ:Painter.
3. Begari Ashaiah,s/o Late Ramulu,aged 24 years, occ:Student. All r/o Kandi village, Mandal Sangareddy, District Medak. …Claimants A N D
1. Mohammed Ghouse,s/o Jahangeeri,aged 30 years, occ:Labour,Driver of Bajaj, CT.100 bearing No.AP 10AF 5451,r/o Kalivemula village, Mandal Sangareddy, District Medak.
2. SaleemBhanawadiya,s/oSamshuddinBhanawadia,agedMajor, occ:Business,owner of Bajaj CT 100 bearing No.AP 10 AF 5451,r/o SHMB 120 Church Complex, Palika Bazar,Secunderabad.
3. Shaik Ahmed,s/o Shaik Ismail,aged 35 years, occ:Mechanic, r/o H.No.4-32- 48/1, Shahpur Nagar, Mandal Qutbullapur, District Rangareddy. R-3, Added as per the order passed in I.A.No.562 of 2013,dt.12.08.2013. …Respondents
This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Ranjith Kumar, Advocate for the Claimants and of Sri Mohd.Naseeruddin,Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and Sri A.M.Janardhan Goud,Advocate for Respondent No.3 while Respondent No.1 remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, this Court made the following:
O R D E R
This is a petition filed by dependents under section 166(1)(c) of M.V Act 1988 (short 'the act') seeking compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- for the death of the deceased
Begari Ramulu, in Automobile accident dt 16.04.2012.
2.Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is as follows:
The petitioners are the wife, sons of the deceased. On 16.04.2012 at 5 P.M., the deceased who was working as Attender in A.P.Residential Urdu Medium School, Kandi, after his duty was returning home at 5 P.M.,on his bicycle, when a Bajaj Motor cycle CT 100 bearing No.AP 10 AF 5451 came at high speed in opposite direction and dashed against his bicycle, and as a result, he fell down and sustained serious injuries.
Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy and he died in the hospital while undergoing medical treatment . Respondent No.1 was rider of the motor 2 cycle at the time of accident. On the complaint given about the accident, the Police of of
Sangareddy registered a criminal case in Cr.No.70 of 2012 under section 304 A IPC, 181 and 196 of MV Act against the rider of the motor cycle and that case is pending in the court of the Addl. JFCM, Sangareddy . By the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 54 years and was working as Attender in the A.P.Residential Urdu Medium School,
Kandi, drawing monthly salary of Rs.24,995/-. The accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. The second respondent is the registered owner of the motor cycle. Respondent No.1 and 2 being the rider and owner of the motor cycle, are therefore jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
3.The first respondent remained exparte, while respondents No.2and 3 filed separate counters.
4.Respondent No.2 in his counter stated that he had no knowledge whether the alleged accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle and stated that he had sold the motor cycle to Respondent No.3 for Rs.12,000/- on 26.01.2012 and so as on 16.04.2012 when the alleged accident occurred it was only R3 that was owner of the vehicle and therefore he is not at all liable to pay any compensation and that in case it is found that the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation it is only Respondent No.1 and 3 that are liable to pay the compensation.
5.Respondent No.3 in his counter stated that he had purchased the motor cycle for
Rs.12,000/- from Respondent No.2 on 26.01.2012 and that he is bonafide purchaser of the vehicle. He denied the allegation that the motor cycle was involved in the alleged accident.
6.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:
1. Whether the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bajaj CT 100 Motor cycle bearing No.AP 10 AF 5451?
2. Whether the deceased died in the said accident and the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so at what quantum and from whom?
3. To what relief?
3
7.The petitioners in proof of their case, examined the first of them as Pw.1 and one independent witness as Pw.2 and got marked six documents. Respondents No.2 and 3 examined themselves as Rw.1 and 2 respectively and R2 got marked one document.
8. Heard arguments of both the counsel.
ISSUE No.1:
9.Pw.2 Aslam Nazeer is said to be eye witness to the alleged accident. His evidence that he is working as Principal, AP Residential Urdu Medium School, Kandi, and 16.04.2012 at 5 P.M., the deceased after his duty was returning home on his bicycle and at 5 P.M., on that day the motor cycle came in opposite direction at high speed and dashed him and as a result he fell down and sustained serious injuries. In cross examination, he says that the school is situated at the outskirts of DVR Engineering
College, Kandi. At the later stage of the cross examination, he admits that beyond Kandi village there are petrol bunk and Daba and by the side of Daba there is housing colony and beyond that colony there is RTA office and that beyond that RTA office at a distance of two furlongs their school is situated. When asked he says in cross examination that the accident took place opposite to the school and that that he was in the school ground when the accident took place. In Ex.A2 charge sheet filed by the police, it is stated that the accident took place near Goutham Reddy Farm house in the outskirts of Kandi village. Pw.2 when asked in the cross examination could not say about the location of
Goutham Reddy farm house. It is the evidence of Pw.2 and not the charge sheet that has to be considered to know about the place where at the alleged accident took place.
Because, the evidence of Pw.2 is substantive evidence before the court whereas the charge sheet is not filed.The version of Pw.2 is that the accident took place just infront of his school and that he saw it by standing in the ground of the school. There is no any substantial material elicited to falsify the version of Pw.2 that the motor cycle came at high speed in opposite direction and hit the cycle of the deceased. The perusal of Ex.A1
FIR, Ex.A2 charge sheet, Ex.A3 inquest report, Ex.A5 panchanama of scene would clearly show that the motor cycle had come at high speed and dashed against the cycle of the deceased. Ex.A6 MVI report shows that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the motor cycle . So the evidence of Pw.2 coupled with Ex.A1 to 4 A3 , A5 and A6 would amply prove that R1 had caused the accident by riding the motor cycle rashly and negligently. Hence, I hold thast the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of motor cycle.This issue is answered accordingly.
11.ISSUE No.2:
10.Before considering the evidence on record, it is apposite to refer decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma and others, Appellants V. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, Respondents(2009 ACJ 1298) wherein the Apex Court laid down legal principles regarding assessment of compensation for the death of a person in
Motor Vehicle accident. In thast case the deceased who aged about 38 years was working as scientist of Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR) on a monthly salary of Rs.3,402/- and other benefits. He died in the accident caused by the bus belonging to
Delhi Transport Corporation. His widow, three minor children, parents and grand father filed claim petition for compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, New Delhi. One of the officers of Research Institute give evidence before the
Tribunal stating that the age of retirement of the deceased was 60 years and by the time of his death his salary was Rs.4,004/- per month. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.3,402/-; it deducted 1/3rd towards personal living expenses of the deceased and arrived at the contribution to the family as Rs.2,250/- per month. Since the age of the superannuation of the deceased was 60 years. The Tribunal held that the period of service lost on account of the untimely death was 22 years. So, it applied multiplier of 22 and arrived at the loss of dependency of family as Rs.5,94,000/-.
12.Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants filed an appeal before
Delhi High Court which allowed the appeal in part. The High Court took the view that in view of the evidence of the Officer of the Institute the pay of the deceased should be taken as Rs.4,004/- per month. Since the left over service of the deceased was 22 years, the High Court held hat the salary by the time of his retirement, had he been alive, at least would have double i.e. Rs.8,008/- per month. The High Court took the average of
Rs.4,004/- which the deceased was getting per month by the time of his death and
Rs.8,008/- which he would have got by the time of retirement and accordingly determined 5 his monthly income as Rs.6,006/-. Having regard to the large number of family members, the High Court was of the view that out of the monthly income of Rs.6,006/- only 1/4th should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd. After the deduction, the contribution to the family was arrived at Rs.4,504/- per month. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the High Court chose the multiplier 13 and accordingly arrived at the loss of dependency as Rs.7,02,624/- and by adding
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation was determined as Rs.7,19,624/-.
13. The claimants were not happy with the enhanced compensation awarded by the
High Court and so, they preferred the appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was contended before the Apex Court that having regard to the pay revision, the monthly salary of the deceased should be taken as Rs.18,341/- and that only 1/8th , but not 1/4th should have been deducted towards his personal and living expenses and that having regard to the 2nd schedule to the Act, the appropriate multiplier for the age of the 38 years of the deceased should be 16. The Apex Court expressed concern as there is lack of uniformity and consistency in the compensation being awarded by Tribunal and so, the
Hon'ble Court laid down the principles regarding assessment of compensation. Paras 9
to 21 of the Judgment contain the legal principles and so, they are extracted hereunder:
9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity 11 and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand):
The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which 6 the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) :
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation): The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.
Question (i) - addition to income for future prospects:
10. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects. In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1(SC),this Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependents); and that where the deceased had a stable job, the court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs.1032/- per month. Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this Court was of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at Rs.2000/- as gross income before deducting the personal living expenses. The decision in Susamma Thomas was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav [1996 ACJ 581(SC), where the deceased 7 was getting a gross salary of Rs.1543/- per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions and increases, this Court assumed that by the time he retired, his earning would have nearly doubled, say Rs.3000/-. This court took the average of 13 actual income at the time of death and the projected income if he had lived normal life period, and determined the monthly income as Rs.2200/- month. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India [2003 ACJ 680(SC), as against the actual salary income of Rs.42,000/- per annum, (Rs.3500/- per month) at the time of accident, this court assumed the income as Rs.45,000/- per annum, having regard to the future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years of age.
11. In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1(SC),this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, 1996 ACJ 581(SC),the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah 2003 ACJ 680(SC), the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of 14 increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
Question (ii) - deduction for personal and living expenses:
12. We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. No evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. Claimants will obviously tend to claim that the deceased was very frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased was a spendthrift, even if he was one. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part 15 of the income on his 8 family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardize the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was a married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction, got statutory recognition under Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`MV Act' for short).
13. But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline. In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1(SC) it was observed that in the absence of evidence, it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses of the deceased and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family/dependants. In
UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra [1996 ACJ 831(SC), this Court held that if the number of dependents in the family of the deceased was large, in the absence of specific evidence in regard to contribution to the family, the Court may adopt the unit method for arriving at the contribution of the deceased to his family. By this method, two units is allotted to each adult and one unit is allotted to each minor, and total 16 number of units are determined. Then the income is divided by the total number of units. The quotient is multiplied by two to arrive at the personal living expenses of the deceased. This Court gave the following illustration:
"X, male, aged about 35 years, dies in an accident. He leaves behind his widow and 3 minor children. His monthly income was Rs. 3500. First, deduct the amount spent on X every month. The rough and ready method hitherto adopted where no definite evidence was forthcoming, was to break up the family into units, taking two units for and adult and one unit for a minor. Thus X and his wire make 2+2=4 units and each minor one unit i.e. 3 units in all, totaling 7 units. Thus the share per unit works out to Rs. 3500/7=Rs. 500 per month. It can thus be assumed that
Rs. 1000 was spent on X. Since he was a working member some provision for his transport and out-of-pocket expenses has to be estimated. In the present case we estimate the out-of-pocket expense at Rs. 250. Thus the amount spent on the deceased X works out to Rs. 1250 per month per month leaving a balance of
Rs. 3500-1250=Rs.2250 per month. This amount can be taken as the monthly loss of X's dependents."
In Fakeerappa vs Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory - 2004 ACJ 699 (SC), while considering the appropriateness of 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased made by the High Court, this Court observed:
9 "What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor.
Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and the High
Court were justified in fixing the deduction."
In view of the special features of the case, this Court however restricted the deduction towards personal and living expenses to one-third of the income.
14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra,'s case,1996
ACJ 831(SC),the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
Question (iii) - Selection of multiplier:
16. In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1(SC), this Court stated the principle relating to multiplier thus:
10 "The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is
Rs.10,000. If a sum of Rs.1,00,000 is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually, the multiplier in this case work out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and not 10% then the multiplier needed to capitalize the loss of the annual dependency at Rupees 10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e.
the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lumpsum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc., Usually in English Courts the operative 19 multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up."
17. The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was amended by Act 54 of 1994, inter alia inserting Section 163A and the Second Schedule with effect from 14.11.1994. Section 163A of the MV Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Second
Schedule contains a Table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the deceased. It specifies the amount of compensation to be awarded with reference to the annual income range of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. It does not specify the quantum of compensation in case the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/-. But it provides the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. The table starts with a multiplier of 15, goes upto 18, and then steadily comes down to 5. It also provides the standard deduction as one-third on account of personal living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, where the application is under section 163A of the Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured formula basis, even where compensation is not specified with reference to the annual income of the deceased, or is more than Rs.40,000/-, by applying the formula :
(2/3 x AI x M), that is two-thirds of the annual income multiplied by the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be the compensation. Several principles of tortuous liability are excluded when the claim is under section 163A of MV Act. There are, however, discrepancies/errors in the multiplier scale given in the Second Schedule
Table. It prescribes a lesser compensation for cases where a higher multiplier of 18 is applicable and a larger compensation with reference to cases where a lesser multiplier of 15, 16, or 17 is applicable. From the quantum of compensation specified in the table, it is possible to infer that a clerical error has crept in the Schedule and the `multiplier' figures got wrongly typed as 15, 16, 17, 18, 17, 16, 15, 13, 11, 8, 5 & 5 instead of 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6 and 5. Another noticeable incongruity is, having prescribed the 11 notional minimum income of non-earning persons as Rs.15,000/- per annum, the table prescribes the compensation payable even in cases where the annual income ranges between Rs.3000/- and Rs.12000/-. This leads to an anomalous position in regard to applications under Section 163A of MV Act, as the compensation will be higher in cases where the deceased was idle and not having any income, than in cases where the deceased was honestly earning an income ranging between Rs.3000/- and Rs.12,000/- per annum. Be that as it may.
18. The principles relating to determination of liability and quantum of compensation are different for claims made under section 163A of MV Act and claims under section 166 of
MV Act. (See : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal - 2007 (5) SCC 1284)(SC)].
Section 163A and Second Schedule in terms do not apply to determination of compensation in applications under Section 166. In Trilok Chandra's case,1996 ACJ 831(SC), this Court, after reiterating the principles stated in Susamma Thomas, 1994
ACJ 1(SC),however, held that the operative (maximum) multiplier, should be increased
as 19 (instead of 16 indicated in Susamma Thomas), even in cases under section 166 of
MV Act, by borrowing the principle underlying section 163-A and the Second Schedule.
This Court observed:
"Section 163-A begins with a non obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependents are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier......What we propose to emphasize is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16...."
19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie [2005 ACJ 1131(SC), this Court noticed that in respect of claims under section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). This was 12 reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya [2005 ACJ 1441(SC) and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala [2006 ACJ 2114(SC). The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under section 166 of MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under section 163A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years) :
Age of the Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier deceased scale as scale as scale in Trilok specified in actually used n envisaged n adopted in Chandra as second Second Susamma Trilok clarified in column in the schedule to ThomasChandra CharlieTable in MV. Act(as Second seen from the schedule to quantum of M.V.Act.compensation) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Up to 15 ---------1520 years 15 to 20 years 1618181619 21 to 25 years 1517181718 26 to 30 years1416171817 31 to 35 years 1315161716 36 to 40 years 1214151615 41 to 45 years 1113141514 46 to 50 years 1012131312 51 to 55 years 0911111110 56 to 60 years 0810090808 61 to 65 years 0608070506 Above 65 0505050505 years
20. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the
Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok
Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second
Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and 13 not under section 163A of MV Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the MV Act,
Davies method is applicable.
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
13.The Apex court after enunciating the legal principles determined annual income of the deceased as Rs.57,658/- and applied the multiplier of 15 and arrived at loss of dependency of Rs.8,64,870/- and to that sum added Rs.5,000/- +Rs.5,000/-+ Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium respectively, and determined the total compensation as Rs.8,84,870/-.
14.As regards the age of the deceased, according to the petitioners the deceased was aged about 54 years as on the date of accident. In Ex.A3 inquest report as well as
Ex.A4 Post mortem examination report, the age of the deceased is shown as 57 years.
ExA8 Service certificate shows that the date of birth of the deceased is 11.09.1957.
Since the accident took place on 16.04.2012, the age of the deceased by that date was 54 years. It is therefore concluded that by the date of accident, the age of the deceased was 54 years.
15.Coming to the income of the deceased, Pw.2 says that the deceased was working as attender in the residential school and that as per Ex.A7 the salary certificate, his gross salary was Rs.24,995/-. In the cross examination of Pw.2 nothing worthwhile material is elicited to doubt the credibility of Ex.A7 salary certificate. So, the evidence of Pw.2 coupled with Ex.A7 would clearly prove that by the date of accident, the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.24,995/-(rounded upto Rs.25,000/-). At that rate his annual income was Rs.3,00,000/-. Out of which an amount of Rs.20,000/- has to be deducted towards income tax. Therefore the balance remains Rs.2,80,000/-.Since there are three petitioners, 1/3rd of that income has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. After the deduction, the balance remains at Rs.1,90,000/-. Considering the 14 age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier as per table shown in Sarala Varma is '11'. The petitioners are therefore entitled to Rs.20,90,000/-(Rs.1,90,000/-x11= Rs.
20,90,000/-), towards compensation for loss of dependency.
16.In addition to the above, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium suffered and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate.
17.As for the liability to pay the compensation, the second respondent, who is the owner of the motor vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation. But he denies his liability contending that by the date of accident, he had already sold the vehicle to Respondent
No.3. Rw.1 Saleem Bhanwadiya says in his evidence that he sold the motor cycle for
Rs.12,000/- on 26.01.2012. Rw.2 Shaik Ahmed, in his evidence says that he purchased the motor cycle on 26.01.2012 by paying Rs.12,000/- to the second respondent. Ex.B1 agreement of sale dt. 26.01.2012 is relied upon to prove the sale of the motor cycle.
Rw.1 in the cross examination by the counsel for the petitioner admits that as on today, as per the records of Road Transport Authority, he is the owner of the motor cycle.
When asked by the counsel for R3 he says in cross examination that along with Ex.B1 agreement of sale he gave duly signed receipt for Rs.12,000/- delivery note form No.29 and 30 to R3 and then he went to Gujarath and after he returned when he asked R3 stated that he had not got the transfer of ownership recorded by RTA. Section 50 of the act, prescribes the procedure to be followed for reporting the transfer of the ownership to the registering authority concerned and says that after all the formalities are applied with the registering authority shall cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration. The admission of Rw.1 that as per the records of transport authority he is still owner of the vehicle would imply that the transfer of ownership had not been reported and the transfer of the ownership was not entered in the certificate of registration. Inview of that Ex.B1 agreement of sale entered into between R2 and R3 is of no help to the second respondent to contend that he already sold away the motor cycle.
It is therefore concluded that as on the date of accident, it was only R2 that was owner of the vehicle. The petitioners impleaded R3 as owner of the vehicle, since R2 in his counter took the plea that he had already sold away the vehicle to R3. But the petitioners 15 sought for relief of compensation only against R1 and R2 but not against R3. After the impleadement of R3, the petitioners did not consequently amend the prayer to seek relief against R3 also. However, as held above, as on the date of accident, it was only R2 that was owner of the vehicle. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the vehicle and he did not contest the petition and remained exparte. Respondent No.2 in his counter took the defence that he had no knowledge that on the date of accident,R1 was riding the motor cycle and that he caused the alleged accident. Since it is found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of R1 and since R2 being the owner does not admit that R1 was the rider of the motor cycle on the date of accident, it is just and necessary to fasten liability on the first respondent also.
18.In view of the above, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.20,90,000/-+5.000/- +10,000/-+5,000/-= Rs.21,10,000/- with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment or deposit and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3:
19. In the result, the petition is allowed in part as follows:
a) That the respondents No.1 and 2 shall pay compensation of Rs.21,10,000/- with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the payment or deposit.
b) that the respondents No.1 and 2 shall pay the costs of the petition proportionately.
c) That the respondents No.1 and 2 shall deposit the compensation within sixty days from today.
d) That on such deposit, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.6,10,000/- with accrued interest and the balance shall be deposited in Nationalized bank for fixed time of five years.
e) That on such deposit, the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw
Rs.1,00,000/- each with accrued interest and the balance shall be deposited in
Nationalized bank for fixed time of three years.
f) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.15,000/-.
Dictated to the Senior Assistant ,transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open Court on this the 20th day of December,2013.
JUDGE FAMILY COURT CUM
VII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SANGAREDDY
16
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
CLAIMANT: RESPONDENTS:
PW-1 Begari Pentamma.Rw.1 Saleem Bhandadiya. Pw-2 Aslam Nazeer.Rw.2 Shaik Ahmed.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
CLAIMANT: RESPONDENTS:
Ex.A1 - is CC of FIR along with complaint. Ex.B1 is agreement of sale Ex.A2 - is CC of Charge sheet. Dt.26.01.2012. Ex.A3 - is CC of inquest panchanama. Ex.A4 - is CC of PME report. Ex.A5 - is CC of scene of offence panchanama with sketch. Ex.A6 - is CC of MVI report.
JUDGE FAMILY COURT CUM
VII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SANGAREDDY
17 18
DECREE IN ORIGINAL PETITION
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE; FAMILY COURT CUM VII ADDL.DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE:MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Sri S.Madhava Rao,
Judge, Family court-cum- VII Addl. District
& Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
FRIDAY THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER,2013.
M.V.O.P.NO.385 of 2012
Between:
1. Smt.Begari Pentamma,w/o Late Ramulu,aged 50 years, occ:Household.
2. Begari Krishna,s/o Late Ramulu,aged 30 years, occ:Painter.
3. Begari Ashaiah,s/o Late Ramulu,aged 24 years, occ:Student. All r/o Kandi village, Mandal Sangareddy, District Medak. …Claimants A N D
1. Mohammed Ghouse,s/o Jahangeeri,aged 30 years, occ:Labour,Driver of Bajaj, CT.100 bearing No.AP 10AF 5451,r/o Kalivemula village, Mandal Sangareddy, District Medak.
2. Saleem Bhanawadiya,s/o Samshuddin Bhanawadia,aged Major, occ: Business,owner of Bajaj CT 100 bearing No.AP 10 AF 5451,r/o SHMB 120 Church Complex, Palika Bazar,Secunderabad.
3. Shaik Ahmed,s/o Shaik Ismail,aged 35 years, occ:Mechanic, r/o H.No.4-32- 48/1, Shahpur Nagar, Mandal Qutbullapur, District Rangareddy. R-3, Added as per the order passed in I.A.No.562 of 2013,dt.12.08.2013. …Respondents
Claim petition presented on :06.06.2012 Claim petition registered on:19.07.2012
CLAIM: Claim petition filed U/Sec. 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.27,00,000/-.
COURT FEE:A Court fee of Rs.20,460/- is paid after passing the Judgment on the decreetal amount through memo dt.24.12.2013, as per the orders of this court in I.A.No.1389 of 2012,dt.16.07.2012, which is proper and sufficient.
This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Ranjith Kumar, Advocate for the Claimants and of Sri Mohd.Naseeruddin,Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and Sri A.M.Janardhan Goud,Advocate for Respondent No.3 while Respondent No.1 remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, this Court made the following:
That the petition is allowed in part as follows:
a) That the respondents No.1 and 2 shall pay compensation of Rs.21,10,000/- with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the payment or deposit.
b) that the respondents No.1 and 2 shall pay the costs of the petition proportionately.
c) That the respondents No.1 and 2 shall deposit the compensation within sixty days from today.
19
d) That on such deposit, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.6,10,000/- with accrued interest and the balance shall be deposited in Nationalized bank for fixed time of five years.
e) That on such deposit, the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw
Rs.1,00,000/- each with accrued interest and the balance shall be deposited in
Nationalized bank for fixed time of three years.
f) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.15,000/-.
g)That the respondents No. 1 and 2 shall pay an amount of Rs.35,762/- to the petitioner towards the costs of the petition.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 20th day of December, 2013.
Judge, Family Court-cum-
VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
PARTICULARS OF THE COSTS:
PETITIONER RESPONDENTS
1.Stamps on claim 20,460-00-
2. Stamps on power 2-00 2-00
3.Advocate’s fee 15,000-00-
4.Process Fee 200-00-
5. Miscellaneous 100-00-
6. Commissioner fee -- - --------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL: 35,762-00 2-00 ---------------------------------------------------------
Judge, Family Court-cum-
VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.