Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.PRAKASH RAO, B.S.REDDY
A.Vijaya - Appellant
Versus
Vegurla Rajaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 04-27-05
Held : Broadly speaking, in the case of death, basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses, etc. and loss to the estate. Object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring value of human life and measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation: but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor it should be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is awarded.
The purpose for compensation to dependents of the victims is that they may not be suddenly deprived of the sources of their maintenance and as far as possible they may be provided with the means as were available to them before the accident took place. It will be just and fair compensation, but in cases where the amount of compensation may go much higher than the amount providing the same amenities, comforts and facilities and also the way of life, in such circumstances also it may be a case where, while applying the multiplier system, the lesser multiplier may be applied. The intention is not to over compensate.
In fixing the compensation the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefits and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of death. It is also to be borne in mind that the courts should not allow misfortune to be turned into windfall.
In fatal accident cases the multiplicand is arrived at by compounding the annual loss so the dependents. For this purpose annual income of the deceased is compounded and deductions for his personal expenses is made which depending upon the facts of the case may range from 1/3 to 1/2, the resultant figure is called the "basic figure" or"data" which has to be multiplied by the appropriate multiplier to arrive at the loss of future earnings.
The scheme as envisaged under section 163-A leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any other provision providing set-off against higher compensation unlike Sec. 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000/- or less is covered thereunder whereas Sec. 140 and 166 ensured to all sections of tme Society.
The multiplier system should be applied for the purpose of calculation of amount of compensation. It has also been observed that the question as to what multiplier should be applied would depend upon the various facts and circumstances of the case, hence the multiplier may change to some degree.
The second schedule while prescribing the multiplier, had maximum income of rs. 40,000/- per annum in mind, but in cases where the gap in income is so wide as in the present case, in such a situation, it cannot be said that some deviation in the multiplier would be impermissible.
The structured formulae in second schedule appended to the Act should alone be considered in choosing the appropriate multiplier. We have indicated in the above paras of the judgment that the structured formulae in the second schedule had the maximum income of Rs. 40,000/- per annum in mind and in case of higher income, the multiplier given in column No. 2 of the structured formulae can only be a guidance.
the structured formulae in the second schedule appended to the Act is only for those whose annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- and all other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act. In case of higher income the prescribed multiplier in column No. 2 of the structured formulae of the second schedule is only a guidance.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31 -3-1997 passed in O. P. No. 257 of 1996 on the file of Motor vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- iii Additional District and Sessions Judge, karimnagar, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 (1) (c) of Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for short Act) and awarded compensation of Rs. 9,86,799/- with interest @ 12 per cent from the date of petition till the date of realization.
( 2 ) THE appellants are claimants in o. P. No. 257 of 1996. They put in a claim of rs. 15. 0 lakhs as compensation for the loss of life of Ganga Rao in a road accident occurred on 22-3-1996. R-1 is driver, R-2 is owner and R-3 is the insurer of the tractor bearing No. AP 15 T 8074 involved in the accident. The appellants/claimants filed c. M. P. No. 24576 of 1999 under Order 6 rule 17 CPC whereby sought for enhancement of their claim from Rs. 15. 00 lakhs to Rs. 30. 00 lakhs. They also filed c. M. P. No. 25575 of 1999 to declare appellant no. 3 as major and discharge her mother as a guardian. Both the applications came to be allowed on 18-12-1999. The appellants/ claimants paid requisite court fee on the enhancement amount sought for.
( 3 ) THE factual matrix of the case leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the claimants is: claimant No. 1 is wife, claimant No. 2 is son and claimant No. 3 is daughter and claimant No. 4 is father of Ganga Rao. Claimant No. 4-Raghupathi Rao died pending the appeal. Ganga Rao was a Branch Manager, State bank of Hyderabad, Sultanabad Branch. He joined in bank service as a clerk on 30-9-1969. He was promoted as J. M. I. on 24-3-1980, M. M. G. S-II on 1-8-1988 and m. M. G. S.-III on 1-12-1994. On 22-3-1996 at about 8 P. M. he along with his two colleagues namely P. W. 3-G. Dhanunjaya and P. W. 4-J. Srinivas Rao left the Bank to go to Karimnagar by bus. When they reached P. W. D. road near the bus station, a tractor driven by R-1 came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Ganga Rao. As a result he fell down and sustained serious injuries on his head and legs. He was shifted to district Headquarters hospital at Karimnager. A case in Crime No. 32/96 under Section 337 ipc came to be registered against R-1 for his rash and negligent driving. Ganga Rao succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in the hospital and consequently the section of law came to be altered from Sec. 337 IPC to 304-A, IPC. Ganga Rao was aged 49 years (49 years 10 months and 25 days) at the time of his death and was drawing a monthly salary of rs. 14,500/ -. According to the claimants, though they are entitled for compensation of more than Rs. 25. 00 lakhs, they restricted their claim to Rs. 15. 00 lakhs on all counts. R-1 being the driver, R-2 being the owner and R-3 being the insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay the compensationjointly and severally.
( 4 ) R-1 and R-3 filed counters resisting the claim of the claimants. R-2 filed memo adopting the counter of R-1. The plea of R-1 and R-2 was that the tractor bearing No. AP 15 T 8704 did not involve in accident and whereas the plea of R-3 was that the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving licence and the claim made by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant. Learned Tribunal formulated the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the deceased. A Ganga rao died owing to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No. AP 15 T 9704 by its driver-R-1? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? the claimants examined 6 witnesses and proved 13 documents and whereas respondents examined two witnesses and proved four documents in support of their respective contentions. The learned Tribunal on considering the material brought on record and on hearing counsel for the parties, held that the accide
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
