IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH [24TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J CMA No.2742 of 1999 Between: Mungamuru Haragopal Reddy & Another … Appellants Patima Alikya & another … Respondents CMA No.704 of 2009 Between: Mungamuru Haragopal Reddy & Another … Appellants Patima Alikya & another … Respondents CMA No.810 of 2000 Between: Mungamuru Haragopal Reddy & Another … Appellants Patima Alikya & another … Respondents CMA No.1014 of 2000 Between: Mungamuru Vijaya Reddy & others … Appellants Patima Alikya & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.Nos.2742 of 1999, 704, 810 and 1014 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: i) CMA No.2742 of 1999: This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.1999 in OP No.407 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein the claim of the appellants for the death of deceased Devakidevamma, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.56,600/-. ii) CMA No.704 of 2000: This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.1999 in OP No.534 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein the claim of the appellants towards damage to the car, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.45,400/-. iii) CMA No.810 of 2000: This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.1999 in OP No.408 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein the claim of the appellants for the death of Radhakrishna Reddy, who was the husband of Devakidevamma, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.86,500/-. iv) CMA No.1014 of 2000: This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.1999 in OP No.479 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein the claim of the appellants for the death of the deceased Indira was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,69.700/-. 2. The appellants are the claimants. The appellants filed claim applications seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased Devakidevamma, Radhakrishna Reddy and Indira, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.06.1995 near Pellakur tank on the Grand Trunk Road and for damages to the car bearing No.TN 01 E 644. The first claimant in OP Nos.407, 408 and 534 of 1995 is the son and 2nd claimant is the grand son of deceased Devakidevamma and Radhakrishna Reddy. The first claimant in OP No.479 of 1995 is the minor son and claimants 2 and 3 are parents of the deceased Indira, who is the widowed daughter-in-law of Radhakrishna Reddy and Devakidevamma. OP No.534 of 1995 is filed by the same claimants in OP Nos.407 and 408 of 1995 claiming damages for the vehicle. All the appellants have filed the above appeals, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent herein. Perused the record. As the four appeals arisen out of common order pertaining to the same accident, they are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.KL 11 A 6190 of the first respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent, which dashed against the ambassador car bearing No.TN 01 E 644 in which the deceased were traveling, is not challenged. It is also not disputed that the first respondent is the owner of the lorry and the said vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent. 5. According to the claimants in OP No.407 of 1995, the deceased Devakidevamma was looking after the agriculture and also poultry farm and was earning Rs.300/- per day. She is the wife of the deceased Radhakrishna Reddy, who also died in the same accident. The Tribunal assessed the value of the domestic services of the deceased Devakidevamma at Rs.1,000/- per month and applying the multiplier ‘5’, estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.60,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, estimated the contribution to the family by way of domestic services at Rs.40,000/- and adding Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, arrived at a total compensation of Rs.46,500/-, but taking into consideration that even in case of no fault liability, the compensation payable is Rs.50,000/-, he awarded a total compensation of Rs.56,500/- [Rs.50,000/- + Rs.6,500/-]. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the value of the domestic services of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.1000/- per month is too low. The claimants have not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased Devakidevamma was looking after the cultivation or poultry farm and was earning Rs.300/- per day and the Tribunal, has therefore, rightly ignored the said claim of the appellants. The deceased was stated to be aged 60 years, about which, there is no dispute. Having regard to the advanced age of the deceased and there being no evidence of her doing any work or earning any income, the loss on account of her domestic services alone is to be assessed while estimating her contribution to the family. The amount of Rs.1,000/- taken by the Tribunal into consideration towards loss of domestic services to the family appears to be rather low. Though the value of the domestic help or advise of elderly mother or a housewife, cannot be estimated in terms of money. Still for the purpose of computation of the amount of compensation, the same can be taken at Rs.1500/- per month, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier ‘7’ applicable to the age group of 60-65 years as per the recent judgment of the Apex Court in ‘Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]’, the compensation payable towards loss of domestic services would come to [Rs.18,000/- x 7] Rs.1,26,000/-. As the amount assessed is towards loss of domestic services, but not towards loss of earnings or earning capacity, the question of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses does not arise. By adding a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges as awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation payable is Rs.1,32,500/-. Thus the claimants in OP No.407 of 1995 are therefore, held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,32,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition on the amount awarded by the Tribunal and at 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal, till the date of realisation. The impugned order dated 08.07.1999 in OP No.407 of 1995 is modified accordingly. 6. In OP No.408 of 1995, the deceased Radhakrishna Reddy is the father of the first appellant herein and grandfather of the 2nd appellant. According to the claimants, the deceased was having various types of business and fetching in all Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. The claimants filed Ex.A.16 certificate issued by the Director of Surya Farms and Resorts India Private Limited, Madras to show that the deceased was being paid a commission of Rs.5,000/- per month for marketing plots. No other evidence is adduced to show that the deceased was earning income of Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. The deceased was stated to be having agricultural lands. Admittedly, the properties owned by the deceased are intact. As rightly noted by the Tribunal, the first claimant is the grown up son of the deceased and he was not depending on the income of the deceased and the second claimant is the grand son of the deceased. It is only loss of supervision of cultivation on the part of the deceased that alone requires to be quantified while assessing the compensation payable. The deceased was admittedly aged about 65 years by the date of his death. The Tribunal has taken the value of the supervisory services of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month or Rs.24,000/- per annum, which is considered just and reasonable. Applying the same multiplier of ‘7’ following the decision of the apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case [referred to supra], the loss of supervisory services comes to Rs.1,68,000/- [Rs.24,000/- x 7]. The question of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses does not arise in this case also, as the assessment is made towards loss of supervisory services but not loss of earnings or earning capacity. By applying Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges as awarded by the Tribunal, the total amount of compensation payable to the deceased comes to Rs.1,74,500/-. Thus the claimants in OP No.408 of 1995 are therefore, held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,74,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition on the amount awarded by the Tribunal and at 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal, till the date of realisation. The impugned order dated 08.07.1999 in OP No.408 of 1995 is modified accordingly. 7. In OP No.479 of 1995 the claimants are the son and parents of the deceased Indira, who is the widowed daughter-in-law of other two deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was looking after the cultivation and also doing milk business and looking after the welfare of her son, who was minor at the time of her death and was staying with her parents ever since the death of her husband. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs.1,12,000/- per annum as claimed by the claimants. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly assessed the compensation based on two factors, namely, loss of supervisory services over cultivation and loss of domestic help including motherly affection of the minor boy and the same was fixed at Rs.1200/- per month, which comes to Rs.14,400/- per annum. The amount fixed by the Tribunal, however, appears to be on lower side. Having regard to the fact that the first claimant is a minor boy and the loss of domestic help and assistance to the boy on account of death of his mother, is enormous, it is therefore, considered appropriate to fix the amount towards loss of supervision and domestic help at Rs.1500/- per month which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. Applying the relevant multiplier of ‘16’ applicable to the age group of 30-35 years as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma’s case (referred to supra), the compensation payable on that count would come to Rs.2,88,000/- [Rs.18,000/- x 16]. Adding Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the minor boy, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,04,500/-. Thus the claimants in OP No.479 of 1995 are therefore, held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,04,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition on the amount awarded by the Tribunal and at 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal, till the date of realisation. The impugned order dated 08.07.1999 in OP No.479 of 1995 is modified accordingly. 8. OP No.534 of 1995 is filed claiming damages on account of the accident caused to the ambassador car in which the deceased were traveling. According to the claimants, the car was purchased by Radhakrishna Reddy from M/s Century Safety Glass India Ltd., in the year 1992 for Rs.2,20,000/- and that in the accident, the car was totally damaged and the car was sold as scrap for Rs.30,000/-. The appellants claimed total compensation of Rs.1,87,522/- towards damages. The Tribunal allowed depreciation at 30% over the said value and after deducting the amount of Rs.30,000/- realized by the sale of car as scrap, awarded a sum of Rs.45,400/-. The surveyor is examined as PW.3. He filed Ex.A.20 report to the effect that the total assessed repair charges is Rs.2,25,935/- and the present market value of the same car, same model with all accessories would be Rs.2,15,000/- and the damaged wreck will be Rs.30,000/-. Thus according to PW.3, the actual loss to the owner of the vehicle in the accident is Rs.1,85,000/-. The testimony of PW.3 is not discredited. The depreciation taken by the Tribunal at 30% is rather on the higher side. Even accepting the version of PW.3, taking the value of the car at Rs.2,15,000/- and taking depreciation at 10% over a period of three years from 1992-95 i.e., Rs.2,15,000/- x 10% - Rs.1,93,500/-, Rs.1,93,500/- x 10% - Rs.1,74,150/- and Rs.1,74,150/- x 10% - Rs.1,56,735/- . Thus the value of the car as on the date of the accident would be around Rs.1,56,735/-. After deducting the amount of Rs.30,000/- realised by way of sale of the car as scrap, net loss or damage to the car comes to Rs.1,26,735/-. The claimants in OP No. 534 of 1995 are therefore, held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,26,735/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition on the amount awarded by the Tribunal and at 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal, till the date of realisation. The impugned order dated 08.07.1999 in OP No.534 of 1995 is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the four civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed in part as stated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 24.11.2009 bss [1] 2009 JT-6-495