IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.587 of 2001 Between: Pureti Lakshmaiah And others …Petitioners / Appellants AND Bandla Basavaiah And another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.587 of 2001 JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is ﬁled by the claimants, dissatisﬁed with the award dated 18.12.2000 passed in M.V.O.P.No.599 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Guntur (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity). The claimants are husband and children of the deceased housewife, who died in a motor accident on 13.06.1998. On the fateful day, she was travelling along with her family members in a Jeep bearing registration No.AP 7 V 2710. It was alleged that on account of high speed and rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, the jeep dashed against a tamarind tree, as a result of which, three people including the deceased died and other received injuries. The Station House Oﬃcer, Yarpedu Police Station, registered crime No.230 of 1998 and commenced investigation. 2. The claimants ﬁled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The owner and the insurer of the oﬀending vehicle were impleaded in the petition. Claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4, which comprise of certiﬁed copy of FIR in the aforesaid crime, certiﬁed copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report, certiﬁed copy of charge sheet and certiﬁed copy of postmortem report respectively. While P.W.1 is claimant No.1 – the husband of the deceased, P.W.2 is eyewitness to the incident. 3. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the oﬀending vehicle. The Tribunal also found that the deceased was travelling in the jeep and observed that though there is no evidence of violation of condition of permit in any case, the condition of policy are not violated. The Tribunal, by following the ratio of the decision of this Court in K.Varamma and others Vs. P.Ramakotaiah[1], held that Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. However, to the extent of quantum of compensation, though the Tribunal found that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, since she was only a housewife, a notional compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded, besides awarding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, aggregating the total compensation payable to the claimants to Rs.62,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed by the claimants. 4. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased would not fall under the category of persons for whom notional income will be awarded and as such, awarding a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- by the Tribunal, without following the criteria in Schedule II of the Act, is not justiﬁed. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon decision of this Court in A.Rajan Vs. Manikya Reddy[2] which supports the quantiﬁcation of quantum even in respect of housewife who is not earning any income. Reliance also has been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Branch Manager, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Dr.C.Chandra Obula Reddy[3]. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is no evidence as regards the earning capacity of the deceased and as such, the Tribunal below has, therefore, rightly proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation based upon the fact that the deceased was a mere housewife and awarded a lump sum amount as compensation. 6. Now, the only point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation or not. 7. In Branch Manager, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., (3 supra), the deceased was actually working as a Woman Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital, Penukonda, and she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.2,200/- per month, apart from her earnings on her private practice. But in the present case, there is no evidence of any earnings by the deceased. The assessment of quantum of compensation in the aforesaid decision, therefore, is of no assistance in the present case. The decision of A.Rajan (2 supra) is an indicative of the services of a housewife and its computation. However, as per note 6(a) of Schedule II of the Act, in the event of there being no evidence of actual earnings of the deceased for non earning persons, compensation of Rs.15,000/- per annum is just, appropriate and is standardized. Applying the said criteria, it would be just and appropriate to adopt the earning of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum, though she was rendering her services as a housewife to the family. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the net dependency can be assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month. 8. Following the standardization settled by the Supreme Court in its decision reported in Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[4] and keeping in view that the age of the deceased was found to be 30 years at the time of her death, appropriate multiplier applicable would be 16. Thus, the compensation would work out to Rs.1,60,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium as awarded by the Tribunal needs no interference, so also Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. On account of loss of wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, they deserve to be compensated for discomfort, inconvenience, stress and frustration and a sum of Rs.20,000/- deserves to be awarded. Thus, as against Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the award shall stand modiﬁed to Rs.1,92,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. 10. Accordingly, the award dated 18.12.2000 passed in M.V.O.P.No.599 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Guntur, shall stand modiﬁed to the extent indicated above. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ VILAS V AFZULPURKAR, J February 19, 2010 Bvv [1] 1989 (3) ALT 491 [2] 1989 (1) ALT 27 [3] 2004 (4) ALD 883 (DB) [4] 2009 ALJ 1298