IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A. NO.2194 OF 2006 Dt.17.2.2010 Between: Mallemoggala Uma Devi and others … Appellants And A. Sudhakar Rao and others … Respondents M.A.C.M.A. NO.2475 OF 2006 Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Br. Manager, Prasad Mansion, 1st Floor, Powerpet Eluru … Appellant And Mallemoggala Uma Devi and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A. NOs.2194 AND 2475 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two M.A.C.M.As arise out of a common O.P. No.187 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case –cum- Additional Family Court – cum- XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”). M.A.C.M.A. No.2194 of 2006 is filed by the claimants in the O.P. feeling dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.M.A. No.2475 of 2006 is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, which is respondent No.2 in O.P.No.187 of 2003, feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Since the two M.A.C.M.As arise out of the common O.P., I have heard them together for disposal by this common judgment. I have heard Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants in M.A.C.M.A. No.2194 of 2006. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company in the appeal is not present. I have heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel representing the New India Assurance Company Limited, appellant in M.A.C.M.A. No.2475 of 2006 and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri B.H.R. Chowdary, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 – claimants in the appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred to as the claimants and the insurance company. Brief facts leading to filing of the O.P. and the present M.A.C.M.As are as follows. One Shankar Babu died in an accident on 9.5.2002 while he was travelling in a Maruti Car bearing registration No.AP 9E 7383. The car while travelling from Bidar to Hyderabad was hit by lorry bearing registration No.AP 16W 3883. The lorry was insured with the Insurance Company. The said Shankar Babu died on the spot. A criminal case was registered as Crime No.97 of 2002. Claimant No.1 is the widow of the deceased and Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are his sons. The O.P. was filed claiming compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. The deceased was claimed to be aged fifty (50) years and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from business and agriculture. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, awarded a total sum of Rs.4,47,550/- towards compensation under different heads. As noted above, not being satisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A. No.2194 of 2006 and the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A. No.2475 of 2006 contending that the compensation awarded is excessive. At the hearing, Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, fairly submitted that he proposed to confine his arguments only to the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal without going into the question of cause of the accident and the finding regarding rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The learned Counsel contended that while there could be no dispute about the finding regarding the income, which the deceased was getting from his business, the Tribunal was not justified in treating the entire income as total loss of business. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur[1] in support of this submission. The learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal should have awarded only the loss of income on account of deprival of supervisory services of the deceased to the family. The learned Counsel for the claimants while opposing this contention, submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in fixing the compensation on three counts; namely, that proper multiplier was not taken, that agricultural income was not taken into consideration and that interest at 6% awarded was meager and the normal rate of 7.5% being awarded by the Courts and Tribunals should have been awarded. With regard to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, I have carefully perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur (supra). That was a case where the deceased was claimed to be an agriculturist and the Supreme Court while finding that no material was placed on record to prove the earnings of the deceased, further observed that the normal rule of deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to the cases of income through agricultural source and that attendant circumstances have to be considered, because after the death of their family member, the claimants may lookafter the agriculture. In my considered opinion, the ratio laid down in the said judgment may not apply to the facts of the present case. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning from business and also from agriculture, the Tribunal has not considered the agricultural income. The analogy of the ratio contained in the above judgment of the Supreme Court may not in stricto sensu apply to the case of business in every case, because several circumstances are required to be considered depending upon the facts of each case. Assuming that the deceased left behind his widow and some family members, there must be proper pleading from the contesting party that the remaining members of the family of the deceased are capable enough to carry on the business and that in spite of the absence of the deceased, they can carry on the business profitably. No such pleading has been advanced by the Insurance Company. From the Award of the Tribunal, it does not appear that such a contention has been advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company. From the admitted facts of this case, it is evident that claimant No.1 is the widow of the deceased and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are his sons, who are students. Therefore, in normal course, it is not possible for either the widow or the students to immediately take over the business of the deceased, unless there is evidence to show that the left over members of the family have participated in the business activities carried on by the deceased during his lifetime. Therefore, no hard and fast rule can be adopted in the case of business. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, nay, even a remote suggestion coming forth from the owner of the lorry or the Insurance Company that the business was being run by the claimants, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal should have considered loss of supervision only while awarding compensation under that head. As regards consortium, I find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel that the standard sum awarded under this head is Rs.10,000/- whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-. To this extent, the amount of compensation requires to be reduced. Coming to the appeal of the claimants, regarding the contention of the learned Counsel pertaining to the agricultural income, neither a pleading was made nor any material was placed before the Tribunal as to the extent and other details of the agricultural lands allegedly owned by the claimants’ family. The claim regarding the agricultural income is based only on the income tax returns, which, curiously show uniform income of Rs.30,000/- every year from 2000-01 to 2003-04. Except placing reliance on the said income tax returns, no specific evidence has been adduced on behalf of the claimants. Therefore, I find justification in the Tribunal ignoring the alleged agricultural income as shown in the income tax returns, which cannot be relied on as conclusive proof while making assessment of the income of the deceased, more so when agricultural income is completely exempted from payment of income tax. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel that proper multiplier has not been adopted, though the claimants have shown the age of the deceased as fifty (50) years, the Tribunal has taken the age as fifty-five (55) years. It is not in dispute that in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] the Supreme Court standardized the multipliers according to which if the deceased is aged between fifty- one (51) to fifty-five (55) years the multiplier of eleven (11) should be adopted. The Tribunal has adopted only ten (10) as the multiplier. Regarding the interest, I find that 6% is too low and inadequate and the standard rate being awarded by the Courts and Tribunals being 7.5%, I do not see any reason why the claimants should be deprived of the said rate of interest. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the M.A.C.M.As are disposed of in the following terms: (i) The amount of consortium is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; (ii) The rate of interest is enhanced to 7.5%; (iii) The income should be assessed by taking eleven (11) as the multiplier, in place of ten (10). The Tribunal shall work out the compensation in terms of this order and pass a fresh Award within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within two months of passing of fresh Award by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company should deposit the balance amount. On such deposit being made, the claimants should be permitted to withdraw the entire amount unconditionally. As a sequel to disposal of the M.A.C.M.As, M.A.C.M.A. M.P. No.5938 of 2006 in M.A.C.M.A. No.2475 of 2006 filed by the Insurance Company is disposed of. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17.2.2010 bnr [1] 2003 (3) TAC 569 [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121