IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.1644 of 2002 Between: Kondamuri Koteswara Rao and another .. Appellants AND Challagundla Srinivasa Rao and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.752 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 29-03-2001. The factual background for the appeal is that Kondamuri Sreenivasa Rao, a III year mechanical engineering student at the local engineering college of Chowdavaram, Guntur District, was standing at the main gate of the college on the left side on 31-08-1998, at about 7.30 P.M. Jeep No.AP 7U 5624 being driven rashly and negligently dashed against Sreenivasa Rao severely injuring him and Sreenivasa Rao lay dead on the road. Guntur Taluk police registered Crime No.254 of 1998 against the Jeep driver and the deceased, who got his engineering seat on merit, was brilliant in his academic career with number of medals to his credit for his curricular and extra curricular activities. The parents spent huge sums for his studies in spite of their living by coolie work and hence, they sought for a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the Jeep. The owner of the Jeep denied the involvement of the Jeep in the accident and claimed the deceased to have subjected himself to the accident while moving in front of the city bus and the case to have been foisted against the Jeep driver. The owner also claimed the Jeep to be insured under a subsisting valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. The insurer contested the claim denying any rashness or negligence on the part of the Jeep driver and contending the deceased to have solely contributed to the accident by negligent crossing of the road without observing the vehicular traffic. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.13 during the enquiry. The respondents did not produce any evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, corroborated by the contents of Ex.A.1 first information report, Ex.A.2 inquest report and Ex.A.5 charge-sheet. The Tribunal found that P.W.2 was the informant, on the statement of whom the first information report was registered and the conduct of the driver in escaping from the scene of the accident was also taken adverse notice of. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. In assessing the compensation, the Tribunal took into account the evidence of P.W.1, the mother, to conclude that the life of a brilliant student came to an end without any negligence or fault on his part and the Tribunal referred to the precedents cited before it about the quantum of compensation awarded in different comparable cases. The Tribunal considered it proved that the deceased was a III year mechanical engineering student, who got a seat on his own merit and the Tribunal also observed that the deceased received prizes and certificates for his academic performance. As a promising career was cut short due to the accident and as the legitimate expectations of the parents about a bright career for their son are well founded, the Tribunal considered that the deceased would have earned a minimum salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting one-third of such notional income, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.2,000/- per month, applied a multiplier of 16 referable to the age of the mother and considered it fit to award a compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- apart from Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The said sum of Rs.3,86,000/- was directed to carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The aggrieved parents approached this Court with this appeal contending that the entire compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- should have been granted in the light of the age of the mother being only 40 years to which a higher multiplier should have been adopted and the Tribunal failed to note that even an attender in public or private service was getting more than Rs.3,000/- per month. The fact that the parents even stopped the studies of their second son due to difficult financial conditions and were getting the deceased educated with a loan from a nationalized bank was also ignored. The claimants, therefore, desired that the entire compensation be awarded. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sriman, learned standing counsel for the insurer and Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the owner of the Jeep are heard. The ownership of the Jeep, subsisting insurance for the Jeep and the responsibility of the Jeep driver for the accident are not questions in issue in this appeal and on the established joint and several liability of the respondents to compensate the appellants, the only question for consideration herein is the question of just and adequate compensation. Sri Sriman referred to Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others[1], wherein the Apex Court held that the compensation should be the pecuniary loss to the dependents by the death of a person concerned and while calculating the same, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss due to the abrupt termination of life. The Apex Court pointed out that the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount, which the deceased was spending for the dependents, are the basic determinative factors and the resultant figure should then be multiplied by a multiplier. Taking into consideration the imponderables in life, etc., the contribution towards the expenses of the family was held to be in proportion to one’s earning capacity. The fact that an unmarried deceased would have married and raised family after attaining the marriageable age on which his monthly contribution to the parents would have been cut down, was also taken into account in that particular case, while awarding just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. While the principles so stated are unexceptionable, Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellants drew attention t o B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union[2] about the manner in which such assessment of compensation is made in such cases. The Division Bench was dealing with the death of a final year B.E. computers student and the claim of his mother for compensation. The Division Bench observed that while no amount of money can compensate the loss of life, the Tribunal should award just and reasonable compensation to place the parents or wife or children of the deceased in the same position in which they would have lived had the deceased not died in the accident. Referring to various precedents on this aspect, achievement of substantial justice irrespective of technicalities and procedures was stated to be the desired objective and while noting that guess work becomes inevitable in determining the income of the students who were about to complete their courses of study, the Division Bench observed that though it cannot be definitely ascertained about what the deceased in such cases would have earned or would have contributed to the dependents or what employment would they have got, it would be rational to say that the deceased would have got employed basing upon his qualifications like similarly situated contemporaries. The Division Bench, therefore, considered that apart from taking the minimum wages fixed by the relevant statute in respect of workmen and employees, it can be considered that the minimum salary of a technical person, who is holding a Bachelor Degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month and the Division Bench directed that the income of such graduates cannot be fixed at less than Rs.12,000/- per month, as otherwise it amounts to neglecting the ground reality. The Division Bench also directed that 10 per cent per year can be deducted out of such notional income in respect of the students studying III year or II year, as the case may be. If the scale of income adopted as of now by the Division Bench were to be taken as the basis for assessment of the compensation in the present case, the deceased, a III year student of mechanical engineering, has to be computed to be possibly earning Rs.9,600/- per month, if 20 per cent of the notional income of Rs.12,000/- were to be deducted, as he is only a III year student. The appropriate multiplier applicable to a person of the age of 42 years i.e. mother of the deceased is stated to be 14 as per Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[3]. If so, the approximate loss of dependency would come to more than Rs.8,00,000/-. The parents are also entitled to all other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, but the Tribunal awarded in the impugned award only Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and no other damages. Sri Sriman, learned standing counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that the scale of income adopted by the Division Bench as of now could not have been applied to the accident and the claim arising in 1998, which may be true, but even if 25 per cent of the probable income and the assessed compensation were to be reduced from the assessed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on the present scale, the same would come to Rs.6,00,000/-, which was the compensation claimed by the parents. While it is true that had the deceased continued to live and had he been married, his contribution to the parents might have been reduced to the extent of his own family responsibilities, but given the facts disclosed by the evidence on record about the manner in which the parents got the deceased educated by selling away even the meagre agricultural land which they own and by depriving their second son of any education, in the ordinary and natural course of human events, it can be presumed that the academically brilliant deceased would not have cared less for the parents even after the marriage and it should also be taken into account that any possible or even more probable prospects in career for the deceased have also not been taken into account while arriving at the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. A cumulative effect of all the above facts and circumstances should lead to the conclusion that the grant of compensation as claimed by the parents alone would be awarding just and adequate compensation on the facts of the case. Of course, as the owner of the Jeep and the insurer are also jointly and severally liable to pay interest for the entire period spread over more than 12 years, it would be in the interests of justice to restrict such interest to 6 per cent per annum, while costs on the enhanced portion of the compensation also should have to follow suit. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellants desired that the compensation higher than that claimed in the appeal also can be considered to be awarded in the light of the Division Bench decision, but in view of the principles laid down with reference to the present social and economic situation being applied to an accident that occurred 12 years earlier, the relief is better confined to the claim made before the Tribunal and this Court valuing the claim and the appeal at Rs.6,00,000/- only. Accordingly, the award in M.V.O.P. No.752 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 29-03-2001 is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.2,14,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fourteen thousand only) with interest at 6 per cent per annum thereon from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and there need be no direction at this distance of time about the disbursement of the compensation. The appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 09-09-2010 Svv [1] (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 242 [2] 2009 (6) ALT 784 (D.B.) [3] 2009 ACJ 1298