MACT Erred In Not Labelling Major Sons Of Deceased As 'Dependants': Andhra Pradesh HC Enhances Compensation In Motor Accident Claims Case

The Bench of Justice AV Ravindra Babu observed, “The finding of the tribunal is that petitioners 2 and 3 are major sons of the deceased, as such, they cannot be labelled as dependants. The addresses of the petitioners 1 to 3 are in one house. They are kith and kin of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 is not at all challenged by suggesting anything in cross examination that the petitioners 2 and 3 are earning their own income as on the date of death of deceased or even subsequent thereto. The evidence of P.W.1 is that he joined as a store assistant in a medical store and he is getting meagre income...The evidence on record amply proves the fact that apart from the first petitioner, who is wife of deceased, petitioners 2 and 3, who are sons of deceased and who are residing along with deceased, are also dependants. Of course, it is a matter of discretion of the tribunal to make reasonable apportionment of compensation in the given situation. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the tribunal erred in deducting half of the probable income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and proper deduction should be one-third because the petitioners are three in number.”

Advocate Sri Gangadhar Chamarty appeared for the Appellants while SC Vinod Kumar Tarlada appeared for the APSRTC.

The Deceased, who was the sole earning member in the family, died as the Respondent-driver was driving in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, without following any traffic rules. The Appellants are dependants and the family members of the deceased who challenged the award passed by the MACT wherein a sum of Rs.15,32,500/- towards compensation and apportioned as Rs.10,32,500/- to the first Appellant and Rs.2,50,000/- each to the Appellants 2 and 3 was awarded.

The Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, upheld the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the Respondent-driver of the offending vehicle.

On the issue of the quantum of compensation, the Court held, “Now, coming to the status of the petitioners 2 and 3, they are in better footing than sister or brother of the deceased. They are no other than the sons of the deceased, who are aged about 24 years and 23 years respectively. When P.W.1 testified that on account of death of their father, they are not able to continue the agricultural operations or business or milk selling, no contra theory is suggested on behalf of the contesting second respondent. The second respondent did not probablize any theory that either as on the date of death of deceased or subsequent thereto petitioners 2 and 3 were having their independent income.”

After calculating the income of the Deceased, the Court concluded that the Appellants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 20,20,000/- and as the first Appellant is a wife, the major portion of the compensation would be given to her in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal filed by the family of the deceased and enhanced the compensation from Rs.15,32,500/- to Rs.20,20,000/- and by apportioning the quantum of compensation as Rs.14,20,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs. 3,00,000/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3. The Court also directed APSRTC to deposit the difference amount of Rs.4,87,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit within one month.

Cause Title: Mukula Vara Lakshmi and ors. v. Bhumi Naga Satyanarayana and ors.

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocate Sri Gangadhar Chamarty

Respondents: SC Vinod Kumar Tarlada, for APSRTC

Click here to read/download the Judgment