NANDIPATI ARUNA KUMATRI Vs. ANDHRA BANK KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants who are the widow, children and parents of Narayana Reddy (the deceased), aged about 40years and drawing about Rs.5,000/- p.m. as salary as an officer in the 1st respondent-bank, who died in a motor vehicles accident that occurred on 2.6.1992 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of jeep bearing No. ADQ 3353 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, have filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, from the respondents. First respondent filed its counter contending that since the jeep involved in the accident was insured with the second respondent, second respondent alone has to pay the compensation payable, and that the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive.Second respondent filed a counter putting the appellants to proof of the allegations in the petition.

(2.) In support of their case, appellants examined the first appellant as P.W.1 and an officer of the bank, who was traveling in the jeep along with the deceased at the time of accident, as P.W.2 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A11. No evidence either or documentary was adduced on behalf of the first respondent. Second respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but marked Ex.B1 by consent. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and that the appellants are entitled to Rs.5,33,400/- as compensation from the respondent. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them, claimants preferred this appeal.

(3.) Since this is an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and since the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep has become final, the only point for consideration in this appeal is to what compensation are the appellants entitled to? The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal was in error in not keeping in view the increments the deceased would have earned while fixing the compensation as per the ratio in Y.SIVA RAMA SASTRY AND ORS. VS. NAYEEM KHAN AND ORS. and since the evidence of P.W.2 shows that the deceased would have earned Rs.15,000/- per month as Gr. II Officer, the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.15,000/- per month as the salary of the deceased for arriving at the compensation payable to the appellant. It is his contention that in view of GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SUSAMMA THOMAS AND ORS., first appellant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and relying on SUSHEELA AND ORS. VS. AHMAD BI AND OTHERS and A.P.S.R.T.C. HYDERABAD VS. G.JANA BAI AND OTHERS he contends that the appellants are entitled to more compensation than that was awarded by the Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, in view of the ratio in ASHA AND OTHERS VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, the Tribunal by deducing one third of the pay should take two third of net pay received by the deceased, as the contribution to the family and so questioning of taking future increments into consideration does not arise and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Ex. A11 is the salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Manager of the first respondent bank of Nandyal which shows that the deceased drew Rs.5,061.25 ps. as salary for the month of May 1992 i.e. Rs.2,500/- towards basic pay Rs.2201-45 ps towards D.A., Rs.210/- towards H.R.A. and Rs.139/- towards special pay and other allowances, but does not disclose the scale of pay of the deceased. It is no doubt true that P.W.2 stated that the deceased would have reached Scale II by the date of his retirement and the salary of the Scale II officer is Rs.15,000/-.Except the Ipsi Dixit of P.W.2 there is no documentary evidence relating to the scale of pay of Scale II Officer in the first respondent Bank.Since just compensation has to be awarded to the claimants in motor vehicle accident cases, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. That is the reason why the salary on the date of retirement was taken into consideration in some cases. Nobody can precisely say or predict what would happen to a man in service. So many unexpected events could take place. Because of strain of work an employee may fall sick, or some times he may be involved in disciplinary proceedings and get removed or dismissed, or for his own reasons he may resign. So it cannot certainly, or positively, be said that all employees would be able reach the maximum scale of pay by the date of their retirement. To avoid such guess work only multiplier method is being followed for awarding compensation, by taking into consideration the contribution of the deceased to the claimants. Since human life is so uncertain and since there is no guarantee that all the employees would be able to reach the maximum scale in the hierarchy, and since officers in Bank and government service tend to spend more amount for their own luxuries, as they go up the ladder, and their contribution to the family, in spite of increments would, many a time, remain static, in cases of death of an officer in an accident the contribution of the victim as on the date of his death would normally be taken as the guide for arriving at the pecuniary damages, as held in Asha case (5 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for second respondent, where two thirds of the net pay of the victim was taken as the basis for fixing compensation payable to the claimants. Since the deceased was drawing Rs.5061-25 ps at the time of his death, one third thereof comes to Rs.1,687/- and so the contribution of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,374-00 by the Tribunal. Since the deceased would have earned increments, I take the average contribution of the deceased to the appellants as Rs.3,450/- per month or Rs.41,400/- per year.Since the deceased completed 39 years of age by the time of his death the multiplier can be taken as 13. So the pecuniary damages payable to the appellants come to Rs.41,400/- x 13 = Rs.5,38,200/-. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, in view of the ratio in Sushamma Thomas case (2 supra), first appellant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In Y.Varalakshmi Vs. M.Nageswara Rao it is held that in as cases of fatal accidents, a minimum compensation of Rs.15,000/- has to be awarded to the claimants towards non pecuniary damages such as loss of estate, pain and suffering etc., In this case, the Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Keeping in view the salary and status of the deceased Rs.30,000/- would be a reasonable amount of compensation to the appellants towards non pecuniary damages.