In a recent judgment dated July 18, 2024, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay, delivered a significant ruling in Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3420 of 2014. The appeal was filed by T. Savithramma and four others (Appellants) against K. Venkateswarlu and two others (Respondents) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award passed by the Principal District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.706 of 2011.
Background of the Case:
The case arose from a tragic motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 15, 2011, on NH-7 near Sompauram village bus stop, Dhone Mandal. The accident resulted in the death of Sri T. Venkata Narayana, a Class-1 contractor and agriculturist. The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, sought compensation of โน1,20,00,000/- against the previous and subsequent owners and the insurer of the offending Bolero vehicle.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded a compensation of โน54,90,000/-, which the appellants deemed insufficient. They contended that the tribunal had erroneously determined the age of the deceased as 46 years instead of 45 and had disregarded significant income evidence, leading to an undervaluation of the compensation.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Age Determination: The appellants argued that the deceased’s age was 45 years, supported by his SSC Certificate, and challenged the tribunal’s reliance on the post-mortem report, which inaccurately determined the age as 46 years.
2. Assessment of Income: The appellants submitted income tax returns (Exs.A6 to A9) to prove the deceased’s annual income. The tribunal, however, only considered Exs.A6 and A7 (filed during the deceased’s lifetime) and disregarded Exs.A8 and A9 (filed posthumously), citing potential exaggeration.
3. Quantum of Compensation: The appellants asserted that the compensation awarded was not just and sought a reassessment based on the correct determination of age and income.
Courtโs Observations and Decision:
The High Court, after examining the evidence, concurred with the appellants’ submissions:
1. Age Determination: The court held that the SSC Certificate, which recorded the deceasedโs birth date as June 1, 1966, should have been the primary evidence for determining age, making the deceased 45 years old at the time of the accident. The court criticized the tribunal for relying on the post-mortem report, stating that it could not be considered conclusive in the presence of official records like the SSC Certificate.
2. Assessment of Income: The court found the tribunalโs refusal to consider Exs.A8 and A9 (Income Tax Returns) unsustainable. The court emphasized that these documents, accepted by the Income Tax Department, were reliable and should have been used to determine the deceasedโs income. The court noted that the tribunalโs apprehension of exaggerated income was without foundation, especially when the TDS was deducted during the deceased’s lifetime.
3. Enhanced Compensation: Based on a corrected average annual income of โน7,77,247/- (including agricultural income and supervisory charges), the court applied a multiplier of 14, added 30% for future prospects, and awarded a total compensation of โน1,08,85,424/-. The compensation under conventional heads was also revised with a 20% increase as per the guidelines laid down in previous judgments.
Also Read
The court directed the respondents to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within two months, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
