THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1052 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Discontented by the awarded compensation, the claimants / petitioners filed this appeal challenging the decree and order dt.25.10.2013 passed in MVOP.No.547 of 2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), at Medak.
2. On the death of one Baburao / deceased in a motor accident dt.13.01.2012, his wife, daughter and parents filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
3. The case of appellants / petitioners is that on 13.01.2012, when Baburao / deceased was proceeding on a scooty bearing Registration No.AP-I-D-5934 (the 'scooty') to Jogipet to take photographs at Sangupet Village gate, a TATA ACE goods auto bearing registration No. AP-28-TA-1520 (crime vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and struck the scooty and knocked down Baburao / deceased, which resulted in grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, the injured was removed to Government Hospital, Jogipet. There, while undergoing treatment, succumbed to injuries. The Jogipet Police registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2012 and charge-sheeted the driver of the crime vehicle.
NTR,J
::2:: macma_1052_2015
Thereupon, the appellants / petitioners filed the petition seeking compensation.
4. After enquiry, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, and held the respondents liable to pay compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the appellants / petitioners filed this appeal for the following grounds :
(i) that the Tribunal failed to properly assess the income of the deceased, and the future prospects of income is not considered;
(ii) that the Tribunal erred in choosing proper multiplier in determining loss of dependency;
(iii) that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses as the dependants are four in number;
(iv) no amounts are granted under conventional heads; and
(v) that all the petitioners are entitled for consortium.
6. The 2nd respondent / insurer pleaded that the Tribunal properly considered the material on record, arrived at appropriate conclusions and granted just compensation.
NTR,J
::3:: macma_1052_2015
7. Thus, the facts of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the accident, death of Baburao / deceased in the accident and liability of the 2nd and 3rd respondents are not in dispute. Therefore, the point remains for determination is "whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants / petitioners is just and proper?".
8. The basic aspects required for determination of compensation in the cases of death of a person in a motor accident are the age, occupation and income of the deceased.
9. In the present case, the appellants / petitioners claimed that Babu Rao / deceased was aged about 24 years. No separate document was placed in support the the claimed age. In the situation, the Tribunal by relying on the entries in Inquest Report / Ex.A.2, post-mortem examination report / Ex.A.3 and taken the age of the Baburao / deceased at 25 years. This supposition is reasonable and acceptable.
10. The appellants / petitioners pleaded that the deceased was into out-door photography business and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and again there is confirmational material. However, in the Charge- Sheet / Ex.A.6, Scene Observation Report / Ex.A.4, the occupation of the deceased / Babu Rao is referred to as 'out-door photographer'. As these documents are prepared by the Police during the investigation proceedings and corroborating with the appellants / petitioners' claim, NTR,J ::4:: macma_1052_2015 the occupation of the petitioner can be believed as 'out-door photographer'.
11. With regard to the monthly earnings of Rs.20,000/- p.m. of the deceased / Baburao, it is not the case of appellants / petitioners that the deceased / Baburao was running a particular business place. Therefore, he is a freelancer and will attend photography only on assignments. Having regard to this aspect, and the possible professional opportunities in a village, an average income of Rs.4,000/- per month can safely be taken and the annual income at Rs.48,000/-.
12. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that future prospects of income of the self-employed shall be considered in determining compensation and for the age below (40) years, 40% of the income of the deceased has to be added as towards future prospects. In this case, as Baburao / deceased is aged 25 years and is self-employed, as such, 40% of the monthly income shall be added towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.1,600/- per month, and Rs.19,200/- per annum. Therefore, gross annual income including the future prospects of income of Baburao / deceased would be Rs.67,200/- per annum.
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NTR,J
::5:: macma_1052_2015
13. In Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there are 4 to 6 dependents, 1/4th of the total income is to be deducted towards personal consumption.
14. In the present case, the appellants / petitioners are wife, minor daughter and old aged parents of the deceased and they can be held as dependents. As such, 1/4th of total income shall be deducted towards personal consumption and remaining would be the annual contribution to his family / claimants. Accordingly, (1/4th of Rs.67,200) = Rs.16,800/-. Therefore, Rs.16,800/- shall be deducted from the annual income of Rs.67,200/-. Thus, the annual contribution of Baburao / deceased to the appellant / petitioners is Rs.50,400/-.
15. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier 17 for the age of 25 years based on Schedule II of the M.V. Act. As the petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier prescribed in the authority of Sarla Verma (2 supra) is applicable. The deceased was aged 25 years by the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier stipulated for the age group 20 to 25 years is 18. And the same shall be employed for assessing compensation.
16. For assessing the loss of dependency, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family is to be multiplied with appropriate multiplier. Correspondingly, if the above arrived values are multiplied, i.e., Rs.50,400/- x 18, it comes to Rs.9,07,200/-. This amount shall be 2 ACJ 2013 Page 1409 NTR,J ::6:: macma_1052_2015 awarded to the appellants / petitioners as compenation for loss of dependency.
17. Besides, under conventional heads, the appellants / petitioners are entitled for compensation as prescribed in the dictum of Pranay Sethi (1 supra), i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges; and Rs.40,000/- to 1st appellant / 1st petitioner towards spousal consortium.
18. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to 'consortium' given in the authority of Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors.3, in the authority between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others4 fortified, that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the child who lose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children. Further, held that compensation can be awarded only for loss of consortium and not for loss of love and affection.
19. Accordingly, Rs.40,000/- is awarded to 2nd appellant / 2nd petitioner towards parental consortium; and Rs.40,000/- each to 3rd and 4th appellants/ petitioners as Filial Consortium. 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::7:: macma_1052_2015
20. Therefore, the compensation is awarded to the appellants / petitioners in the following terms, viz., :
(i) Loss of dependency : Rs.9,07,200/-
(ii) Loss of Estate : Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Parental Consortium : Rs.40,000/-
(v) Filial Consortium to
3rd and 4th appellants / petitioners
@ Rs.40,000/- each : Rs.80,000/-
=============
TOTAL : 10,57,200/-
=============
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs as following :
(i) the appellants / petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.10,57,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs from the date of petition till realization;
(ii) the 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation;
(iii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest within one (1) month from the date of receipt of copy of the order;
(iv) on deposit of the enhanced amount with interest, the appellants / petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire amounts as apportioned and directed by the Tribunal;
NTR,J ::8:: macma_1052_2015
(v) the appellants / petitioners shall pay Court Fee for the enhanced amount of compensation.
22. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.
____________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 10.11.2021 Ndr