HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A. No.913 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants / petitioners preferred this appeal against the decree and order dt.20.05.2013 passed in MVOP.No.2547 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XIII Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Hyderabad.
2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.9 lakhs for the death of one Shaik Saleem/deceased in motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.07.2011. The claimants are wife, children and mother of the deceased.
3. The case of appellants / petitioners is that while the Shaik Saleem/deceased was proceeding in a DCM Van bearing Registration No.AP-09-W-4896 (the van) as driver and when the van reached BSNL Office Main Road, Chandanagar, one lorry bearing Registration No.KA- 39-5050 (the lorry) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner overtook the Van and suddenly stopped the vehicle. As a result, the Van rammed into the lorry and Saleem/deceased received severe fractures and injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. On 23.07.2011 while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to NTR,J ::2:: macma_913_2015 the injuries. Therefore, the claimants by pleading loss of dependency filed the claim petition
4. The Tribunal, after considering the material and evidence on record, granted Rs.8,25,000/- with 6% interest per annum. and held that both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants / petitioners filed the present Appeal on the following grounds, viz., :
(i) that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased / Shaik Saleem as 42 years as claimed;
(ii) that the Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of income of the deceased; and
(iii) that the multiplier applied and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is sparse.
6. The 2nd respondent / insurer submitted that the Tribunal generously granted the compensation by considering all aspects and hence no interference is required in this appeal.
7. As the involvement of vehicles, accident and death of the Saleem/deceased in the accident and the liability of the respondents are NTR,J ::3:: macma_913_2015 not in dispute, the issue remains for determination is "whether the awarded compensation is just and proper?".
8. With regard to the assessment of 'loss of dependency', the factors to be considered are age, occupation and income of the deceased person.
9. The appellants / petitioners claimed that the deceased / Shaik Saleem was aged about 42 years by the date of accident. No document or any independent proof is filed to establish this fact. The Tribunal after considering the entries in Inquest Report / Ex.A.2 and Post Mortem Examination Report / Ex.A.3, has taken the age of the deceased / Shaik Saleem as 50 years. In the absence of any other material, this conclusion of the Tribunal found appropriate.
10. Further, the appellants / petitioners claimed that the deceased / Shaik Saleem was driver of the Van by occupation and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. The Tribunal accepted these pleas and taken Rs.7,500/- as monthly income of the deceased / Shaik Saleem. Hence, there is no reason to disturb this finding.
11. Further, the Hon'ble Suprement Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.1, held that in assessing the compensation for loss of dependency for a self employed deceased, who is aged between 40 to 50, 25% of the income shall be added towards future prospects In the present case, the Saleem/ deceased was aged 50 1 (2017) 16 SCC 860 NTR,J ::4:: macma_913_2015 years by the date of accident, as such 25% of his monthly income shall be added towards future prospects. Correspondingly, the monthly income comes to Rs.9,375/- (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.1875/-) and the annual income comes to Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.9,375/- x 12).
12. As the claimants are wife, minor children and mother, they can be considered as dependents. In Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 2, the Apex Court held that when the dependents are 4 to 6 in number, 1/4th of the annual income is to be deducted towards personal expenditure and the remaining would be the contribution of the deceased to the family. Therefore, as the claimants dependents are five in number, after deducting ¼ of the income towards the personal expenses, reminder of Rs.84,375/- [Rs.1,12,500/- (-) Rs.28,125/-) shall be taken as the deceased's annual contribution to the family.
13. As per the Sarla Verma's case (2 supra), the relevant multiplier for the age of 50 years is '13'. To arrive at the quantum of loss of dependency, the annual income of the deceased is to be multiplied with the relevant multiplier. Accordingly, if calculated, the total comes to Rs.10,96,875/- (Rs.84,375/- x 13). The appellants/petitioners are entitled for this sum as compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'.
2
ACJ 2013 Page 1409
NTR,J
::5:: macma_913_2015
14. In addition, in confirmity with the directions in Pranay Sethi's case, (1st supra) the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the compensation, under the conventional heads, viz., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium to the 1st appellants/1st petitioner.
15. That apart, the Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others3 held 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, 'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children.
16. Duly, the appellants / petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 being children are granted Rs.40,000/- each, in total Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.40,000/- to the 5th appellant / petitioner as filial consortium.
17. Thus, in total, the amounts awarded under various heads are as follows :
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 10,97,875.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Spousal Consortium to 1st 40,000.00
respondent
Parental Consortium to appellant / 1,20,000.00
3
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::6:: macma_913_2015 petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4, i.e., Rs.40,000 x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/-
Filial Consortium to 5th appellant / 40,000.00
petitioner
TOTAL 13,27,000.00
18. The Appeal is allowed in the following terms, viz.,
(i) the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till date of realization;
(ii) the apportionment of compensation among the appellants/petitioners and the permissions to withdrawal shall be in terms of the tribunal award;
(iii) The amounts paid by the respondents earlier towards the awarded amounts shall be given in credit;
(iv) the respondents are directed to deposit the remaining amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(v) the appellants / petitioners shall pay the Court Fee on the enhanced compensation amounts.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 16.11.2021 Ndr