HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1331 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants / petitioners preferred this appeal challenging the decree and order dated 16.02.2015 in MVOP.No.1442 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The claim petition is filed claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of B. Mallesham / deceased in a motor accident dated 11.02.2012. The petitioners are the deceased's wife and sons.
3. The appellants / petitioners case in brief is that, on 11.02.2012 when Mallesham/deceased was returning to Reddypalli on a motor-cycle bearing registration No.AP-23-T-9228 ('the motorcycle') at about 07:15 p.m., one tractor bearing Registration No.AP-7-L-9833 ('the tractor') driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor-cycle, as a result, the deceased / B. Mallesham slumped and suffered serious injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment succumbed to injuries on 12.02.2012. Thereafter, a case was registered by the Police in Crime No.17 of 2012 of Narsapur Police Station under Section 304 of I.P.C., and a charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the Tractor. The appellants / petitioners pleading loss of dependency, filed the claim petition.
NTR,J
::2:: macma_1331_2015
4. The Tribunal, after evaluating the material on record, awarded compensation amount of Rs.7,66,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum by holding both the respondents jointly and severally liable.
5. Displeased by the compensation amount, the appellants/ petitioners preferred this appeal contending that the tribunal should have taken as Rs.5,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and the future prospectus is not considered and failed to apply appropriate multiplier while granting compensation for loss of dependency.
6. The 2nd respondent refuted the claim and contended that the Tribunal properly considered the material on record and appositely awarded compensation, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Thus, the issue needs examination is : "whether the Tribunal awarded just compensation?".
8. In assessment of 'loss of dependency', the factors to be considered are the age, occupation and income. The appellants / petitioners claimed that by the date of accident, Mallesham / deceased was aged about 45 years, and the Tribunal also accepted the same. This aspect is not in dispute, thus confirmed. 9.1 The appellants / petitioners claimed that Mallesham / deceased was into agricultural and milk selling business and used to earn around Rs.9,000/- per month. Except the selfserving oral claim, no material is filed to substantiate the actual monthly earnings of Mallesham / deceased. The Tribunal by considering the situation, believed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,500/- per month. The appellants / petitioners did not refer to any element which is not considered by the Tribunal, other than pleading that for a vegetable NTR,J ::3:: macma_1331_2015 vendor, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq and others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited1 has taken Rs.6,500/- as monthly income.
9.2 In the FIR / Ex.A.1 and Charge-Sheet / Ex.A.2, the occupation of the deceased is shown as agriculture and no details muchless material is filed by the appellants/petitioners to substantiate the claimed business. Further, the income is question of fact and subjective and the occupation and business depends on several constituents like resources, productivity, organization, market, population, occupational and income distribution of particular locality and so on. When the claimants fails to place particulars, in the interest of justice, the tribunal has to make guess work having regard to the elements that influence the income against the claimed occupation. In the present case, on considering the circumstances and inabsence of any reason, the monthly income arrived at by the tribunal at Rs.5,500/- found reasonable.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others.2 held that in computing the loss of dependency the future prospects of income of a self-employed deceased shall be added and for the age of 40 to 50 years, 25% of the income shall be included. Accordingly, to the monthly income of Rs.5,500/-, 25% future prospects of income comes to Rs.1375/-. In effect,, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,875/- (Rs.5,500/- + Rs.1,375/-) and the annual income comes to Rs.82,500/- (Rs.6,875/- x 12).
1 (2014) 2 S.C.C. 735 2 (2017) 16 SCC 860 NTR,J ::4:: macma_1331_2015
11. In the authority of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the dependents are 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure and the rest would be the contribution of the deceased to the family. In this claim petition as the dependents are three in number, 1/3rd of annual income of the deceased Mallesham shall be deducted towards his living expenses. Consequently, the contribution of the deceased to the appellants/petitioners would be Rs.55,000/- per annum.
12. For the relevant age of the deceased Mallesham, the multiplier prescribed in Sarla Verma's case (3 supra) is '14'. If the annual contribution is multiplied with the relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased, the resulting figure shall be awarded as compensation for loss of dependency. After the due multiplication, the total comes to Rs.7,70,000/- (Rs.55,000/- x
14). This amount shall be awarded as compensation to the appellants/petitioners towards 'loss of dependency'.
13. This apart, as per the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (2 supra), the appellants / petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the conventional heads, viz., Rs.15,000 towards Loss of Estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges; and Rs.40,000/- to 1st appellant / petitioner towards loss of spousal consortium.
14. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to 'consortium' given in the authority of Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors.4, in the decision 3 ACJ 2013 Page 1409 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 NTR,J ::5:: macma_1331_2015 between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others5 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, 'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children.
15. Correspondingly, the appellants / petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each, totaling to Rs.80,000/-
16. Thus, in total, the amounts awarded under various heads are as follows :
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 7,70,000.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Spousal Consortium to 1st respondent 40,000.00
Parental Consortium to appellant / 80,000.00
petitioner nos.2 and 3, i.e., Rs.40,000
x 2 = Rs.80,000/-
TOTAL 9,20,000.00
17. The Appeal is allowed-in-part as follows:
(i) the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
the said amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs., from the date of petition till date of realization;
(ii) the apportionment among the appellants/petitioners and the permissions of withdrawals shall be in terms of the tribunal award.
iii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and 5 Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::6:: macma_1331_2015
(iv) The amounts paid by the respondents earlier towards the awarded amounts shall be given in credit;
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 16.11.2021 Ndr