HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1272 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants / petitioners questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the decree and order dated 21.11.2006 in MVOP.No.960 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.
2. The claim petition is filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one Pandiri Sailu/deceased in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 10.04.2002. The petitioners are the wife, minor son and mother of the deceased.
3. The appellants / petitioners' case in brief is that on 10.04.2002 at about 05:30 p.m. when Sailu/ deceased was proceeding towards his agricultural fields on his bi-cycle and when he reached Kothabai Panadi, a Tractor bearing Registration No.AP-25-F-5073 (the Tractor) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the bi-cycle, as a result, the Sailu/deceased suffered fatal injuries and died instantaneously. Thereupon, the dependants of the deceased filed the claim petition.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and the material placed on record, awarded Rs.2,15,000/- with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization as compensation and held both the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same.
NTR,J
::2:: macma_1272_2007
5. Aggrieved by the awarded compensation, the appellants / petitioners filed the present Appeal on the following grounds, viz., :
(i) that the Tribunal erroneously rejected the petitioners' claim that the Sailu/ deceased was aged about 32 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m., and granted meager amount towards 'Loss of Dependency'; and
(ii) that future prospects of income is not considered.
(iii) The Tribunal granted paltry amounts under conventional heads.
6. Therefore, the aspects need determination is: "whether the awarded compensation amount is just and proper?".
7. For the assessment of 'loss of dependency', the factors to be considered are age, occupation and income. The appellants / petitioners claimed the age of Sailu/ deceased as 32 years. But, no supporting material is filed. The Tribunal, on relying on the entries in to Post Mortem Examination Report / Ex.A.3, the Inquest Report / Ex.A.4 decided that the age of the deceased /Sailu as 35 years by the date of occurrance. Except raising objection, the appellants / petitioners did not point out any valid reason to take a different view. Therefore, the conclusion of the tribunal on this aspect deserves to be confirmed.
8. With regard to the occupation and income, the appellants / petitioners claimed that Sailu/ deceased was not only an agriculturalist, but was also into business. Per contra, the insurer produced a certificate/Ex.B2 issued by the Sarpanch of Chillargi Village stating that the deceased was a 'Coolie', and used to earn Rs.50/- per day. The appellants / petitioners failed to place any NTR,J ::3:: macma_1272_2007 other convincing material reflecting the pleaded occupations. The tribunal by relying on Ex.B.2 has taken Rs.1500/- as monthly income. However, considering the claimed occupation of Sailu/ deceased and the wages of the manual labout at relevant time, the monthly income can safely be taken at Rs.3,000/- and the annual income would be Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/-.
9. In addition, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.1, held that the future prospects of income of the deceased even for the self employed shall be included while assessing the loss of dependency at 40%, if the deceased is below 40 years. In this case, as the age of the deceased was below 40 years, 40% of income shall be included towards future prospects. Thus, the annual income would be Rs.50,400/-( Rs.36,000 + Rs.14,400/-(40% of Rs.36,000/-)).
10. In Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 2 , it is held that where the dependents are more than 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure. The petitioners, who are wife, minor son and the mother of the deceased can be considered as dependents. As such 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.50,400 - Rs.16,800 (1/3rd of Rs.50,400/-) = Rs.33,600/-. In effect, the contribution of Sailu/ deceased to the dependents would be Rs.33,600/- per annum.
11. For the relevant age of Sailu/ deceased, the multiplier prescribed as per the authority of Sarla Verma (2 supra) is '16'. The annual contribution of Sailu/deceased if multiplied with the relevant multiplier, the total would come 1 (2017) 16 SCC 860 2 ACJ 2013 Page 1409 NTR,J ::4:: macma_1272_2007 to Rs.5,37,600/-( Rs.33,600 x 16). This amount shall be awarded as compensation to the appellants / petitioners towards 'Loss of Dependency'.
12. In addition, 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 as spousal consortium.
13. Further, 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.3, in the decision 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.
14. Duly, the 2nd appellant / 2nd petitioner is entitled to parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- and the 3rd appellant / 3rd petitioner is entitled for filial consortium of Rs.40,000/-.
15. Thus, in total, the amounts awarded under various heads are as follows :
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.) Loss of Dependency 5,37,600.00 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 Funeral Charges 15,000.00 Spousal Consortium to 1st appellant / 40,000.00 1st petitioner 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::5:: macma_1272_2007 Parental Consortium to 2nd appellant / 40,000.00 2nd petitioner Filial Consortium to 3rd appellant / 3rd 40,000.00 petitioner TOTAL 6,87,600.00
16. 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% p.a., from the date of petition till date of realization;
(ii) the apportionment of awarded compensation among the appellants/petitioners and the permission to withdrawals shall be in terms of the tribunal awarded.
(iii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(iv) the appellants/petitioners are directed to pay the court Fee on the enhanced compensation amount;
(v) 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: 17.11.2021 Ndr