HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.4133 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied by the awarded compensation, the claimants / petitioners filed this Appeal against the decree and award dt.27.01.2007 passed in MVOP.No.676 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Somaiah / deceased in a motor accident dt.14.02.2005. The claim petitioners herein are wife and daughters of Somaiah / deceased.
3. During pendency of this Appeal, the appellants / petitioners filed petition seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- vide MACMA.MP.No.4388 of 2015, and the same was ordered on 15.11.2017.
4. The appellants / petitioners' case in brief is that on 14.02.2005 while Somaiah / deceased was walking on the road, a Santro Car bearing Registration No.AP-09-AN-2116 (the car) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner struck and knocked him down. As a result he suffered severe injuries, and was shifted to hospital, but while NTR,J ::2:: macma_4133_2008 undergoing treatment, succumbed to injuries. Thereupon, pleading loss of dependency, petition is filed claiming compensation.
5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, awarded Rs.3,74,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, and held both respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
6. In dissent of the granted compensation amount, the appellants / petitioners contested that the Tribunal ought to have considered the Salary Certificate / Ex.A.7 and the supporting oral evidence of PW.s 2 and 3 and should have taken Rs.8,000/- as monthly salary; and that the Tribunal erred in applying appropriate multiplier and no amounts were granted under heads of 'transportation to Hospital', 'Medical Expenditure' and 'Damage to Clothing', and that a meager amount was awarded towards 'Funeral Charges'.
7. Thus, the point arises for determination is "whether the awarded compensation is just and reasonable?".
8. The appellants / petitioners further claimed that Somaiah / deceased by the date of accident was aged 44 years and was working as Head Cook at SSR Bar and Restaurant in Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal after considering the Inquest Report / Ex.A.3 and Post Mortem Report / Ex.A.4, has taken the age of Somaiah / deceased as 50 years. As there is no other material to NTR,J ::3:: macma_4133_2008 prove the age, the conclusion of the Tribunal on this aspect is found justified.
9. The evidence of PW.1 / daughter of K. Somaiah / deceased and the statements of Srinivas / PW.2 and Mohd. Mansoor @ Younis / PW.3 are consistent as regards Somaiah / deceased was a Head Cook in the SSR Bar and Restaurant, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. To prove this fact, the Salary Certificate / Ex.A.7 was filed, but the document was not proved by examining its author. The PWs.2 and 3 (steward and cook respectively, in the restaurant) claimed that their salary is at Rs.5,000/- per month, and Somaiah / deceased used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month. But, except oral statement no substantiating proof is filed to show that they are working in that restaurant and earning monthly income as stated. The Tribunal, has believed monthly income of Somaiah / deceased at Rs.4,000/-. Considering these aspects, and as there is no evidence establishing the income, the determination of monthly income at Rs.4,000/- appears to be just and could not be faulted. Accordingly, the annual income of Somaiah / deceased would be Rs.48,000/- per annum.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others.1 held that in computing the loss of dependency the future prospects of income of a self-employed 50 year-old deceased 25% of the income shall be included. Accordingly, 1 (2017) 16 SCC 860 NTR,J ::4:: macma_4133_2008 25% future prospects of income shall be added. If the amount is valued, the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/-.
11. In the authority of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the dependents are 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards personal consumption 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 Somaiah / deceased shall be deducted towards his living expenses. Consequently, the contribution of the deceased to the appellants/petitioners would be Rs.48,000/- (1/3 of Rs.60,000/-).
12. For the relevant age of Somaiah / deceased, the multiplier prescribed in Sarla Verma's case (3 supra) is '13'. If the annual contribution is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, the total comes to Rs.5,20,000/-, i.e., (Rs.40,000 x 13). This amount is 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 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.
2
ACJ 2013 Page 1409
NTR,J
::5:: macma_4133_2008
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.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, '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 to the appellants / petitioners under various heads stands modified as under :
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.) Loss of Dependency 5,20,000.00 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 Funeral Charges 15,000.00 Spousal Consortium to 1st appellant / 40,000.00 petitioner Parental Consortium to appellant / petitioner 80,000.00
nos.2 and 3, i.e., Rs.40,000 each (Rs.40,000 x 2) TOTAL 6,70,000.00
17. The Appeal is allowed as above in the following terms : 3
(2018) 18 SCC 130 4 Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::6:: macma_4133_2008
(i) the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.6,70,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs from the date of petition till date of realization;
(ii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(iii) the ratio of apportionment of amounts among the petitioners and the permission to withdrawals shall be in terms of the Tribunal Award; and
(iv) the amounts already paid by respondents to appellants/ petitioners earlier towards the awarded amounts shall be given credit to.
18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 23.11.2021 Ndr