THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1805 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri M.Madhava Reddy and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri T.Ramulu.
2. The claim petitioners filed this appeal challenging the decree and award dated 20.12.2006 in OP.No.76 of 2005 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. The claim petition was filed by the wife and daughter of Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased, on his death in vehicular accident dated 01.04.2004, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. The case of the appellants/petitioners (hereinafter 'the petitioners') is that on 01.04.2004, while Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased and his family members were traveling in a Tata Sumo (hereinafter "sumo car") bearing registration No.AP24U 6677 to Tirupati, at the place of accident, the driver of 2 NTR,J Macma_1805_2007 sumo car drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, dashed a stationed tractor, which resulted in severe injuries to all the inmates and the injured were removed to hospital for treatment, however, Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners pleading loss of dependency, filed the claim petition.
5. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, granted Rs.3,81,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the insured and insurer/1st and 2nd respondents.
6. In this appeal, the petitioners contested that though the learned Tribunal properly considered the income of Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased, erred in deducting 25% towards income tax. Further, future prospects were not taken into account and improper multiplier was applied. Further, conventional amounts were inadequately granted, hence prayed for reassessment.
7. The 2nd respondent/insurer (hereinafter 'the respondent') pleaded that all the aspects pleaded by the claimants were considered by the learned Tribunal and appropriate amounts 3 NTR,J Macma_1805_2007 were granted as compensation. The learned Tribunal rightly applied case laws at the relevant time, as such, no interference is necessary in the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the same.
8. In this position, the point arises for determination is:
"Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation ?".
9. It is to be noted that the involvement of the vehicle, accident, death of Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased and liability of respondents, fixed by the learned Tribunal are not in dispute. It is well settled position that in assessing compensation, the age, occupation and income of the deceased are the foundational factors.
10. The petitioners pleaded that Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased was aged 55 years and as Senior Assistant in ZP High School, used to earn Rs.14,387/- per month as salary. To substantiate the claim, Ex.A7/Photostat copy of service book, Ex.A6/salary certificate issued by the Head Master were produced. The learned Tribunal, by considering the entries in the above documents, believed the age of Kodanda 4 NTR,J Macma_1805_2007 Ramacharyulu/deceased as 57 years and monthly pay as Rs.14,387/-. Basing on these reliable documents, deducing these factors from the record are found acceptable.
11. In Sthe dictum of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that while assessing the income of the deceased for compensation, the gross salary minus income tax shall be taken as the income. In this position, the gross income of Rs.1,72,644/- per annum is taken into account and after deducting the income tax as per the tax slabs of the relevant year, the annual income can be taken as Rs.1,63,115/-.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2 held that in computing the loss of dependency, the future prospects of income of a person shall also be included. As the deceased was 57 years old by the date of accident, the future prospects at 15% shall be added to the income and it comes to Rs.1,87,582/-.
1 ACJ 2013 Page 1409 2 (2017) 16 SCC 860 5 NTR,J Macma_1805_2007
13. Furthermore, considering the number of dependents, 1/3rd of income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr (supra). Therefore, the annual contribution to the petitioners comes to Rs.1,25,055/- and if this amount is multiplied with appropriate multiplier to the age of Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased, the sum would be Rs.11,25,495/-(Rs.1,25,055 x 9). The petitioners are entitled for this amount under the head of 'Loss of Dependency'.
14. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of Pranay Sethi (supra) i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges, Rs.40,000/- to 1st petitioner towards spousal consortium.
15. 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.
3
(2018) 18 SCC 130
6 NTR,J
Macma_1805_2007
vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others4 reinforced that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children as parental consortium for the loss of the parental aid, protection, security, love and affection. Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium.
16. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts, viz., :
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 11,25,495.00
Loss of estate 15,000.00
Funeral charges 15,000.00
Spousal consortium to 1st petitioner 40,000.00
Parental Consortium to 2nd petitioner 40,000.00
TOTAL 12,35,495.00
17. For the aforesaid, the Appeal is allowed as follows:
(i) the respondents liable to pay Rs.12,35,495/- (Rupees twelve lakhs, thirty five thousand, four hundred and ninety five only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum with costs., from the date of petition till date of realization; 4
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 7 NTR,J Macma_1805_2007
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 apportionment among the petitioners shall be in terms of the tribunal award.
(iv) On deposit of the awarded amount, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire apportioned amount.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 08.07.2022 Shr