THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2493 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Order dated 28.02.2013 in O.P.No.721 of 2010 passed by the learned I - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The petition vide O.P.No.728 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Vannam Kishore, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.09.2009. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.5,79,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferred the present appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.09.2009, the deceased V.Kishore, was proceeding on a bike along with pillion rider M.Naresh, to his residence at Chowtuppal from his work place in Lingojiguda and when he reached outskirts of Lingogiguda, a mini lorry bearing No.AP 24 X 9360 came from 2 opposite direction and dashed them by crossing the middle line of the road. As a result, the pillion rider M.Naresh died on the spot and the rider V.Kishore sustained fracture to head bone and he succumbed to injuries while he was shifting to hospital. The police registered a case in Cr.No.268 of 2009 and filed a copy of the inquest under Ex.A2 and a copy of the Charge sheet under Ex.A5.
4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.
5. As the present appeal is preferred only against the quantum of compensation granted by the trial Court, the issue regarding rash and negligence of the rider of the vehicle need not be gone into.
6. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 on behalf of the petitioners and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the respondents.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that though they got examined the employer of the deceased as P.W.3 and also filed Ex.A6 salary certificate to show that 3 deceased was earning Rs.6,500/- per month, the trial Court without assigning any reasons taken his salary as Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, requested this Court to take his salary as Rs.6,500/- per month.
8. Considering the evidence of P.W.3 and also the salary certificate filed under Ex.A6, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take the salary of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- as on the date of incident and thus the annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.78,000/- (Rs.6,500/- X 12 = Rs.78,000/-).
9. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1 if the deceased was married, 1/3rd of his income has to be deducted as there are 3 dependents i.e., 26,000/- towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would comes to Rs.52,000/- per annum (Rs.78,000/- - Rs.26,000/- = Rs.52,000/-) and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, held that the future 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 prospects of the income of the self-employed deceased shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e., 24 years, 40% of the income i.e., Rs.20,800/- has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.72,800/- (Rs.52,000 + Rs.20,800 = Rs.72,800). This sum if multiplied with the multiplier 18, as applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.24, it would comes to Rs.13,10,400/- (Rs.72,800 X 18 = Rs.13,10,400/-). Thus, appellants No.1 to 3 are entitled to Rs.13,10,400/- under the head 'Loss of Dependency'.
10. Besides, appellants No.1 to 3 are also entitled for compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges and Rs.40,000/- to the first appellant towards spousal consortium.
11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the authority of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. 5 Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others 3, and in the authority between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 4, fortified that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children 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. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.2 towards parental consortium and Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.3 towards filial consortium.
12. Therefore, appellants No.1 to 3 are entitled for the compensation amount in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,10,400/-
2. Conventional heads Rs.70,000/-
3. Parental consortium for children Rs.40,000/-
3. Filial Consortium for parents Rs.40,000/-
TOTAL Rs.14,60,400/-
3
(2018) 18 SCC 130
4
(2020) 9 SCC 644
6
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.5,79,000/- to Rs.14,60,400/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs Sixty thousand Four hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Though, Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of this Judgment. Appellant No.4 is a married sister and not dependent on the deceased, as such she is not entitled for any compensation. On such deposit, appellant No.3 i.e., mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.4,00,000/-. As the appellant No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased aged about 3 years at the time of filing the appeal, out of the remaining compensation, Rs.5,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of minor daughter in any nationalized bank till she attains the age of majority and the appellant No.1 i.e, the mother of the appellant No.2 is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on fixed deposit once in six months to meet out day to day needs of the minor child and she is also permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount along with interest accrued on it. 7 The appellants are also directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 03.11.2023 tri 8 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A No. 2493 of 2013 DATE: 03.11.2023 TRI