THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A. No.1245 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.09.2007 passed in O.P.No.455 of 2003 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal).
2. The brief facts of the case are that 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the son, 3rd petitioner is daughter and 4th petitioner is father of the deceased. The deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by attending to masonary work. On 16.06.2003 at about 08:00 PM while deceased was proceeding as pillion rider of the cycle of Hanumanthu near Madinaguda village, auto bearing No.AP-13-U-4756 came at high speed, rashly, negligently and dashed the cycle. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad but he succumbed to injuries on the same day at 09:45 PM. Due to sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners are suffering a lot. The loss which the petitioners sustained cannot be compensated in terms of money. At this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte. Further, respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the material averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 2
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,84,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.
5. Heard.
6. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Court below committed serious irregularity and illegality in awarding meager compensation of Rs.2,84,000/- as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation.
7. Further, as the occupation pleaded in part of unorganized sector, no proof of document can be expected. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court between Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in case of labourer, minimum wages can be taken as Rs.150/- per day". Though the deceased was stated to be worked as stone cutter at the time of accident but, since no cogent evidence is placed before the learned tribunal pertaining to his income proof, the learned tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- but, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, this Court feels that the minimum wage of the deceased at relevant period can safely be fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court is 1 (2011) 6 ALD 75 (SC) 3 inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at relevant period at Rs.4,500/-.
8. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in assessing the compensation for the death, future prospects shall be included. Accordingly, in view of the age and occupation of the deceased 40% of his income shall be considered towards future prospects.
9. As the petitioners being three in number as dependents of the deceased 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased, resultantly, the annual contribution of deceased inclusive of 40% of future prospects to the petitioners would be Rs.56,700/- {(Rs.4,725/- X 12 = Rs.56,700/-, inclusive of 40% future prospects). If this amount is multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 50, the sum comes to Rs.8,50,500/- (Rs.56,700/- x 15). The petitioner is entitled for this amount towards 'Loss of Dependency'.
10. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
11. 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. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 4 reinforced that the amounts for loss of 2 (2017) 16 SCC 860 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 4 consortium shall be awarded to the children as parental consortium for the loss of the parental aid, protection, security, love and affection and filial consortium to the parents for the loss of love and affection and companionship of their grown up children. Therefore, petitioner being the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards spousal consortium. The petitioner No.3 being the minor daughter of deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium. Lastly, petitioner No.4 being mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium.
12. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensation as follows:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 8,50,500.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Consortium 1,20,000.00
TOTAL 10,00,500.00
13. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A is disposed of by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,84,000/- to Rs.10,00,500/- (Rupees ten lakhs five hundred only). The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization. The owner and insurer/respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as they are directed to deposit the awarded amount by setting of the amounts if any, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On deposit of the awarded amount, the petitioners are is permitted to withdraw entire amount in their favour, on payment of Court fee on enhanced compensation amount.
5
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date:07.11.2023 VRKS