THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A. No.2677 OF 2007
ORDER:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 09.05.2007 passed in O.P.No.702 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal V Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda (for short, the Tribunal).
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.2004 at about 08:00 PM the deceased Mekala Venkaiah was returning from his agricultural fields to his village on foot with extreme left side of the road with cautious manner, when he reached Pottivani Thanda Stage, meantime an auto bearing No.AP-24-V-2822 came from his backside with rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed to the deceased. As a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head, face and all over the body and died on the spot. The Police, Peddavoora registered a case in Cr.No.73 of 2004 under Sections 337, 304-A of IPC against the driver of the auto of respondent No.1. The deceased was hale and healthy person prior to the accident, aged 54 years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by doing agriculture and he used to contribute the same for welfare and maintenance of the petitioners. The appellants filed aforesaid OP claiming compensation against respondents, for the death of the deceased.
3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained exparte and respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments of the 2 claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. Before the tribunal, on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial:
(i) Whether the deceased Mekala Venkaiah died in the road accident ?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
5. 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 auto and awarded total compensation of Rs.79,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Court below erred in taking the age of the deceased and wrongly applied multiplier and also erred in taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- instead of Rs.4,000/- per month. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted a calculation memo, dated 16.03.2023 agreeing the age of the deceased at 60 years as on the date of death of the deceased.
7. Though the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of filing grounds of appeal, relied on Ex.A-7 and sought to take the age of the deceased at 54 years on the date of his death but however, the 3 learned counsel for the appellants has taken a turn by filing a calculation memo, dated 16.03.2023 and agreed to the age taken by the learned tribunal at 60 years. Since the age of the deceased is taken at 60 years by the learned tribunal after doing considerable exercise and the appellants agreeing to the same, the age of the deceased can safely be fixed at 60 years at the time of his death.
8. Though no proof of income of the deceased was filed, the learned counsel for the appellants insisted upon to take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- but, taking into the age of the deceased at the time of his death at 60 years, the monthly income of the deceased by way of working as agriculture labour at Rs.1,500/- is on lower side, at the same time it would be on higher side to take the monthly income at Rs.4,000/- as represented by the learned counsel for appellants. However, taking into account the age and avocation of the deceased, this Court feels that it would be just and proper to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month notionally. Apart from the same, the appellant is entitled to addition of 10% towards future prospects, as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 1. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,750/- (Rs.2,500/- + Rs.250/-), and after deduction of 1/4th as the dependants are four, the annual income comes to Rs.24,750/- (Rs.2,062.50/- X 12). As the deceased was aged 60 years, the appropriate multiplier is '9. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.2,22,750/- (Rs.24,750/- X 9). 1 2017(6) ALD 170 (SC) 4
9. Apart from the same, the appellants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra).
10. 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. 2, in the authority between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 3 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 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. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,92,750/- (Rs.2,22,750/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.40,000/-).
11. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.79,500/- to Rs.2,92,750/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. On deposit of the awarded amount, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire amount in their favour, on depositing Court fee on enhanced compensation amount.
2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 3 Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 5 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date:08.11.2023 VRKS 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A. No.2677 OF 2007 Date:08.11.2023 VRKS