THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3006 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for the insurer.
2. The appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and award dated 21.08.2007 in O.P.No.166 of 2006 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2006 at about 12:45 PM at Mahatma Nagar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, while the deceased was proceeding on foot to his house, in the meanwhile a Lorry bearing No.UP-78-AT-0343 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, driven by its driver and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained serious injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad but he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. The deceased was working as LMV driver and was earning Rs.3,300/- per 2 NBK, J MACMA_3006_2007 month. The S.H.O.Bowenpally registered a case in Cr.No.108 of 2006. The 1st respondent being the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation at Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners.
4. The learned Tribunal, on analyzing the evidence concluded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and awarded Rs.2,79,360/- with 7.5% interest per annum as compensation and the owner and insurer of the lorry/1st and 2nd respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. In appeal, the appellants contended that the tribunal failed to deduct 40% of the amount towards the personal expenditure of the deceased instead of deducting 1/3rd of the earnings and the tribunal failed to assess the correct age of the mother of the deceased while computing the compensation and ought to have granted total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, prayed for re-assessment of compensation.
6. In these rival pleas, the point arises for determination is:
"Whether the compensation granted to the petitioner by the tribunal is just and proper".
3 NBK, J
MACMA_3006_2007
7. The rival contention putforth by the appellants before this Court is that the tribunal erred in assessing the age of the mother for computing multiplier and deducted 40% instead of 1/3rd under the head of personal expenses of the deceased.
8. In M/s Royal Sundraram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mandala yadagiri Gour and others 1 the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that "it is the age of the deceased and not such of the dependents in case of the death of a bachelor which is to be the basis for the multiplier".
9. The petitioners did not file any particular document to prove the age. However, on a perusal of Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-4 C.C of Charge sheet, C.C of Inquest Report and C.C of P.M.E.Report respectively goes to show that the age of the deceased is disclosing as 29 years. Thus, the age of the deceased by the date of accident can safely be taken at 29 years.
10. With regard to the income the deceased, PW-2/employer of the deceased deposed that deceased worked under him as a driver and he used to pay Rs.3,300/- per month. On this aspect, except suggestions nothing specific is elicited in cross examination denying the income of the deceased at the time of his death. Therefore, the monthly income 1 (2019) 5 SCC 554 4 NBK, J MACMA_3006_2007 of the deceased at the time of his death can be taken as Rs.3,300/- per month.
11. 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.
12. As the sole petitioner No.1 being the mother of the deceased and petitioner No.2 being brother of deceased as dependents of the deceased and since the deceased as a bachelor is not disputed, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased, resultantly, the annual contribution of deceased to the petitioner would be Rs.19,800/-, to which 40% of future prospects is added, it comes to Rs.27,720/- (Rs.19,800/- + 40% of Rs.27,720/-). If this amount is multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 17, the sum comes to Rs.4,71,240/- (Rs.27,720/- x 17). The petitioners are entitled for this amount towards 'Loss of Dependency'.
2
(2017) 16 SCC 860
5 NBK, J
MACMA_3006_2007
13. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
14. 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 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 No.1 being the mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium.
15. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensation as follows :
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 4,71,240.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Filial consortium to the petitioner 40,000.00
TOTAL 5,41,240.00
3
(2018) 18 SCC 130
4
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 6 NBK, J MACMA_3006_2007
16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The petitioners are awarded with the compensation of Rs.5,41,240/- (Rupees five lakhs, forty one thousand, two hundred and forty rupees only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum with costs., from the date of petition till date of realization;
i) the owner and insurer/respondents are jointly and severally are 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;
(ii) on deposit of the awarded amount, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire amount in their favour, on payment of court fee on enhanced compensation awarded.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date: 08.11.2023
VRKS
7 NBK, J
MACMA_3006_2007
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.3006 of 2007 Date:08.11.2023 VRKS