THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2763 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been filed by the claim petitioners aggrieved and dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation amount granted in the decree and order dated 27.10.2006 in O.P.No.799 of 2004 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Medak (for Short "the tribunal").
2. The claim petitioner's case in brief is that, on 13.11.2004 the claimants and their deceased daughter went to a Tea Hotel near the chowrastha of Hanuman Temple at Jogipet. After taking tea the claimants and deceased were going to Government Hospital, Jogipet, when they were crossing at the end of road the lorry bearing No.AP- 23-V-4817 came from Annasagar village side proceeding towards Sangareddy town side at high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased and the lorry ran over from the deceased due to which the deceased died on the spot. The Police of Jogipet registered a case in Cr.No.124 of 2004 against the driver of crime vehicle. The deceased age was 15 years at the time of her death and she was assisting the claimants in agricultural operations and contributing worth of Rs.2,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of 2 NBK,J MACMA_2763_2007 deceased, the claimants put to loss mentally and monetarily and put to indescribable agony and distress. The deceased was the only daughter to claimants. The respondent No.1 is owner of crime vehicle and respondent No.2 is insurer to the said vehicle. Thereupon, the parents of deceased filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the M.V.Act') seeking compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-.
3. The learned Tribunal, considering the material on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and awarded Rs.60,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum by resting the liability against the owner and insurer of the lorry/1st and 2nd respondents.
4. In appeal, appellants/claim petitioners (for short 'the petitioners') contended that the tribunal ought to have considered the settled preposition of law in delineating notional income. Further no future prospects are accounted and meager amounts are granted under conventional heads. Thus, prayed for re-assessment.
5. In support, the petitioners placed reliance on the authority between Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu 1 and pleaded that for the death of 7 year old boy in the 1 (2022) 1 SCC 317 3 NBK,J MACMA_2763_2007 accident the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken notional income at Rs.25,000/- per annum and prayed for adopting the same in the instant case.
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer (for short 'the respondent') pleaded that the tribunal had leniently considered the claim and awarded appropriate amounts. However, fairly submitted that by considering the settled law, just compensation may be awarded.
7. In this position, the point arises for determination is:
"Whether the claimants are entitled for any enhancement of compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount"?
8. The petitioners pleaded that the deceased was aged about 15 years and he was school going boy by the date of the accident. The deceased was not only a student but, also it is the contention of the parents of the deceased that he used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month by doing agriculture work and used to contribute the same to the family. As per the material available on record, the age of the deceased is shown as 12 years. Taking into account the averments of the petition and since none have challenged the same by way of cross examination, the age of the deceased can be safely accepted at 12 4 NBK,J MACMA_2763_2007 years. Though the parents of the deceased stated that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by way of agriculture operations, but, at the age of deceased, no income generating avenue can be presumed. However, having regard to the settled proposition in the authority Kurvan Ansari (supra) the notional income of the deceased can be presumed as Rs.25,000/- per annum.
9. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while assessing the compensation for the death future prospects shall be taken into account. Accordingly, considering the age of the deceased 40% of income is added towards future prospects and out of this 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal living expenditure. Thus, annual contribution of the deceased to the petitioners would be Rs.17,500/-. If this amount is multiplied with the multiplier to the age of the deceased i.e., 12, the sum comes to Rs.2,62,500/- (Rs.17,500x
15). The petitioners are entitled for this amount towards 'Loss of Dependency'.
10. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of Pranay Sethi 2 (2017) 16 SCC 860 5 NBK,J MACMA_2763_2007 (supra) i.e., Rs.15,000/- for funeral charges and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
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 consortium shall be awarded to the parents for the loss of love and affection and companionship of their children. Correspondingly, the 1st and 2nd petitioners being the parents are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium.
12. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensation as follows:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 2,62,500.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Filial consortium to 1st and 2nd 80,000.00
petitioners
TOTAL 3,72,500.00
13. The Section 168 of M.V.Act contemplates duty on the Courts to award just compensation to the claimants. In Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 6 NBK,J MACMA_2763_2007 Singh 5 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence of any bar in the Act, the competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the petitioners, if they are entitled for such compensation. For the reasons, the above arrived sum shall be granted to the petitioners.
14. For the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in the following terms:
(i) The petitioners are awarded Rs.3,72,500/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy two thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum with costs., from the date of petition till date of realization;
(ii) the owner and the insurer of the lorry/1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount by setting of the amounts paid, if any, 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 amount apportioned in their favour, on payment of Court fee on enhanced compensation amount.
5
(2003) 2 SCC 274
7 NBK,J
MACMA_2763_2007
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date:09.11.2023
VRKS
8 NBK,J
MACMA_2763_2007
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.2763 of 2007 Date:09.11.2023 VRKS