THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A. No.2817 OF 2007
ORDER:
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 24.07.2007 passed in O.P.No.94 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), at Nalgonda.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.02.2005 while the deceased Khaja was returning to Gajwel from Rajapet in an auto trolley bearing No.AP-24-U-4320 of R-1 and the driver of the auto trolley drove the same in rash and negligent manner, dashed a blow, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and the injured succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The accident was reported with the Police at Rajapet, who in turn initially registered a case in Cr.No.03 of 2005 under Section 338 of IPC and later it was altered to Section 304-A of IPC. It is submitted by appellants that the deceased ws hale and healthy and earning Rs.2,000/- per month from hotel business and sought for a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-.
3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained exparte and respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
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 auto and awarded 2 total compensation of Rs.1.96.000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum i.e., Rs.1,92,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.2,000/- each towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.
5. As per Ex.A.3, autopsy report, the age of the deceased is 19 and since no proof of age is produced, the age of the deceased can be safely fixed at 19.
6. 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".
7. The first petitioner as PW-1 deposed that by the date of accident deceased was aged about 19 years and was doing hotel business with monthly income of Rs.3,000/. The petitioner did not file any particular document to prove the age. However, the Postmortem examination report/Ex.A-3 is disclosing the age of the deceased at 19. Thus, the age of the deceased by the date of accident can safely be taken at 19 years.
8. With regard to the income the deceased, PW-1/mother of the deceased deposed that her son used to earn Rs.3,000/- 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 1 (2019) 5 SCC 554 3 death. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death can be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month.
9. 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.
10. As the petitioners being the mother of the deceased as a 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 petitioners would be Rs.18,000/- {(Rs.3,000/- X12 = Rs.36,000/-) (Since deceased being bachelor 50% of his annual contribution is deducted i.e., Rs.18,000/-)}, to which 40% of future prospects is added, it comes to Rs.25,200/- (Rs.18,000/- + 40% of Rs.18,000/-). If this amount is multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 18, the sum comes to Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.25,200/- x 18). The petitioner is entitled for this amount towards 'Loss of Dependency'.
11. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to 'consortium' given in the authority of 2 (2017) 16 SCC 860 4 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, petitioners being the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium.
13. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensation as follows:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 4,53,600.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Filial consortium to the petitioners 80,000.00
TOTAL 5,63,600.00
14. The Section 168 of the M.V.Act contemplates that the courts duty is to award just compensation and three judge bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 5 held that the Court can award more compensation that the amount claimed.
15. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A is disposed of by enhancing the compensation from 1,96,000/- to Rs.5,63,600/- (Rupees five lakhs, sixty three thousand, six hundred only). The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization;
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 5 2003 (2) SCC 274 5
i) 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;
(ii) on deposit of the awarded amount, the petitioner is 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:12.10.2023 VRKS 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A. No.2817 OF 2007 Date:12.10.2023 VRKS