THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1089 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the
Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.6
of 2013 by the M.A.C.T.-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at
Sangareddy (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Heard Mr. A. Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the
appellant / Insurance Company and Mr.P. Sriharinath, learned
counsel for the respondents / claimants.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal awarded
compensation amount of ₹.35 lakhs to the respondents with
costs and interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
petition till date of deposit.
4. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that
the deceased, viz., Late B. Raju, who is the husband of
respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 and 3, and son of
respondent Nos.4 and 5, was proceeding to Patancheru from
Sangareddy on his motorcycle along with his daughter, he was
2 PSK,J & LNA,J
macma_1089_2023
hit by a lorry bearing registration No.AP-12-V-1686 which
resulted in accidental death on 02.12.2012. Prior to the
accident, the deceased-husband of 1st respondent was working
as a permanent employee at Vijay Electricals Limited on a
monthly salary of ₹.18,000/-. The Tribunal, accepting the gross
salary of the deceased-husband of 1st respondent to be
₹.13,895/-, proceeded to calculate the compensation and
reached to the conclusion that the respondents were entitled for
an amount of ₹.40,01,856/-. However, since the respondents
have raised the claim only for an amount of ₹.35,00,000/-, the
Tribunal proceeded and awarded the compensation of
₹.35,00,000/-. It is this award which is under challenge by the
appellant-Insurance Company in the present appeal.
5. The challenge is only so far as the quantum of
compensation awarded to the respondents by the Tribunal.
6. As regards the quantum, the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company concedes except for the adding of
future prospects, i.e., ₹.27,790/-. However, learned counsel for
the appellant-Insurance Company did not dispute the other
claims awarded by the Tribunal.
3 PSK,J & LNA,J
macma_1089_2023
7. From the pleadings, it appears that so far in the case of
quantification of compensation the Tribunal accepted the salary
of the deceased-husband of 1st respondent to be ₹.13,895/- and
added 100% towards future prospects and computed the salary
as ₹.27,790/- and proceeded to calculate the compensation. We
find that the Tribunal, for the reason that the respondents had
restricted their claim to ₹.35,00,000/-, also did not care to
award compensation under other heads, viz., 'General Damages',
Consortium, etc., and other incidental expenses incurred by the
dependants on the death of the deceased-husband of 1st
respondent.
8. We find sufficient force in the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company so far as
adding of 100% towards future prospects. It is by now well
settled position of law that in the case of a permanent regular
employee the future prospects which could be added to the
salary for quantification of the compensation is 50%.
Erroneously, in the instant case, the Tribunal has taken the
future prospects at the rate of 100% and arrived at ₹.27,790/-
as salary of the deceased-husband of 1st respondent. To the
aforesaid extent, the quantification of compensation needs to be
re-done. However, at the same time, though there was an
4 PSK,J & LNA,J
macma_1089_2023
appeal filed by the respondents which has subsequently been
withdrawn, we are of the considered opinion that, in the case on
hand, the quantification of compensation under other
conventional heads also need to be taken into account. Since
there is no dispute by the appellant-Insurance Company nor by
the respondents so far as the monthly and annual income of the
deceased-husband of 1st respondent, we proceed to quantify the
compensation firstly under the head 'Loss of Future Income' as
per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 1 as under, viz.,
S.No. Description Amount (₹.)
01. Monthly income of the deceased-husband
of the 1st respondent :: ₹.13,895.00
Add : 50% of future prospects,
i.e., (50% of ₹.13,895 = ₹.6,947.00
=========
Total : ₹.20,842.00
=========
*Less : Deduction of ¼ towards
Personal expenses, i.e.,
(1/4 of 20,842.00) = ₹.15,632.00
==========
Net Salary = ₹.15,632.00
==========
Therefore, Annual Income of the deceased-husband of 1st respondent = Net Salary x 12 months, i.e., ₹.15,632.00 x 12, i.e., =========== Annual Income ::₹.1,87,584.00 =========== 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 PSK,J & LNA,J macma_1089_2023 Add : Multiplier of 16 to the Annual Income, i.e., 16 x ₹.1,87,584.00, viz.
============ ================= Total Amount :: ₹.30,01,344.00 ₹.30,01,344.00 ============ =================
9. Though the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, however, taking into consideration that the total number of dependants / claimants being more than four, the ratio of deduction of personal expenses shall be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. Accordingly, ₹.30,01,344.00 is awarded as compensation towards 'loss of future income' of the deceased-husband of 1st respondent.
10. In addition, the respondents are also entitled for compensation under 'conventional heads' as laid out in Pranay Sethi (1 supra), i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards 'Loss of Estate'; Rs.15,000/- towards 'Funeral Charges'; and Rs.40,000/- to 1st respondent towards 'Spousal Consortium'.
11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to 'consortium' given in the authority of Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram 6 PSK,J & LNA,J macma_1089_2023 & ors. 2 and also in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 3 clarified that parental consortium shall also be awarded to a child who loses care and protection of their parents as 'parental consortium'.
12. In the instant case, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 being minors, Rs.50,000/- is awarded to respondent Nos.2 and 3 each towards 'parental consortium' which is Rs.1,00,000/-.
13. Thus, in total, the amount awarded to the respondents by the Tribunal stands modified as under :
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (₹) Loss of future income 30,01,344.00 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 Funeral Charges 15,000.00 Spousal Consortium to respondent 40,000.00 No.1 Parental Consortium to respondent 1,00,000.00
nos.2 and 3, i.e., Rs.50,000 each (Rs.50,000 x 2) TOTAL 31,71,344.00
14. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed in part and ₹.31,71,344.00 is awarded as compensation to the respondents in the following terms :
2
(2018) 18 SCC 130 3 Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 7 PSK,J & LNA,J macma_1089_2023
(i) the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal would remain intact;
(ii) the appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within forty-five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by duly adjusting the amounts already paid to the respondents; and
(iii) the ratio of apportionment of amounts among the respondents and the permission to withdrawal shall be in terms of the Award passed by the Tribunal.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date : 25.09.2023 Ndr