Telangana High Court
S Andalu vs Jatangi Nagaraju on 30 August, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.222 & 2354 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These appeals are filed against the Order dated 19.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.1568 of 2014 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The petition vide M.V.O.P.No.1568 of 2014 was filed by the petitioners/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased S.Santhosh Kumar, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.02.2014. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.222 of 2019, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. The Insurance Company has also preferred an appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2354 of 2019 against the same Order disputing their liability and requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.
2
3. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.
4. Parties herein are referred as petitioners and respondents as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
5. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2014, the deceased Santhosh Kumar, was proceeding on a bike along with his friend, as a pillion rider. When they reached near Katta Maisamma Temple, outskirts of Gundala, Nalgonda District, the rider of the motor cycle drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed one TVS XL moped, which was coming in opposite direction. As a result, the deceased fell down, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad on the same day. The police registered a case in Cr.No.8 of 2014 and filed a copy of the inquest under Ex.A3 and a copy of the Charge sheet under Ex.A2.
6. The petitioner No.2 was examined himself as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf. One Hemavathi (Administrative Officer) was examined on behalf of the respondent No.2 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. 3
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance company mainly contended that the owner/insured was riding the motor cycle in triple riding, which is not only against the rules of M.V.Act, but also responsible for the death of the pillion rider, as such insured alone is liable to pay compensation. When the accident took place in the opposite direction, in the middle of the road (according to the sketch plan) and when P.W.2 clearly stated that there are speed breakers at the place of accident and when it is not the plea of the petitioners that the insured motor cycle came in wrong direction and dashed the deceased, who was on moped, the trial Court ought have consider the contributory negligence of 50% on both of them. He also contended that Ex.B2-M.V.I Report clearly shows that accused driver also the owner of the vehicle was not having driving license, as such the tribunal ought to have exonerated the liability of the insurance company and further contended that the deceased was a student and not a earning person. The tribunal arbitrarily taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month for granting compensation and awarded excess compensation. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.
4
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that trial Court has taken the income of the deceased on the lower side without considering the evidence of P.W.1 and educational qualification certificates marked under Exs.A5 to A7 and also interest was granted at lower side. Apart from that less amount was granted under loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and also failed to grant filial consortium and thus requested the Court to modify the Order of the trial Court.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance Company mainly contended that accused driver and also the owner of the Motor cycle were not having valid driving license, as such they are not liable to pay the compensation, but the trial Court observed that insurance Company has appointed their own investigator and he submitted his report, but they have not submitted the said report before the Court. The said investigator had also not recorded the evidence of the owner or rider of the crime vehicle and also the S.H.O, who filed the Charge sheet and even the said investigator was not examined before the Court. The insurance Company has not summoned either the driver or owner of the crime vehicle to establish that they are having no valid license and thus the trial Court has not 5 relied upon the evidence of R.W.1 and the Charge sheet and held that Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said Order.
10. As per the evidence on record, deceased Santosh Kumar was aged about 19 years as on the date of accident. He was studying graduation. It was stated that he used to take tuitions and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/claimants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and another, 1 in which notional income of the girl aged about 16 years was taken as 10,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to enhance the income of the deceased from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, as such his annual income would comes to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,20,000/-).
11. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2 if the deceased was bachelor, 50% of his income has to be deducted 1 2014 ACJ 1441 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would come to Rs.60,000/- per annum (Rs.1,20,000 - Rs.60,000= Rs.60,000/-) and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 3, held that the future prospects of income of the self-employed/deceased shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e.,19 years, 40% of the income i.e., Rs.24,000/- has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.84,000/- (Rs.60,000/- + Rs.24,000/- = Rs.84,000/-). This sum if multiplied with the multiplier 18 applicable to the age of the deceased i..e.,19 years, it would come to Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.84,000 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/-). Thus, appellants/petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,12,000/- under the head 'Loss of Dependency'.
12. Besides, appellants are also entitled for compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 funeral charges. Therefore, they are entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the 'Conventional heads'.
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the authority of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others 4, and in the authority between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 5, fortified that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.40,000/- each to petitioners No.1 and 2 under 'filial consortium'.
14. Therefore, petitioners/claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following terms:
4
(2018) 18 SCC 130 5 (2020) 9 SCC 644 8
1. Loss of dependency Rs.15,12,000/-
2. Conventional heads Rs.30,000/-
3. Filial Consortium Rs.80,000/-
@ Rs.40,000/- each TOTAL Rs.16,22,000/-
15. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2354 of 2019 is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.222 of 2019 is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.9,37,200/- to Rs.16,22,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs Twenty Two thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of realization. Though, Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, respondent Nos.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Out of total compensation amount Petitioner No.3 is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- and Petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for the balance amount. On such deposit, all the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with interest accrued on it. There shall be no order as to costs. 9
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 30.08.2024 tri