Telangana High Court
Nimmala Swaroopa vs Siluveru Balaiah 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.63 of 2024 and 1514 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These appeals are filed against the Order dated 21.08.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.314 of 2018 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II-Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda.
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 Nimmala Ramesh, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.08.2023. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.23,58,500/- 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.63 of 2024, seeking to enhance the compensation amount from Rs.23,58,500/- to Rs.49,20,000/- and the Insurance Company has preferred an appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.1514 of 2023 against the same Order disputing their liability and requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.
2
3. Parties herein are referred as petitioners and respondents as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.2018, the deceased Nimmala Ramesh, was proceeding on a bike towards Nanchari Maduru. When they reached near Government Degree College, Thorrur village, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TS 12 UB 7468 drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased motorcycle from back side. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The police registered a case in Cr.No.89 of 2018, under Section 304-A of IPC, against the driver of the Lorry.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that deceased was working as a car driver in Sridevi Travels, Panjagutta, Hyderabad from 1992 onwards and used to run cabs in Uber and Ola and earning Rs.18,500/- per month. Apart from that he was doing fish business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, but the trial Court has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.15,600/-. He further requested to enhance the interest rate from 7.5% to 9%. Therefore, requested the Court to modify the Order of the trial Court. 3
6. Petitioner No.1 was examined herself as P.W.1 and also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on behalf of the petitioners and marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf and also marked Ex.B1 on behalf of the respondents.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance company mainly contended that petitioners failed to prove the income of the deceased, but the trial Court has taken the excessive amount of Rs.15,600/- per month. The trial Court has discarded the oral evidence of P.W.3 and also Ex.A6-Salary Certificate. The compensation granted by the tribunal is excessive and arbitrary, therefore requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.
8. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.
9. Perusal of the Order of the trial Court shows that petitioners have claimed for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and the trial Court has granted an amount of Rs.23,58,500/-. P.W.3 has filed Salary Certificate of the deceased under Ex.A6, in which his monthly salary was shown as Rs.18,500/- and petitioners contended that apart from that minimum wage for 4 the fisherman in the year 2018 was Rs.8829.80/- per month, but no license was filed by P.W.1 to prove that deceased was doing fish business, as such the trial Court has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,600/- per month.
10. No doubt, petitioners have filed salary certificate, but they have not examined the employer to prove the salary certificate and also not filed Income Tax Returns. However, their claim is that deceased was working as car driver from 1992 onwards and he was aged about 42 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased as Rs.18,500/- and thus his annual income would comes to Rs.2,22,000/- (Rs.18,500/- X 12 = Rs.2,22,000/-).
11. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1 if the deceased was married, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, as there are 6 dependents. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would comes to Rs.1,66,500/- per annum (Rs.2,22,000 - Rs.55,000= Rs.1,66,500/-) and the Hon'ble Apex 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, held that the future prospects of income of the self-employed shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e.,42 years, 25% of the income i.e., Rs.41,625/- has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.2,08,125/- (Rs.1,66,500/- + Rs.41,625/- = Rs.2,08,125/-). This sum if multiplied with the multiplier 14 applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 42 years, it would come to Rs.29,13,750/- (Rs.2,08,125 x 14 = Rs.29,13,750/-). Thus, petitioners are entitled to Rs.29,13,750/- 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 funeral charges and Rs.40,000/- to petitioner No.1 towards spousal consortium. Therefore, they are entitled for Rs.70,000/- under the 'Conventional heads'.
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6
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 3, and in the authority between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 4, 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.5 and 6 under 'Filial Consortium' and Rs.40,000/- each to petitioners No.2 to 4 under 'Parental Consortium'.
14. Therefore, petitioners/claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.29,13,750/-
2. Conventional heads Rs.70,000/-
3. Filial Consortium Rs.80,000/- 3
(2018) 18 SCC 130 4 (2020) 9 SCC 644 7 @ Rs.40,000/- each
4. Parental Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
@ Rs.40,000/- each
TOTAL Rs.31,83,750/-
15. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1514 of 2023 is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.63 of 2024 is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.23,58,500/- to Rs.31,83,750/- (Rupees Thirty One lakhs Eighty Three thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty 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 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, respondent Nos.3/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 Petitioners No.2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- each and Petitioners No.5 and 6 are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- each and the petitioner No.1 is 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.
8
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 30.08.2024 tri