Telangana High Court
Smt.B.Sulochana And Anr vs Sri K.Ram Reddy And Anr on 22 July, 2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No.1364 of 2012
ORDER:
1. The appellants filed petition before the Court below under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6 lakhs on account of the death of the deceased who is the only son of the appellants/claimants. According to the claimants, the deceased while going on a motorcycle on 22.12.2007, as a pillion rider met with an accident on account of the negligent and high speed driving of the Tractor bearing No.KA 36T 8752 which is the offending vehicle.
2. First respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the Insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. The manner in which the accident has taken place and the liability is not in dispute.
4. Though the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- p.a., according to the income certificate- Ex.A6, the said amount was not considered by the Tribunal while granting compensation. However, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- p.a. 2
5. Since the maximum limit of income per annum under Schedule-II of Motor Vehicles Act, is Rs.40,000/-, the claim of Rs.50,000/- cannot be considered as income. I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the Tribunal in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- while granting compensation.
6. Insofar as the enhancement of compensation claimed by the claimants in the present appeal is concerned, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month.
7. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 1, since the deceased was aged 22 years as on the date of accident, future prospects @ 40% of the income of the deceased has to be added which comes to Rs.1,200/-. Then the total income comes to Rs.4,200/-(3,000 + 40%). The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.50,400/-p.a. (4,200 x 12). Since the dependents are 2 in number, 1/3 of the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.16,800/-(50,400 x 1/3) has to be deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.33,600/- (50,400 - 16,800). Since the deceased is a bachelor, the age of the mother has to be 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 taken into consideration for adopting the appropriate multiplier. The age of the mother of the deceased is 45 years. Then, as per the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 the relevant multiplier is '14' and then the loss of income due to the death of the deceased comes to Rs.4,70,400/- (33,600 x 14).
8. As per the decision of the Constitutional Bench of Apex court in case of Pranay Sethi's case, the conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively and the same should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10%. Then the total consortium granted to mother comes to Rs.48,400/- (40,000 + 10% for every three years) and Loss of Estate and funeral expenses comes to Rs.36,300/- (15,000 + 15,000 + Add 10% for every three years). An amount of Rs.8,000/- towards medical expenses granted by the Tribunal remain unaltered.
9. In total claimants are entitled to a total amount of compensation of Rs.5,63,100/-(4,70,400 + 48,400 + 36,300 + 8,000). Since the 2nd petitioner (father) is not dependent on the 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 income of his deceased son, 1st petitioner (mother) is entitled to total amount of compensation Rs.5,63,100/-.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.2,93,300/- to Rs.5,63,100/- with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization payable by respondents 1 and 2 in the OP. The amount shall be deposited within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner (mother) is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.07.2024 tk