Telangana High Court
Bandamidhi Narsimha And 2 Others vs G.Janga Reddy And Another on 28 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.617 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the award, dated 31.01.2012 in O.P.No.1827 of 2009 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited.
3. The claimants, who are legal heirs of the deceased have filed petition seeking compensation before the tribunal on account of the death of the deceased B.Narender.
4. The deceased along with others, were going on a van bearing No. AP 29 U 6577 with luggage of vegetables, a lorry which is offending vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came in the opposite direction and hit the van. As a result, the deceased died on the spot and others received injuries.
2
5. According to the claimants, deceased was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family. The claimant Nos.1 and 2 are parents and claimant No.3 is his brother.
6. The learned tribunal having assessed the evidence placed by the claimants on record, the tribunal found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the van driver resulting the accident and accordingly assessed the negligence of 1/3rd to 2/3rd Keeping in view that it was sudden collision, the negligence can be treated as 50-50 and accordingly compensation can be granted.
7. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 1 considering age and occupation of the deceased, this Courts finds that it is just and reasonable to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, as such his annual income would be Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500/- X 12 = Rs.54,000/-).
8. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2 if the deceased was unmarried, 50% of his income has to be deducted i.e., Rs.27,000/- towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 come to Rs.27,000/- per annum (Rs.54,000/- - Rs.27,000/- = Rs.27,000/-) and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 3, held that the future prospects of the income of a self-employed shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e.,21 years, 40% of the income i.e., Rs.10,800/- has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would come to Rs.37,800/- (Rs.27,000 + Rs.10,800 = Rs.37,800/-). This sum, if multiplied with the multiplier 18 applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 21 years, it would come to Rs.6,80,400/-(Rs.37,800 X 18 = Rs.6,80,400/-). Thus, appellants are entitled to Rs.6,80,400/- under the head 'Loss of Dependency'.
9. Besides, appellants herein 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/-.
10. 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 @ 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 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 appellant Nos.1 and 2 as filial consortium.
11. Therefore, appellants/petitioners are entitled for the compensation in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,80,400/-
2. Conventional heads Rs.30,000/-
3. Filial Consortium for children Rs.80,000/-
@ Rs.40,000/- each TOTAL Rs.7,90,400/-
12. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,74,500/- to Rs.7,90,400/-. The respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation amount i.e.,Rs.3,95,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of two (02) months from the date of 5 (2020) 9 SCC 644 5 receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE K.SURENDER Date : 28.06.2024 ssy