P Praveena, Krishna Dist And 2 ... vs M Krishna Reddy, Prakasam Dist And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2888 AP

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

MACMA No.2764 OF 2015 AND MACMA No.2771 OF 2016 (Taken up through video conferencing)

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)

MACMA No.2764 of 2015 has been preferred by the wife and

two children of the deceased and MACMA No.2771 of 2016 has

been preferred by the mother of the deceased challenging the

compensation granted in the order, dated 25.08.2015, in MVOP

No.205 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, (for

short, 'the Tribunal') in their favour primarily on the ground that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.

Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learneed counsel appearing for the

appellants in MACMA No.2764 of 2015, argues in view of the law

declared in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi1, the Tribunal ought to have granted future prospects at the

rate of 40% of the actual salary of the deceased, who was aged 42

years and employed in Singareni Collaries. He further relying on

Somwati and others Vs. New India Assurance Company

Limited2 argues that compensation for loss of consortium to the

mother and children at the rate of 40% each ought to be granted.

He has also prayed for enhancement of funeral expenses to

Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate at the rate of Rs.15,000/- also.

    (2017) 16 SCC 680

    (2020) 9 SCC 644
                                       2                JB,J & KSR,J
                                          MACMA Nos.2764 of 2015 & 2771 of 2016

Sri K.Sai Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-mother of the deceased, in MACMA No.2771 of 2016,

while supporting the submissions for enhancement of the

compensation payable also prays that proportionate share granted

to his client be enhanced.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance Company submits that future prospects ought to be at

the rate of 30% instead of 40%. He further submits that loss of

consortium is to be restricted to Rs.70,000/- only. In view of the

number of dependants, namely wife, mother and two children, he

argues that the personal expenses ought to have been calculated

as 1/3rd of the actual salary.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.

With regard to future prospects, the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Pranay Sethi (supra 1), held as follows:

"59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 yeaers. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."

3 JB,J & KSR,J MACMA Nos.2764 of 2015 & 2771 of 2016

With regard to the issue of loss of consortium, in Somwati

(supra 2), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"35. The word "consortium" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edn. The Black's Law Dictionary also, simultaneously, notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in the following manner:

"Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium.

. Filial consortium A child's society, affection, and companionship given to a parent.

. Parental consortium A parent's society, affection and companionship given to a child.

. Spousal consortium A spouse's society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse."

36. In Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Nanu Ram [(2018)18 SCC 130] as well as United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Satinder Kaur [(2021)11 SCC 780], the three- Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In para 87 of United India Insurance Co.Ltd, "consortium" to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Para 87 is quoted below:

"87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:

(i) Loss of estate : Rs 15,000 4 JB,J & KSR,J MACMA Nos.2764 of 2015 & 2771 of 2016

(ii) Loss of consortium:

(a) Spousal consortium : Rs 40,000

(b) Parentalconsortium:40,000x3=1,20,000

(iii) Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000"

37. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of Rs.40,000/- to the "loss of consortium" but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the wife.

38. The three-judge Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of the three-Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable."

,

In the light of the aforesaid ratio, we are in agreement with

the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the

Tribunal did not consider the issue of future prospects of the

deceased or grant loss of consortium to the mother as 'parental

consortium' and to the two children as 'filial consortium'.

Furthermore, compensation awarded under the funeral expenses

was less than the amount specified in Pranay Sethi (supra 1) and

no amount has been awarded on the score of 'loss of estate'. With

regard to the submission regarding less deduction made on the 5 JB,J & KSR,J MACMA Nos.2764 of 2015 & 2771 of 2016

score of personal expenses, we note that the number of

dependants of the deceased was '4' in number i.e., mother, wife

and two children and accordingly, the Tribunal rightly deducted

1/4th of the actual salary towards personal expenses.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, both the Appeals are

allowed awarding the compensation as follows:

Loss of Dependency : Rs.68,88,000=00

Future prospects : Rs.20,66,400=00

(at the rate of 30%)

Loss of Consortium : Rs.50,000=00

Loss of love and affection : Rs.50,000=00

Loss of Estate : Rs.15,000=00

Funeral Expenses : Rs.15,000=00

Total Amount : 90,84,400=00

Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.90,84,400/- and the same is rounded off to

Rs.91,00,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to a total

sum of Rs.91,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

We have considered the future of the minor children and the

widow, who have longer period to live, than the appellant-mother.

In such view of the matter and balancing the extent of dependency

of the appellants, namely the widow, mother and children on the

deceased, their respective ages and other attending circumstances,

we direct that the compensation awarded may be shared in the

following manner. 1st appellant, wife of the deceased, and 6 JB,J & KSR,J MACMA Nos.2764 of 2015 & 2771 of 2016

appellants 2 and 3, children of the deceased, are awarded a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- each. While, the appellant-mother of the deceased

is awarded the remainder sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. As appellant

Nos.2 and 3 are minors, the amount awarded to them shall be kept

in an interest bearing fixed deposit in any nationalised bank till

they attain majority. The impugned order of the Tribunal is

modified to the aforesaid extent.

Accordingly, both the Appeals are allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in both

the Appeals shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

_____________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY Date: 05.08.2021 Ivd 7 JB,J & KSR,J MACMA Nos.2764 of 2015 & 2771 of 2016

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

MACMA No.2764 OF 2015 AND MACMA No.2771 of 2016 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)

Dated: 05.08.2021

Ivd