Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kollagunta Ramanaiah And 2 Others vs A.R.P. Rafi Khan And Another on 25 August, 2022
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3811 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by
the award dated 13.03.2007 passed by the I Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore in Original Petition No.569 of
2003 granting compensation of Rs.1,13,800/- as against the
claim of Rs.2,00,000/-.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as
they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
2. The claimants, who are parents and sister of one Kollagunta
Seshagiri @ Giribabu (hereinafter referred as 'deceased'), filed the
above claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the
deceased. On 01.09.2002 at about 3.30 p.m., while the deceased
was proceeding on his scooter towards Nellore, when he reached
near Padugupadu on G.N.T. road, the driver of the lorry bearing
No.AAG 9959, drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed and dashed against the scooter of deceased, resulting
which, the deceased received injuries and died on the spot. On
the date of accident, the deceased was working as collection boy
in cable network and was earning Rs.2,500/- per month. Hence
the claim petition.
3. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the contents of the
petition and denied the age and avocation of the deceased and
nature of the accident. Further contended that the 3rd claimant
is not entitled to any compensation.
4. The 2nd respondent also filed counter and additional
counter denying the contents of the petition, nature of accident,
age and relationship of claimants with the deceased. Further
contended that the crime vehicle was not insured with the 2 nd
respondent at the time of accident and as the driver of the lorry
was not having valid driving licence, the Insurance Company is
not liable to pay any compensation as per the terms of the policy.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the
following issues for trial:
1. Whether the accident in question is occurred, if so, was it due
to the fault of the driver of lorry bearing registration No.AAG
9959 or driver of scooter or both of them are responsible?
2. Whether the driver of the aforementioned lorry was having
valid driving licence on the material date of accident?
3. Whether the owner of scooter and its insurance company are
necessary parties or not?
4. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, to
what amount and from which of the respondents?
5. To what relief?
6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs-1 and 2 were
examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the
respondents, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B1 and X1 were
marked.
7. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW-2 coupled with
Exs.A1 and A2, came to the conclusion that the deceased received
injuries and died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the lorry. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal
has fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.800/- per month,
accordingly Rs.9,600/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards
personal expenses of deceased and arrived at Rs.6,400/- towards
annual contribution to the family. Further, the Tribunal has
taken into account the age of mother of deceased and applied
multiplier '17' and arrived at Rs.1,08,800/- towards loss of
dependency to the family. In addition to that, the Tribunal also
awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the
Tribunal awarded Rs.1,13,800/- towards compensation along
with interest at 7.5% per annum. The amounts awarded by the
Tribunal are as follows:
S.No. Head of claim Amount Amount
claimed awarded
1. Loss of dependency --- Rs. 1,08,800/-
2. Funeral expenses --- Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.2,00,000 Rs.1,13,800/-
8. Heard Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the
claimants and Smt.S.Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for the
2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
9. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the
Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation of
Rs.1,13,800/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- and ought to
have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,220/- as per the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Further submits that the Tribunal
has wrongly applied the multiplier of '17' instead of '18' as per the
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another1, as the age of the deceased was 20 years on the date of
the accident and the Tribunal has also failed to award
compensation under other conventional heads.
10. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company made her submissions in support of the impugned
award. She contended that the Tribunal has rightly come to the
conclusion and awarded a just compensation and the award
under appeal needs no interference. She further contended that
since the deceased is a bachelor, the claimants are not entitled
for consortium.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the
record, this Court found that the finding of the Tribunal that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending lorry, on account of which the deceased
received injuries and died on the spot, became final and needs no
interference, as the same is not challenged either by the owner or
by the Insurance Company.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, considering the
submission of the learned counsel for the claimants, this Court is
inclined to fix the income of the deceased as Rs.2,220/- per
month as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and as claimed by
the claimants. Further, as per the decision in Sarla Verma case
(referred supra), in case of bachelor's death, 50% is to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. As in the present case,
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121
the deceased was a bachelor, after deducting 50%, the income of
the deceased would come to Rs.1,110/- per month and the
annual contribution to the family of the deceased comes to
Rs.13,320/- (Rs.1,110/- x 12). Further, as per the decision in
Sarla Verma case (referred supra), the appropriate multiplier
'18' is applicable to the age of deceased i.e. 20 years as per Ex.A3.
Hence, the loss of dependency would be arrived at Rs.2,39,760/-
(Rs.13,320/- x 18).
13. In addition thereto, as per the Judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (referred supra), wherein
the Honourable Supreme Court framed certain guidelines for
awarding compensation under various heads in the accident
cases. Therefore, as per the said decision, the claimants are also
entitled for grant of compensation of Rs.70,000/- under
conventional heads such as Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses. But, during arguments, learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company raised
objection with regard to consortium payable to the claimants.
14. However, this Court relied upon a Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company
Limited v. Sowmati and others2, wherein it was held as
follows:-
"58. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child.
An accident leading to the death of a child causes great
shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased.
(2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 644
The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during
their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and
affection, and their role in the family unit.
59. Modern jurisdictions world over have
recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case
of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to
be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the
death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the
compensation for loss of love and affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
60. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial
legislation which has been framed with the object of
providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial
consortium."
Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the above
Judgment, the claimants 1 and 2 are entitled for filial
consortium. Hence the objection raised by the learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is unsustainable and
an amount of Rs.40,000/- is granted towards filial consortium.
15. Therefore, in all the appellants-claimants are entitled for an
amount of Rs.3,09,760/- (Rs.2,39,760/- + 70,000/-). Even
though the compensation claimed by the claimants before the
Tribunal is Rs.2,00,000/-, in view of the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh
and others3, there is no restriction under the provisions of Motor
Vehicles Act that the compensation should be awarded only up to
the claim made by the claimants. Hence, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,13,800/- to
Rs.3,09,760/-.
16. For the sake of convenience and for easy understanding of
the amounts now awarded under different heads are as follows:-
(2003) 2 SCC 274
S.No. Head of claim Amount now awarded
1. Loss of dependency Rs.2,39,760/-
2. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 40,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.3,09,760/-
17. Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion, the Appeal is
allowed enhancing the quantum of compensation from
Rs.1,13,800/- to Rs.3,09,760/- along with interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
The rest of the findings given by the Tribunal in respect of
apportionment remain unaltered. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 25-08-2022
ARR
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3811 of 2008
DATED : 25-08-2022
ARR
