M/S United India Insurance Co ... vs Smt. A. Manjula, Chittoor Dist ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1499 AP

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

                           ****

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2641 AND 3055 of 2017

M.A.C.M.A.No.2641 OF 2017

Between:

M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Having Office at Divisional Office, Gandhi Road, Chittoor Town and District. ... Appellant And

1. Smt.A.Manjula, W/o.A.Nagaraju, Hindu, Aged about 32 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. A.Upendra, S/o.A.Nagaraju, Hindu, Aged 13 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

(2nd respondent beign minor represented by his Mother and natural guardian Smt.A.Manjula)

3. A.Peddabba, S/o.Late A.Krishnaiah, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. Smt.Rajeswari, W/o.A.Peddabba, Hindu, Aged about 55 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

5. G.Doraswamy, S/o.Krishnappa Chetty, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Residing at D.No.27-92, Eddula Santha Street, Palamaner, Chittoor District.

6. S.Jaffar, S/o.Nawab Saheb, Muslim, Aged about not known, Residing at D.No.3/138, Police Line Street, Palamaner, Chittoor District.

... Respondents

M.A.C.M.A.No.3055 OF 2017

Between:

1. Smt.A.Manjula, W/o.A.Nagaraju, Hindu, Aged about 33 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. A.Upendra, S/o.A.Nagaraju, Hindu, Aged 14 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

(2nd respondent beign minor represented by his Mother and natural guardian Smt.A.Manjula)

3. A.Peddabba, S/o.Late A.Krishnaiah, Hindu, Aged about 66 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. Smt.Rajeswari, W/o.A.Peddabba, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Appellants And

1. G.Doraswamy, S/o.Krishnappa Chetty, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Residing at D.No.27-92, Eddula Santha Street, Palamaner, Chittoor District.

2. S.Jaffar, S/o.Nawab Saheb, Muslim, Aged about not known, Residing at D.No.3/138, Police Line Street, Palamaner, Chittoor District.

3. M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Having Office at Divisional Office, Gandhi Road, Chittoor Town and District. ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.03.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

M.GANGA RAO, J

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

+ M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2641 AND 3055 of 2017

% 17.03.2023

M.A.C.M.A.No.2641 OF 2017 Between:

M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Having Office at Divisional Office, Gandhi Road, Chittoor Town and District. ... Appellant

And

1. Smt.A.Manjula, W/o.A.Nagaraju, Hindu, Aged about 32 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. A.Upendra, S/o.A.Nagaraju, Hindu, Aged 13 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

(2nd respondent beign minor represented by his Mother and natural guardian Smt.A.Manjula)

3. A.Peddabba, S/o.Late A.Krishnaiah, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. Smt.Rajeswari, W/o.A.Peddabba, Hindu, Aged about 55 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

5. G.Doraswamy, S/o.Krishnappa Chetty, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Residing at D.No.27-92, Eddula Santha Street, Palamaner, Chittoor District.

6. S.Jaffar, S/o.Nawab Saheb, Muslim, Aged about not known, Residing at D.No.3/138, Police Line Street, Palamaner, Chittoor District.

... Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.3055 OF 2017

Between:

1. Smt.A.Manjula, W/o.A.Nagaraju, Hindu, Aged about 33 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. A.Upendra, S/o.A.Nagaraju, Hindu, Aged 14 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

(2nd respondent beign minor represented by his Mother and natural guardian Smt.A.Manjula)

3. A.Peddabba, S/o.Late A.Krishnaiah, Hindu, Aged about 66 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. Smt.Rajeswari, W/o.A.Peddabba, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, Residing at B.C.Colony, C.Bandapally Village, Chittapara Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Appellants And

1. G.Doraswamy, S/o.Krishnappa Chetty, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Residing at D.No.27-92, Eddula Santha Street, Palamaner, Chittoor District.

2. S.Jaffar, S/o.Nawab Saheb, Muslim, Aged about not known, Residing at D.No.3/138, Police Line Street, Palamaner, Chittoor District.

3. M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Having Office at Divisional Office, Gandhi Road, Chittoor Town and District. ... Respondents

! Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA 2641/2017 & 3rd Respondent in MACMA 3055/2017 : Smt.A.Jayanthi

^ Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 in MACMA 2641/2017 & Appellants in MACMA 3055/2017 : Sri T.C.Krishnan

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

2. 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

3. 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)

4. (2003) 2 SCC 274 This Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2641 AND 3055 of 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana)

These appeals under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short "the Act) are filed by M/s.United India Insurance

Company and the claimants challenging the award

dt.03.04.2017 delivered by the IX Additional District Judge-cum-

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chittoor (for short "the

Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.131 of 2016 granting compensation of a

sum of Rs.36,81,479/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon

from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the

compensation amount to the wife, son, father and mother

(claimants 1 to 4) of late A.Nagaraju on the account of his death

in a road traffic accident at Vasanthapuram Village on

22.12.2014.

2. Since these appeals are arising out of the same accident

and raising common questions of law, they have been heard

together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3 For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim

petition.

4. The factual context of the case, is as under:

(a) On 22.12.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., while the deceased-

Nagaraju was proceeding on his Hero Honda Passion motorcycle

bearing No.TN 04/T 0383 on the main road between Chittoor to

Vellur and when he reached near Vasanthapuram Village,

opposite TTD Kalyana Mandapam, Gudipala Mandal, the Eicher

Van bearing No.AP 03/TC 1564 being driven by its driver in a

rash and negligent manner, without care and caution, lost

control over the Van and hit the motorcycle due to which the

rider of the motorcycle-Nagaraju fell on the road, and sustained

severe injuries. He died while shifting him to the hospital.

(b) The matter was reported to the Police by the wife of the

deceased alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash

and negligent driving of the said Eicher Van driven by its driver

and based on the said report, a case in Crime No.152 of 2014 of

Gudipala P.S was registered under Section 304-A IPC. After the

investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted to the

Court by the Police against the accused-driver (1st respondent)

for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304-

A IPC and Sections 134(A) & (B) of M.V.Act.

(c) Wife of the deceased, his son, his father, and mother filed

an application claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- before

the Tribunal on account of his death in the said road traffic

accident.

(d) The 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle did not

contest the matter.

(e) The 2nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a

written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition

and submitted that the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 03/TC

1564 was duly insured with the 3rd respondent and covered with

an insurance policy. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to

pay any compensation.

(f) The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed a written

statement contending inter alia that the accident occurred due

to the negligence of the deceased, who was the rider of the

motorcycle came at a high speed and dashed against the alleged

offending vehicle. The amount claimed by the petitioners is

highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

(g) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed

the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher Van bearing No.AP 03/TC 1564 or due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 04/T 0383 or by both?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

(h) In order to establish their claim, the claimants-petitioners

adduced oral evidence at the time of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were

examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were got marked. None were

examined but Ex.B.1-certified copy of the insurance policy was

marked on behalf of the respondents.

(i) On appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and placing

reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.B.1 i.e., certified copies of FIR,

P.M.Certificate, Inquest report etc., and Ex.B.1- certified copy of

insurance policy, the learned Tribunal was of the view that, in

the instant case, the accident was due to the rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP 03/TC 1564 by its

driver and passed an award granting compensation of

Rs.36,81,479/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, and with costs

against Respondents 1 to 3 from the date of the claim petition

till the date of deposit of the awarded amount.

(j) On appreciation of evidence, the following compensation

was awarded by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier „17‟.

S.No. Heads of compensation Amount of compensation awarded

1 Damages towards funeral Rs.10,000/-

expenses 2 Damages towards love & Rs.35,71,479/-

affection and dependency, future income of the deceased 3 Consortium to the 1st Rs.1,00,000/-

petitioner Total Rs.36,81,479/-

(k) Aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the said award passed

by the learned Tribunal, the 3rd respondent- United India

Insurance Company filed the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2641 of

2017 on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the

liability and computing the compensation, contrary to the

principles laid down in the Hon‟ble Apex Court‟s judgments.

(l) Having dissatisfied with the award, the claimants preferred

the present appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.3055 of 2017 seeking

enhancement of compensation by modifying the award and

prayed for awarding just compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company

would submit that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the

evidence and committed illegality in awarding compensation,

contrary to the principles laid down in the judgments of Hon‟ble

Apex Court. It is further submitted that the figures/multiplier

applied and the amount of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal are not justified, which called for interference of this

Court.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the

Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation. Further,

he would submit that the learned Tribunal had committed an

error in not awarding compensation by applying the principle of

50% of future prospects by following the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs.

Pranay Sethi1. Further, he would submit that, if the Tribunal

applied 50% of future prospects, the claimants would have got

more compensation than awarded and the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not justified which

called for interference of this Court.

7. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for

determination is:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement?

8. POINT: Considered the submissions of the learned counsels

representing the parties, perused and assessed the entire

evidence including the exhibited documents. A perusal of the

impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue

2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher Van bearing No.AP

03/TC 1564 or due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of

the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 04/T 0383 or by

both, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence, gave finding

in Para-16 of the award that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP

03 TC 1564 by its driver (1st respondent) and has answered in

favour of the claimants and against the respondents/opponents.

Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the

Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP 03 TC

1564 and further observed that as per Ex.B.1/Copy of Insurance

Policy, the offending vehicle was covered with the Insurance by

the date of the accident. Ex.B.1 shows that the said policy was

in force from the mid night of 31.01.2014 till the mid night of

30.01.2015 and the accident occurred on 22.12.2014.

Therefore, the offending vehicle was covered by the insurance

policy by the date of the accident.

9. The Tribunal, while assessing the compensation payable to

the claimants, took into consideration Ex.A6 pay slip of the

deceased for the month of November, 2014, which shows the

monthly salary (gross) last drawn by the deceased was

Rs.16,673/- in November, 2014, which is the preceding month

of the accident i.e., 22.12.2014, and he was working as a Driver

Grade-II in APSRTC.

10. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation2, in Para 9 held as follows:

9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :

(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the

(c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;

(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.

11. A perusal of Ex.A.6-Pay slip of the deceased would show

that the date of birth of the deceased is 04.03.1980 and

therefore, by the date of death of the deceased, he was aged

about 34 years 9 months and 18 days. Since the deceased was a

salaried employee, and he was between the age group of 31 to 35

years by the date of the accident, 50% of his actual salary has to

be added towards future prospects for the assessment of his

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

income as per the guidelines laid down in Pranay Sethi's case at

Para 59.3 wherein it was held as follows:

"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 years. 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."

12. In view of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case

(supra), the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of his actual

income towards future prospects for the determination of his

income. But, the Tribunal committed an error in not taking into

consideration of future prospects.

13. The Tribunal further committed an error in applying the

multiplier „17‟ in contrary to the judgment of Sarla Verma's case

(supra), wherein, the loss of dependency was thus re-assessed

as under.

21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M- 14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

14. Evidently, the deceased was survived by his wife, minor

child (son), father, and mother. Therefore, the number of his

dependent family members is „four‟. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court

in Sarla Verma's case (supra) held that the deduction towards

personal and living expenses should be 1/4th. The observation

of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case is as under:

"14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six."

15. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case, the

actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration of

the actual salary by applying the multiplier „16‟ as per the law

laid down in Sarla Verma‟s case. Similarly, 1/4th of the income

of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal and

living expenses, since the number of his dependent family

members is four. Evidently the deceased was working as a

Driver Grade-II in APSRTC and at the time of his death, he was a

permanent employee and was between the age group of 31 - 35

years. Therefore 50% of his actual income has to be added

towards future prospects for determination of his income

pursuant to the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

Pranay Sethi's case vide Paragraph 59.3 cited supra.

16. Taking into consideration the principles laid down in the

above judgments, the monthly gross salary of the deceased as

per his Pay Slip/Ex.A.6 was Rs.16,673/-. Since the deceased

was a salaried employee and he was between the age group of 31

- 35 years, an additional 50% of his actual salary is added

towards future prospects for the assessment of income, and said

50% of his actual salary is worked out to Rs.16,673/- x 50% =

Rs.8,336.50 p.s., which is rounded to Rs.8,336/-. The total

monthly income of the deceased is thus worked out to

Rs.25,009/- (Rs.16,673 + Rs.8,336). As per Sarla Verma's case

(supra), 1/4th of the said amount (where the number of

dependent family members is 4 to 6) has to be deducted towards

his personal and living expenses. The said 1/4th of the monthly

income is worked out to be (Rs.25,009 x ¼) = Rs.6,252. After

deduction of the said amount from his monthly income towards

living and personal expenses, the monthly income of the

deceased came to be Rs.18,756/- and the annual income of the

deceased is worked out at Rs.2,25,072/- (Rs.18,756 x 12). Since

the deceased was between the age group of 31 - 35 years, at the

time of his death, the multiplier „16‟ is to be applied for the

assessment of loss of dependency, as per the judgment of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case and the loss of

dependency is to be assessed at Rs.2,25,072 x 16 =

Rs.36,01,152/-.

17. Having applied the said multiplier, the loss of dependency

would be Rs.36,01,152/-. This Court finds that the Tribunal has

not awarded appropriate compensation towards future prospects

and loss of dependency. A reading of the Tribunal‟s Award,

makes it clear that the Tribunal‟s approach does not accord at

all with current judicial opinion. Therefore, the claimants are

entitled to a sum of Rs.36,01,152/- under the head of loss of

dependency which would be substantive.

18. The Tribunal committed an error while awarding

compensation under conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss

of consortium and funeral expenses, contrary to the principles

laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and in the case of Magma

General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram and others3.

Funeral expenses:

19. Under this conventional head the Tribunal wrongly

awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The

2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)

same is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- (as per the

decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's case).

Loss of Estate:

20. The Tribunal failed to award the compensation under this

head. Therefore, this Court is of the view to award an amount of

Rs.15,000/- under this head (as per the decision of the

Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's case).

Loss of Consortium:

21. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this

head which is not in conformity with the judgment of the

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. Therefore, the same

is to be reduced to Rs.40,000/-.

22. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court explained the concept of

consortium in Nanu Ram's case (supra) and held that the

consortium is a compendious term, which encompasses

"spousal consortium", "parental consortium", as well as "filial

consortium". Observation of the Court in Paragraphs 21, 22, 23

and 24 is as follows:

"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium".

The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a

spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."

21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, MAC.App 77/2019 for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." 21.3 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. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. 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 therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at 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. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.

24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the

deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."

23. Pursuant to the decision in Nanu Ram‟s case(supra), the

2nd claimant, who is the son of the deceased is entitled to the

consortium of Rs.40,000/- for the loss of parental aid,

protection, affection in society, discipline, guidance and training,

and the 3rd & 4th claimants, being father and mother of the

deceased are also entitled to the consortium of Rs.40,000/- each

for the for loss of the love, affection, care, and companionship of

the deceased instead of compensation under the head of loss of

love and affection. The 1st claimant being the wife, the 2nd

claimant being son, 3rd and 4th claimants being his father and

mother are entitled to the compensation of Rs.40,000/- each.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the claimants 2 to 4 are

also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of

Consortium.

24. In Sarla Verma's case (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court,

while elaborating the concept of „just compensation‟ observed as

under:

"Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."

25. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

the judgments cited supra, and the calculations made above, the

compensation payable to the claimants, is re-assessed as under.

    S.No.    Heads of Compensation                  Amount of
                                               compensation awarded
      1      Loss of Dependency                               Rs. 36,01,152.00
                                            (Rs.18,756 x 12 x 16 =
                                            Rs.36,01,296/-)

      2      Loss of Estate                                   Rs.    15,000.00
      3      Funeral Expenses                                 Rs.    15,000.00
      4      Loss of Consortium                               Rs. 1,60,000.00
             To the wife, son, father and
             mother
             Of the deceased 40,000 x 4
             Total                                            Rs. 37,91,152.00
             (-)    Compensation                               Rs. 36,81,479.00
             awarded By the Tribunal
             Enhanced amount                                  Rs. 1,09,673.00

26. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and

others4, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only

upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate

case, where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal-

Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more

compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such an

award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than

(2003) 2 SCC 274

that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the

Tribunal and Court to award "just compensation", even if it is in

the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to

make an award by determining the amount of compensation

that should appear to be just and proper. The compensation as

awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the

facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable,

and the claimants are entitled to more compensation, as per the

decisions cited supra, though they might not have claimed the

same at the time of filing of the claim petition.

27. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the

opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants

interference. The compensation is enhanced from

Rs.36,81,479/- to Rs.37,91,152/-.

28. Consequently M.A.C.M.A.No.2641 of 2017 preferred by the

M/s.United India Insurance Company is hereby dismissed.

29. Whereas, the other M.A.C.M.A.No.3055 of 2017 preferred

by the claimants is hereby allowed with costs, enhancing the

compensation from a sum of Rs.36,81,479/- to Rs.37,91,152/-

with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till

the date of deposit, against the Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and

severally.

(ii) The respondents are directed to deposit the

compensation amount within two months from the date of this

judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against

them.

(iii) The claimants are directed to pay the requisite

Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and

above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(iv) Rest of the directions given by the Tribunal with

regard to the entitlement of the claimants in withdrawing the

amount shall remain unaltered.

(v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands

modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions

as above.

(vi) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA Date: 17.03.2023 L.R.Copy to be marked

Dinesh Mjl/*

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2641 AND 3055 of 2017

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana)

17.03.2023

L.R.Copy to be marked

Dinesh Mjl/*