Telangana High Court
Polkampally Chalapathi Rao, ... vs Guru Nanak Edunl Socy, Ranga Reddy ... on 10 November, 2021
Bench: N.Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A. No.852 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the
claimants / petitioners filed this appeal against the decree and order
dt.03.01.2015 passed in MVOP.No.934 of 2012 on the file of the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XIII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.65,00,000/-
for the death of one P. Sandeep / deceased who died in a road accident
on 07.11.2012 at Gurunanak Engineering College, Campus,
Ibrahimpatnam.
3. The claimants / petitioners are the parents of Sandeep / deceased.
4. The appellants / petitioners' case in brief is that their son Sandeep
was a bright student with excellent academic record and was studying
B.Tech. (final year) in Gurunanak Engineering College, Ibrahimpatnam,
went to college on 07.11.2012 to attend campus selections. At about
05:00 p.m., while Sandeep / deceased was standing along with his
friends to board the college bus, an APSRTC Bus bearing Registration
No.AP-29-TA-0629 (the 'bus') driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner came from behind, struck him. As a result, he was
crushed between two buses. Immediately, the injured was shifted to
Ankita Hospital, Ibrahimpatnam for treatment. There, the Doctors
NTR,J
::2:: macma_852_2015
declared that the petitioner's son is 'brought dead'. Thereafter, the
appellants / petitioners filed the petition, claiming compensation.
5. The Tribunal after due enquiry passed the order by granting
Rs.40,50,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation expenses; Rs.2,000/- for damage to clothing; Rs.25,000/-
for funeral expenses; and Rs.1,00,000/- under loss of love and affection,
in total Rs.41,82,000/- with interest at 7% per annum, and both the
respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
6. Aggrieved by the quantum of amount awarded, the appellants /
petitioners filed the present Appeal, contending that the Tribunal erred in
properly assessing the material in computing compensation. Further,
pleaded that the Salary Certificate issued is for Rs.3,49,416/- per annum,
but the Tribunal has taken only Rs.3,00,000/- by considering statement
of K. Anil Kumar / P.W.3 that the amount includes commission. Hence,
the Tribunal without any basis erroneously deducted the amounts from
the annual salary and it effected the quantum of compensation.
7. On the other hand, the counsel for 2nd respondent / insurer
submitted that the Tribunal by considering the material on record,
generously determined the monthly income of the deceased, and
awarded fair compensation, therefore, the impugned order may be
confirmed.
8. The seminal point arises for determination is "whether the
compensation awarded to petitioners is 'just and proper"?
NTR,J
::3:: macma_852_2015
9. To prove the income, the appellants / petitioners placed the
appointment order / Ex.A.15 and got examined Sri K. Anil Kumar /
P.W.3, who is student counselor of the IT Consultant Firm (Skill
matters). The PW.3, during evidence stated that the annual pay is
inclusive of the Company's Commission. However, what is the amount
of commission is not specified.
10. In the appointment order / Ex.A.15, issued by 'Skill Matters', the
pay is reflecting under the heads of Basic, House Rent Allowance and
Dearness Allowance, together at Rs.3,19,416/-, and the head of 'annual
benefits' medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance at
Rs.30,000/-, in total, Rs.3,49,416/-. The Ex.A.15 is with contractual
terms and none of these conditions are prescribing any commission. It is
noteworthy that K. Anil Kumar / PW.3, is the counselor for the same
Firm, which offered employed to Sri P. Sandeep / deceased under
Ex.A.15. The firm which is offering job and pay, collecting commission
for providing employment from out of the proposed pay, is
incomprehensible. Further, the heads under which the pay is shown in
Ex.A.15 are entirely payable to the employee, on annual scale. That
aspect, without any obligation in the contractual terms of appointment
order / Ex.A.15, only an oral statement of PW.3, deducting any amount
towards commission, is not justified. As such, the entire annual income
shown in Ex.A.15 shall be taken as the income of the Sandeep /
deceased, by rounding it off to Rs.3,50,000/-.
NTR,J
::4:: macma_852_2015
11. Further, as per the dictum of National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.1, future prospects of income shall be added
even for self-employed, and for the deceased below 40 years, 40% of the
existing monthly pay shall be included.
12. In the present case, on the date of accident, the age of Sandeep /
deceased is 20 years, therefore, 40% of the annual income, i.e.,
Rs.1,40,000/- (40% of 3,50,000/-) shall be added towards future
prospects of income. Thus, the annual earnings of Sandeep / deceased
including future prospects would be Rs.4,90,000/-.
13. As the deceased was a bachelor, as per the authority of Sarla
Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 2, 50% is to be
deducted towards personal expenses from the annual earnings, i.e.,
Rs.4,90,000 / 2 = Rs.2,45,000/-. The remaining amount is the annual
contribution of the deceased to the family.
14. As the age of the deceased is 20 years, the relevant multiplier as
per Sarla Verma (2 supra) is 18. If the annual contribution of the
deceased is multiplied with the relevant multiplier 18, it comes to
Rs.44,10,000/- (Rs.2,45,000/- x 18). This amount shall be awarded
towards loss of dependency.
15. In addition, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation
under conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Accordingly,
(2017) 16 SCC 860
ACJ 2013 Page 1409
NTR,J
::5:: macma_852_2015
Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses is
awarded.
16. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterating the
comprehensive interpretation to 'consortium' given in the authority of
Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors.3, held in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder
Kaur and others4 that, the amounts for loss of consortium shall be
awarded to 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, and that the compensation can be
awarded only for loss of consortium and not for loss of love and
affection. Accordingly, the 1st and 2nd appellants / petitioners are entitled
for Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium.
17. Further, the compensation towards transportation expenses and
damage to clothing as granted by the Tribunal are confirmed.
18. Thus, the total compensation that can be awarded to petitioners
under various heads are as follows :
(i) Loss of Dependency : Rs.44,10,000/-
(ii) Loss of Estate : Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Funeral Expenses : Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Filial Consortium,
@ Rs.40,000/- each
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(2020) 9 SCC 644
NTR,J
::6:: macma_852_2015
to 1st and 2nd petitioners : Rs.80,000/-
(v) Transportation : Rs.5,000/-
(vi) Clothing : Rs.2,000/-
Total : Rs.45,27,000/-
19. In the above terms, the awarded compensation to the appellants /
petitioners is modified.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part in the following terms,
viz., :
(i) the appellants / petitioners are granted Rs.45,27,000/-
towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;
(ii) the 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation;
(iii) the 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to deposit the
enhanced amount with interest within one (01) month from the date of
receipt of copy of the order; and
(iv) the apportionment of compensation amount shall be in
terms of the Tribunal award and on deposit the appellants / 1st and 2nd
petitioner are permitted to withdraw entire amounts as per their share.
NTR,J
::7:: macma_852_2015
21. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal,
shall stand closed.
______________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 10.11.2021
Ndr
