Telangana High Court

Buddolla Indira 3 Others vs Mohd Abdul Satjhar 2 Others on 10 November, 2021

Bench: N.Tukaramji

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1052 of 2015


JUDGMENT:

Discontented by the awarded compensation, the claimants /

petitioners filed this appeal challenging the decree and order

dt.25.10.2013 passed in MVOP.No.547 of 2012 passed by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District and Sessions

Judge (Fast Track Court), at Medak.

2. On the death of one Baburao / deceased in a motor accident

dt.13.01.2012, his wife, daughter and parents filed the claim petition

seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

3. The case of appellants / petitioners is that on 13.01.2012, when

Baburao / deceased was proceeding on a scooty bearing Registration

No.AP-I-D-5934 (the 'scooty') to Jogipet to take photographs at

Sangupet Village gate, a TATA ACE goods auto bearing registration

No. AP-28-TA-1520 (crime vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner came in the opposite direction and struck the scooty

and knocked down Baburao / deceased, which resulted in grievous

injuries all over his body. Immediately, the injured was removed to

Government Hospital, Jogipet. There, while undergoing treatment,

succumbed to injuries. The Jogipet Police registered a case in Crime

No.5 of 2012 and charge-sheeted the driver of the crime vehicle.

                                                                            NTR,J
                                     ::2::                       macma_1052_2015

Thereupon, the appellants / petitioners filed the petition seeking

compensation.

4. After enquiry, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and

awarded a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at

6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, and

held the respondents liable to pay compensation.

5. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the appellants /

petitioners filed this appeal for the following grounds :

(i) that the Tribunal failed to properly assess the income of

the deceased, and the future prospects of income is not

considered;

(ii) that the Tribunal erred in choosing proper multiplier in

determining loss of dependency;

(iii) that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards

personal expenses as the dependants are four in number;

(iv) no amounts are granted under conventional heads; and

(v) that all the petitioners are entitled for consortium.

6. The 2nd respondent / insurer pleaded that the Tribunal properly

considered the material on record, arrived at appropriate conclusions and

granted just compensation.

                                                                         NTR,J
                                  ::3::                       macma_1052_2015

7. Thus, the facts of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

crime vehicle, the accident, death of Baburao / deceased in the accident

and liability of the 2nd and 3rd respondents are not in dispute. Therefore,

the point remains for determination is "whether the quantum of

compensation awarded to the appellants / petitioners is just and

proper?".

8. The basic aspects required for determination of compensation in

the cases of death of a person in a motor accident are the age, occupation

and income of the deceased.

9. In the present case, the appellants / petitioners claimed that Babu

Rao / deceased was aged about 24 years. No separate document was

placed in support the the claimed age. In the situation, the Tribunal by

relying on the entries in Inquest Report / Ex.A.2, post-mortem

examination report / Ex.A.3 and taken the age of the Baburao / deceased

at 25 years. This supposition is reasonable and acceptable.

10. The appellants / petitioners pleaded that the deceased was into

out-door photography business and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month

and again there is confirmational material. However, in the Charge-

Sheet / Ex.A.6, Scene Observation Report / Ex.A.4, the occupation of

the deceased / Babu Rao is referred to as 'out-door photographer'. As

these documents are prepared by the Police during the investigation

proceedings and corroborating with the appellants / petitioners' claim, NTR,J ::4:: macma_1052_2015

the occupation of the petitioner can be believed as 'out-door

photographer'.

11. With regard to the monthly earnings of Rs.20,000/- p.m. of the

deceased / Baburao, it is not the case of appellants / petitioners that the

deceased / Baburao was running a particular business place. Therefore,

he is a freelancer and will attend photography only on assignments.

Having regard to this aspect, and the possible professional opportunities

in a village, an average income of Rs.4,000/- per month can safely be

taken and the annual income at Rs.48,000/-.

12. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that future prospects of income of the

self-employed shall be considered in determining compensation and for

the age below (40) years, 40% of the income of the deceased has to be

added as towards future prospects. In this case, as Baburao / deceased is

aged 25 years and is self-employed, as such, 40% of the monthly income

shall be added towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.1,600/- per

month, and Rs.19,200/- per annum. Therefore, gross annual income

including the future prospects of income of Baburao / deceased would be

Rs.67,200/- per annum.





    (2017) 16 SCC 680
                                                                         NTR,J
                                    ::5::                     macma_1052_2015

13. In Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 2, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there are 4 to 6 dependents, 1/4th

of the total income is to be deducted towards personal consumption.

14. In the present case, the appellants / petitioners are wife, minor

daughter and old aged parents of the deceased and they can be held as

dependents. As such, 1/4th of total income shall be deducted towards

personal consumption and remaining would be the annual contribution to

his family / claimants. Accordingly, (1/4th of Rs.67,200) = Rs.16,800/-.

Therefore, Rs.16,800/- shall be deducted from the annual income of

Rs.67,200/-. Thus, the annual contribution of Baburao / deceased to the

appellant / petitioners is Rs.50,400/-.

15. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier 17 for the age of 25 years

based on Schedule II of the M.V. Act. As the petition is filed under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier prescribed in the

authority of Sarla Verma (2 supra) is applicable. The deceased was

aged 25 years by the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier

stipulated for the age group 20 to 25 years is 18. And the same shall be

employed for assessing compensation.

16. For assessing the loss of dependency, the annual contribution of

the deceased to the family is to be multiplied with appropriate multiplier.

Correspondingly, if the above arrived values are multiplied, i.e.,

Rs.50,400/- x 18, it comes to Rs.9,07,200/-. This amount shall be

ACJ 2013 Page 1409 NTR,J ::6:: macma_1052_2015

awarded to the appellants / petitioners as compenation for loss of

dependency.

17. Besides, under conventional heads, the appellants / petitioners are

entitled for compensation as prescribed in the dictum of Pranay Sethi

(1 supra), i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate; Rs.15,000/- towards

funeral charges; and Rs.40,000/- to 1st appellant / 1st petitioner towards

spousal consortium.

18. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the

comprehensive interpretation to 'consortium' given in the authority of

Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors.3, in the

authority between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur

@ Satwinder Kaur and others4 fortified, that the amounts for loss of

consortium shall be awarded to the child 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. Further, held that compensation can be awarded only for loss

of consortium and not for loss of love and affection.

19. Accordingly, Rs.40,000/- is awarded to 2nd appellant / 2nd

petitioner towards parental consortium; and Rs.40,000/- each to 3rd and

4th appellants/ petitioners as Filial Consortium.

(2018) 18 SCC 130

Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::7:: macma_1052_2015

20. Therefore, the compensation is awarded to the appellants /

petitioners in the following terms, viz., :

      (i)     Loss of dependency               :      Rs.9,07,200/-

      (ii)    Loss of Estate                   :      Rs.15,000/-

      (iii)   Funeral expenses                 :      Rs.15,000/-

      (iv)    Parental Consortium              :      Rs.40,000/-

      (v)     Filial Consortium to
              3rd and 4th appellants / petitioners
              @ Rs.40,000/- each                 :    Rs.80,000/-
                                                 =============

                           TOTAL         :            10,57,200/-

                                               =============

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs as following :

(i) the appellants / petitioners are awarded compensation of

Rs.10,57,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum with proportionate

costs from the date of petition till realization;

(ii) the 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to

pay the compensation;

(iii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount

with interest within one (1) month from the date of receipt of copy

of the order;

(iv) on deposit of the enhanced amount with interest, the

appellants / petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire amounts

as apportioned and directed by the Tribunal;