Malan Bee 4 Others vs Mr. Anil Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3486 Tel

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                      M.A.C.M.A. No.913 of 2015


JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the

claimants / petitioners preferred this appeal against the decree and order

dt.20.05.2013 passed in MVOP.No.2547 of 2011 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XIII Additional

District Judge (F.T.C.), Hyderabad.

2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.9 lakhs

for the death of one Shaik Saleem/deceased in motor vehicle accident

occurred on 21.07.2011. The claimants are wife, children and mother of

the deceased.

3. The case of appellants / petitioners is that while the Shaik

Saleem/deceased was proceeding in a DCM Van bearing Registration

No.AP-09-W-4896 (the van) as driver and when the van reached BSNL

Office Main Road, Chandanagar, one lorry bearing Registration No.KA-

39-5050 (the lorry) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

overtook the Van and suddenly stopped the vehicle. As a result, the Van

rammed into the lorry and Saleem/deceased received severe fractures

and injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for

treatment. On 23.07.2011 while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to NTR,J ::2:: macma_913_2015

the injuries. Therefore, the claimants by pleading loss of dependency

filed the claim petition

4. The Tribunal, after considering the material and evidence on

record, granted Rs.8,25,000/- with 6% interest per annum. and held that

both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded

compensation.

5. Aggrieved by the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, the

appellants / petitioners filed the present Appeal on the following

grounds, viz., :

(i) that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the

deceased / Shaik Saleem as 42 years as claimed;

(ii) that the Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of

income of the deceased; and

(iii) that the multiplier applied and the interest awarded by the

Tribunal is sparse.

6. The 2nd respondent / insurer submitted that the Tribunal

generously granted the compensation by considering all aspects and

hence no interference is required in this appeal.

7. As the involvement of vehicles, accident and death of the

Saleem/deceased in the accident and the liability of the respondents are NTR,J ::3:: macma_913_2015

not in dispute, the issue remains for determination is "whether the

awarded compensation is just and proper?".

8. With regard to the assessment of 'loss of dependency', the

factors to be considered are age, occupation and income of the deceased

person.

9. The appellants / petitioners claimed that the deceased / Shaik

Saleem was aged about 42 years by the date of accident. No document

or any independent proof is filed to establish this fact. The Tribunal after

considering the entries in Inquest Report / Ex.A.2 and Post Mortem

Examination Report / Ex.A.3, has taken the age of the deceased / Shaik

Saleem as 50 years. In the absence of any other material, this conclusion

of the Tribunal found appropriate.

10. Further, the appellants / petitioners claimed that the deceased /

Shaik Saleem was driver of the Van by occupation and was earning

Rs.7,500/- per month. The Tribunal accepted these pleas and taken

Rs.7,500/- as monthly income of the deceased / Shaik Saleem. Hence,

there is no reason to disturb this finding.

11. Further, the Hon'ble Suprement Court in National Insurance

Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.1, held that in assessing the

compensation for loss of dependency for a self employed deceased, who

is aged between 40 to 50, 25% of the income shall be added towards

future prospects In the present case, the Saleem/ deceased was aged 50

(2017) 16 SCC 860 NTR,J ::4:: macma_913_2015

years by the date of accident, as such 25% of his monthly income shall

be added towards future prospects. Correspondingly, the monthly

income comes to Rs.9,375/- (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.1875/-) and the annual

income comes to Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.9,375/- x 12).

12. As the claimants are wife, minor children and mother, they can

be considered as dependents. In Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi

Transport Corp. & Anr 2, the Apex Court held that when the

dependents are 4 to 6 in number, 1/4th of the annual income is to be

deducted towards personal expenditure and the remaining would be the

contribution of the deceased to the family. Therefore, as the claimants

dependents are five in number, after deducting ¼ of the income towards

the personal expenses, reminder of Rs.84,375/- [Rs.1,12,500/- (-)

Rs.28,125/-) shall be taken as the deceased's annual contribution to the

family.

13. As per the Sarla Verma's case (2 supra), the relevant

multiplier for the age of 50 years is '13'. To arrive at the quantum of loss

of dependency, the annual income of the deceased is to be multiplied

with the relevant multiplier. Accordingly, if calculated, the total comes

to Rs.10,96,875/- (Rs.84,375/- x 13). The appellants/petitioners are

entitled for this sum as compensation under the head of 'loss of

dependency'.

    ACJ 2013 Page 1409
                                                                                   NTR,J
                                                  ::5::                  macma_913_2015

14. In addition, in confirmity with the directions in Pranay Sethi's

case, (1st supra) the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the

compensation, under the conventional heads, viz., Rs.15,000/- towards

loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.40,000/-

towards spousal consortium to the 1st appellants/1st petitioner.

15. That apart, the Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @

Satwinder Kaur and others3 held 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,

'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate

their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased

children.

16. Duly, the appellants / petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 being children

are granted Rs.40,000/- each, in total Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.40,000/- to

the 5th appellant / petitioner as filial consortium.

17. Thus, in total, the amounts awarded under various heads are as

follows :

         DESCRIPTION                                      AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency                                         10,97,875.00
Loss of Estate                                              15,000.00
Funeral Charges                                             15,000.00
Spousal     Consortium   to    1st                          40,000.00
respondent
Parental Consortium to appellant /                         1,20,000.00

Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::6:: macma_913_2015

petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4, i.e., Rs.40,000 x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/-

Filial Consortium to 5th appellant /                  40,000.00
petitioner
                           TOTAL                    13,27,000.00

18. The Appeal is allowed in the following terms, viz.,

(i) the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable

to pay the awarded amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the

date of petition till date of realization;

(ii) the apportionment of compensation among the

appellants/petitioners and the permissions to withdrawal shall be in

terms of the tribunal award;

(iii) The amounts paid by the respondents earlier towards the

awarded amounts shall be given in credit;

(iv) the respondents are directed to deposit the remaining

amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment;

(v) the appellants / petitioners shall pay the Court Fee on the

enhanced compensation amounts.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 16.11.2021 Ndr