Telangana High Court
B Padma, Medak Dist 2 Others vs S Bikshapathi Goud, Medak Dist Anr on 16 November, 2021
Bench: N.Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1331 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants
/ petitioners preferred this appeal challenging the decree and order dated
16.02.2015 in MVOP.No.1442 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad.
2. The claim petition is filed claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for
the death of B. Mallesham / deceased in a motor accident dated 11.02.2012.
The petitioners are the deceased's wife and sons.
3. The appellants / petitioners case in brief is that, on 11.02.2012 when
Mallesham/deceased was returning to Reddypalli on a motor-cycle bearing
registration No.AP-23-T-9228 ('the motorcycle') at about 07:15 p.m., one
tractor bearing Registration No.AP-7-L-9833 ('the tractor') driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor-cycle, as a result, the
deceased / B. Mallesham slumped and suffered serious injuries all over his
body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment and while
undergoing treatment succumbed to injuries on 12.02.2012. Thereafter, a case
was registered by the Police in Crime No.17 of 2012 of Narsapur Police
Station under Section 304 of I.P.C., and a charge-sheet was filed against the
driver of the Tractor. The appellants / petitioners pleading loss of
dependency, filed the claim petition.
NTR,J
::2:: macma_1331_2015
4. The Tribunal, after evaluating the material on record, awarded
compensation amount of Rs.7,66,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum by
holding both the respondents jointly and severally liable.
5. Displeased by the compensation amount, the appellants/ petitioners
preferred this appeal contending that the tribunal should have taken as
Rs.5,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and the future prospectus is not
considered and failed to apply appropriate multiplier while granting
compensation for loss of dependency.
6. The 2nd respondent refuted the claim and contended that the Tribunal
properly considered the material on record and appositely awarded
compensation, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Thus, the issue needs examination is : "whether the Tribunal awarded
just compensation?".
8. In assessment of 'loss of dependency', the factors to be considered are
the age, occupation and income. The appellants / petitioners claimed that by
the date of accident, Mallesham / deceased was aged about 45 years, and the
Tribunal also accepted the same. This aspect is not in dispute, thus confirmed.
9.1 The appellants / petitioners claimed that Mallesham / deceased was into
agricultural and milk selling business and used to earn around Rs.9,000/- per
month. Except the selfserving oral claim, no material is filed to substantiate
the actual monthly earnings of Mallesham / deceased. The Tribunal by
considering the situation, believed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,500/-
per month. The appellants / petitioners did not refer to any element which is
not considered by the Tribunal, other than pleading that for a vegetable
NTR,J
::3:: macma_1331_2015
vendor, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq and others vs. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited1 has taken Rs.6,500/-
as monthly income.
9.2 In the FIR / Ex.A.1 and Charge-Sheet / Ex.A.2, the occupation of the
deceased is shown as agriculture and no details muchless material is filed by
the appellants/petitioners to substantiate the claimed business. Further, the
income is question of fact and subjective and the occupation and business
depends on several constituents like resources, productivity, organization,
market, population, occupational and income distribution of particular locality
and so on. When the claimants fails to place particulars, in the interest of
justice, the tribunal has to make guess work having regard to the elements that
influence the income against the claimed occupation. In the present case, on
considering the circumstances and inabsence of any reason, the monthly
income arrived at by the tribunal at Rs.5,500/- found reasonable.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others.2 held that in computing the loss of
dependency the future prospects of income of a self-employed deceased shall
be added and for the age of 40 to 50 years, 25% of the income shall be
included. Accordingly, to the monthly income of Rs.5,500/-, 25% future
prospects of income comes to Rs.1375/-. In effect,, the monthly income of the
deceased comes to Rs.6,875/- (Rs.5,500/- + Rs.1,375/-) and the annual income
comes to Rs.82,500/- (Rs.6,875/- x 12).
(2014) 2 S.C.C. 735
(2017) 16 SCC 860
NTR,J
::4:: macma_1331_2015
11. In the authority of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. &
Anr 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the dependents are 2 to 3,
1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure and the
rest would be the contribution of the deceased to the family. In this claim
petition as the dependents are three in number, 1/3rd of annual income of the
deceased Mallesham shall be deducted towards his living expenses.
Consequently, the contribution of the deceased to the appellants/petitioners
would be Rs.55,000/- per annum.
12. For the relevant age of the deceased Mallesham, the multiplier
prescribed in Sarla Verma's case (3 supra) is '14'. If the annual contribution
is multiplied with the relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased, the
resulting figure shall be awarded as compensation for loss of dependency.
After the due multiplication, the total comes to Rs.7,70,000/- (Rs.55,000/- x
14). This amount shall be awarded as compensation to the
appellants/petitioners towards 'loss of dependency'.
13. This apart, as per the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (2 supra),
the appellants / petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the
conventional heads, viz., Rs.15,000 towards Loss of Estate; Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral charges; and Rs.40,000/- to 1st appellant / petitioner towards
loss of spousal consortium.
14. Furthermore, 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.4, in the decision
ACJ 2013 Page 1409
(2018) 18 SCC 130
NTR,J
::5:: macma_1331_2015
between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder
Kaur and others5 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, 'filial consortium' for the loss of
their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care
and companionship of deceased children.
15. Correspondingly, the appellants / petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for
parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each, totaling to Rs.80,000/-
16. Thus, in total, the amounts awarded under various heads are as follows
:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 7,70,000.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Spousal Consortium to 1st respondent 40,000.00
Parental Consortium to appellant / 80,000.00
petitioner nos.2 and 3, i.e., Rs.40,000
x 2 = Rs.80,000/-
TOTAL 9,20,000.00
17. The Appeal is allowed-in-part as follows:
(i) the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
the said amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs.,
from the date of petition till date of realization;
(ii) the apportionment among the appellants/petitioners and the
permissions of withdrawals shall be in terms of the tribunal award.
iii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount within
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020
NTR,J
::6:: macma_1331_2015
(iv) The amounts paid by the respondents earlier towards the awarded
amounts shall be given in credit;
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 16.11.2021
Ndr
