Telangana High Court

Smt. Pandiri Gangavva And 2 Others vs P.Satyanarayana Rao And Another on 17 November, 2021

Bench: N.Tukaramji

              HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
                         M.A.C.M.A.No.1272 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants / petitioners questioning the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the decree and order

dated 21.11.2006 in MVOP.No.960 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge,

Nizamabad.

2. The claim petition is filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of

one Pandiri Sailu/deceased in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on

10.04.2002. The petitioners are the wife, minor son and mother of the

deceased.

3. The appellants / petitioners' case in brief is that on 10.04.2002 at about

05:30 p.m. when Sailu/ deceased was proceeding towards his agricultural

fields on his bi-cycle and when he reached Kothabai Panadi, a Tractor bearing

Registration No.AP-25-F-5073 (the Tractor) driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed, dashed the bi-cycle, as a result, the

Sailu/deceased suffered fatal injuries and died instantaneously. Thereupon,

the dependants of the deceased filed the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and the material placed

on record, awarded Rs.2,15,000/- with interest 7.5% per annum from the date

of petition till realization as compensation and held both the respondents

jointly and severally liable to pay the same.

                                                                              NTR,J
                                     ::2::                         macma_1272_2007

5. Aggrieved by the awarded compensation, the appellants / petitioners

filed the present Appeal on the following grounds, viz., :

(i) that the Tribunal erroneously rejected the petitioners' claim that

the Sailu/ deceased was aged about 32 years and was earning

Rs.10,000/- p.m., and granted meager amount towards 'Loss of

Dependency'; and

(ii) that future prospects of income is not considered.

(iii) The Tribunal granted paltry amounts under conventional heads.

6. Therefore, the aspects need determination is: "whether the awarded

compensation amount is just and proper?".

7. For the assessment of 'loss of dependency', the factors to be considered

are age, occupation and income. The appellants / petitioners claimed the age

of Sailu/ deceased as 32 years. But, no supporting material is filed. The

Tribunal, on relying on the entries in to Post Mortem Examination Report /

Ex.A.3, the Inquest Report / Ex.A.4 decided that the age of the deceased /Sailu

as 35 years by the date of occurrance. Except raising objection, the appellants

/ petitioners did not point out any valid reason to take a different view.

Therefore, the conclusion of the tribunal on this aspect deserves to be

confirmed.

8. With regard to the occupation and income, the appellants / petitioners

claimed that Sailu/ deceased was not only an agriculturalist, but was also into

business. Per contra, the insurer produced a certificate/Ex.B2 issued by the

Sarpanch of Chillargi Village stating that the deceased was a 'Coolie', and

used to earn Rs.50/- per day. The appellants / petitioners failed to place any NTR,J ::3:: macma_1272_2007

other convincing material reflecting the pleaded occupations. The tribunal by

relying on Ex.B.2 has taken Rs.1500/- as monthly income. However,

considering the claimed occupation of Sailu/ deceased and the wages of the

manual labout at relevant time, the monthly income can safely be taken at

Rs.3,000/- and the annual income would be Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/-.

9. In addition, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.1, held that the

future prospects of income of the deceased even for the self employed shall be

included while assessing the loss of dependency at 40%, if the deceased is

below 40 years. In this case, as the age of the deceased was below 40 years,

40% of income shall be included towards future prospects. Thus, the annual

income would be Rs.50,400/-( Rs.36,000 + Rs.14,400/-(40% of Rs.36,000/-)).

10. In Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 2 , it is held

that where the dependents are more than 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income shall be

deducted towards personal expenditure. The petitioners, who are wife, minor

son and the mother of the deceased can be considered as dependents. As such

1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased i.e. Rs.50,400 - Rs.16,800 (1/3rd of Rs.50,400/-) = Rs.33,600/-. In

effect, the contribution of Sailu/ deceased to the dependents would be

Rs.33,600/- per annum.

11. For the relevant age of Sailu/ deceased, the multiplier prescribed as per

the authority of Sarla Verma (2 supra) is '16'. The annual contribution of

Sailu/deceased if multiplied with the relevant multiplier, the total would come

(2017) 16 SCC 860

ACJ 2013 Page 1409 NTR,J ::4:: macma_1272_2007

to Rs.5,37,600/-( Rs.33,600 x 16). This amount shall be awarded as

compensation to the appellants / petitioners towards 'Loss of Dependency'.

12. In addition, 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 as spousal consortium.

13. 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, in the decision 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.

14. Duly, the 2nd appellant / 2nd petitioner is entitled to parental consortium

at Rs.40,000/- and the 3rd appellant / 3rd petitioner is entitled for filial

consortium of Rs.40,000/-.

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

            DESCRIPTION                                       AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency                                             5,37,600.00
Loss of Estate                                                  15,000.00
Funeral Charges                                                 15,000.00
Spousal Consortium to 1st appellant /                           40,000.00
1st petitioner


    (2018) 18 SCC 130

Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::5:: macma_1272_2007

Parental Consortium to 2nd appellant / 40,000.00 2nd petitioner Filial Consortium to 3rd appellant / 3rd 40,000.00 petitioner TOTAL 6,87,600.00

16. 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% p.a., from the date of petition till

date of realization;

(ii) the apportionment of awarded compensation among the

appellants/petitioners and the permission to withdrawals shall be in terms of

the tribunal awarded.

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

within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

(iv) the appellants/petitioners are directed to pay the court Fee on the