Telangana High Court

Smt.K.Chandrakala 2 Ors vs Smt.A.Kalyani Anr on 23 November, 2021

Bench: N.Tukaramji

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.4133 of 2008


JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied by the awarded compensation, the claimants /

petitioners filed this Appeal against the decree and award dt.27.01.2007

passed in MVOP.No.676 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Somaiah / deceased in a motor accident

dt.14.02.2005. The claim petitioners herein are wife and daughters of

Somaiah / deceased.

3. During pendency of this Appeal, the appellants / petitioners filed

petition seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- vide

MACMA.MP.No.4388 of 2015, and the same was ordered on

15.11.2017.

4. The appellants / petitioners' case in brief is that on 14.02.2005

while Somaiah / deceased was walking on the road, a Santro Car bearing

Registration No.AP-09-AN-2116 (the car) driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner struck and knocked him down. As a result he

suffered severe injuries, and was shifted to hospital, but while NTR,J ::2:: macma_4133_2008

undergoing treatment, succumbed to injuries. Thereupon, pleading loss

of dependency, petition is filed claiming compensation.

5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, awarded

Rs.3,74,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of realization, and held both respondents jointly and

severally liable to pay the compensation.

6. In dissent of the granted compensation amount, the appellants /

petitioners contested that the Tribunal ought to have considered the

Salary Certificate / Ex.A.7 and the supporting oral evidence of PW.s 2

and 3 and should have taken Rs.8,000/- as monthly salary; and that the

Tribunal erred in applying appropriate multiplier and no amounts were

granted under heads of 'transportation to Hospital', 'Medical

Expenditure' and 'Damage to Clothing', and that a meager amount was

awarded towards 'Funeral Charges'.

7. Thus, the point arises for determination is "whether the awarded

compensation is just and reasonable?".

8. The appellants / petitioners further claimed that Somaiah /

deceased by the date of accident was aged 44 years and was working as

Head Cook at SSR Bar and Restaurant in Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and

was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal after considering the

Inquest Report / Ex.A.3 and Post Mortem Report / Ex.A.4, has taken the

age of Somaiah / deceased as 50 years. As there is no other material to NTR,J ::3:: macma_4133_2008

prove the age, the conclusion of the Tribunal on this aspect is found

justified.

9. The evidence of PW.1 / daughter of K. Somaiah / deceased and

the statements of Srinivas / PW.2 and Mohd. Mansoor @ Younis / PW.3

are consistent as regards Somaiah / deceased was a Head Cook in the

SSR Bar and Restaurant, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. To prove this fact,

the Salary Certificate / Ex.A.7 was filed, but the document was not

proved by examining its author. The PWs.2 and 3 (steward and cook

respectively, in the restaurant) claimed that their salary is at Rs.5,000/-

per month, and Somaiah / deceased used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month.

But, except oral statement no substantiating proof is filed to show that

they are working in that restaurant and earning monthly income as

stated. The Tribunal, has believed monthly income of Somaiah /

deceased at Rs.4,000/-. Considering these aspects, and as there is no

evidence establishing the income, the determination of monthly income

at Rs.4,000/- appears to be just and could not be faulted. Accordingly,

the annual income of Somaiah / deceased would be Rs.48,000/- per

annum.

10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others.1 held that in computing

the loss of dependency the future prospects of income of a self-employed

50 year-old deceased 25% of the income shall be included. Accordingly,

(2017) 16 SCC 860 NTR,J ::4:: macma_4133_2008

25% future prospects of income shall be added. If the amount is valued,

the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/-.

11. In the authority of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport

Corp. & Anr 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the

dependents are 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards

personal consumption 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 Somaiah / deceased shall be

deducted towards his living expenses. Consequently, the contribution of

the deceased to the appellants/petitioners would be Rs.48,000/- (1/3 of

Rs.60,000/-).

12. For the relevant age of Somaiah / deceased, the multiplier

prescribed in Sarla Verma's case (3 supra) is '13'. If the annual

contribution is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, the total comes to

Rs.5,20,000/-, i.e., (Rs.40,000 x 13). This amount is 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 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.





    ACJ 2013 Page 1409
                                                                                    NTR,J
                                                  ::5::                  macma_4133_2008

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.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,

'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 to the appellants / petitioners

under various heads stands modified as under :

              DESCRIPTION                                 AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency                                         5,20,000.00
Loss of Estate                                              15,000.00
Funeral Charges                                             15,000.00
Spousal Consortium to 1st appellant /                       40,000.00
petitioner
Parental Consortium to appellant / petitioner               80,000.00

nos.2 and 3, i.e., Rs.40,000 each (Rs.40,000 x 2) TOTAL 6,70,000.00

17. The Appeal is allowed as above in the following terms :

(2018) 18 SCC 130

Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::6:: macma_4133_2008

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

to pay Rs.6,70,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum with

proportionate costs from the date of petition till date of

realization;