Maringanti Rama Thayaru Anr vs G.Raghu Ram Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3561 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3561 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 July, 2022

Telangana High Court

Maringanti Rama Thayaru Anr vs G.Raghu Ram Anr on 8 July, 2022

Bench: N.Tukaramji

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                     M.A.C.M.A.No.1805 of 2007


JUDGMENT:

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri M.Madhava

Reddy and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri T.Ramulu.

2. The claim petitioners filed this appeal challenging the

decree and award dated 20.12.2006 in OP.No.76 of 2005 on the

file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. The claim petition was filed by the wife and daughter of

Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased, on his death in vehicular

accident dated 01.04.2004, seeking compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The case of the appellants/petitioners (hereinafter 'the

petitioners') is that on 01.04.2004, while Kodanda

Ramacharyulu/deceased and his family members were traveling

in a Tata Sumo (hereinafter "sumo car") bearing registration

No.AP24U 6677 to Tirupati, at the place of accident, the driver of 2 NTR,J Macma_1805_2007

sumo car drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, dashed

a stationed tractor, which resulted in severe injuries to all the

inmates and the injured were removed to hospital for treatment,

however, Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased succumbed to the

injuries. The petitioners pleading loss of dependency, filed the

claim petition.

5. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence on record,

granted Rs.3,81,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of the petition till the date of realization against the insured

and insurer/1st and 2nd respondents.

6. In this appeal, the petitioners contested that though the

learned Tribunal properly considered the income of Kodanda

Ramacharyulu/deceased, erred in deducting 25% towards income

tax. Further, future prospects were not taken into account and

improper multiplier was applied. Further, conventional amounts

were inadequately granted, hence prayed for reassessment.

7. The 2nd respondent/insurer (hereinafter 'the respondent')

pleaded that all the aspects pleaded by the claimants were

considered by the learned Tribunal and appropriate amounts 3 NTR,J Macma_1805_2007

were granted as compensation. The learned Tribunal rightly

applied case laws at the relevant time, as such, no interference is

necessary in the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the same.

8. In this position, the point arises for determination is:

"Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of

compensation ?".

9. It is to be noted that the involvement of the vehicle,

accident, death of Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased and liability

of respondents, fixed by the learned Tribunal are not in dispute.

It is well settled position that in assessing compensation, the

age, occupation and income of the deceased are the foundational

factors.

10. The petitioners pleaded that Kodanda

Ramacharyulu/deceased was aged 55 years and as Senior

Assistant in ZP High School, used to earn Rs.14,387/- per month

as salary. To substantiate the claim, Ex.A7/Photostat copy of

service book, Ex.A6/salary certificate issued by the Head Master

were produced. The learned Tribunal, by considering the entries

in the above documents, believed the age of Kodanda 4 NTR,J Macma_1805_2007

Ramacharyulu/deceased as 57 years and monthly pay as

Rs.14,387/-. Basing on these reliable documents, deducing

these factors from the record are found acceptable.

11. In Sthe dictum of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport

Corp. & Anr 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that

while assessing the income of the deceased for compensation,

the gross salary minus income tax shall be taken as the income.

In this position, the gross income of Rs.1,72,644/- per annum is

taken into account and after deducting the income tax as per the

tax slabs of the relevant year, the annual income can be taken as

Rs.1,63,115/-.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2 held that in computing the loss

of dependency, the future prospects of income of a person shall

also be included. As the deceased was 57 years old by the date

of accident, the future prospects at 15% shall be added to the

income and it comes to Rs.1,87,582/-.





    ACJ 2013 Page 1409

    (2017) 16 SCC 860
                                              5                                   NTR,J
                                                                       Macma_1805_2007

13. Furthermore, considering the number of dependents, 1/3rd

of income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as per

the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors Vs

Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr (supra). Therefore, the annual

contribution to the petitioners comes to Rs.1,25,055/- and if this

amount is multiplied with appropriate multiplier to the age of

Kodanda Ramacharyulu/deceased, the sum would be

Rs.11,25,495/-(Rs.1,25,055 x 9). The petitioners are entitled for

this amount under the head of 'Loss of Dependency'.

14. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for compensation

under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of Pranay

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

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges, Rs.40,000/- to 1st

petitioner towards spousal consortium.

15. 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.





    (2018) 18 SCC 130
                                                    6                                NTR,J
                                                                          Macma_1805_2007

vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others4 reinforced that

the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the

children as parental consortium for the loss of the parental aid,

protection, security, love and affection. Accordingly, the 2nd

petitioner is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards parental

consortium.

16. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the following

amounts, viz., :

            DESCRIPTION                                           AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency                                                   11,25,495.00
Loss of estate                                                          15,000.00
Funeral charges                                                         15,000.00
Spousal consortium to 1st petitioner                                    40,000.00
Parental Consortium to 2nd petitioner                                   40,000.00
                                TOTAL                               12,35,495.00

17. For the aforesaid, the Appeal is allowed as follows:

(i) the respondents liable to pay Rs.12,35,495/-

(Rupees twelve lakhs, thirty five thousand, four hundred and

ninety five only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum with costs.,

from the date of petition till date of realization;