Tirumani Prabhavathi 4 Ors. vs Apsrtc
2022 Latest Caselaw 2340 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


             M.A.C.M.A.No. 2635 of 2006:


JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied by the compensation amount awarded, the

petitioners / claimants filed this Appeal assailing the decree

and order dated 14.09.2006 in MVOP.No.2106 of 2004 passed

by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVI

Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The claim petitioners/wife and children of Sri T.Ashok

Kumar Goud/deceased filed the petition seeking compensation

of Rs.6,50,000/- and the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,90,000/- with

interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till

the date of realization against the respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C.

3. The facts in brief are that on 11.05.2004 at about 0010

hours while Sri T.Ashok Kumar Goud/deceased was proceeding

in Maruthi Car bearing No. AP9E 5115 (hereinafter 'the car')

near ICICI cross roads, Turkapally on Rajiv Road, one

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP11Z3085 driven by its driver in NTR,J ::2:: macma_2635_2006

rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction, dashed

the Car and caused the death of Sri T.Ashok Kumar Goud.

Thus claiming loss of dependency and other heads, the claim

petition was filed seeking compensation.

4. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants

vehemently contested that the Tribunal erred in assessing the

income of Sri T.Ashok Kumar Goud/deceased and

inappropriately taken notional income at Rs.1250/- per month

and the future prospects are not considered. Further the

Tribunal should have considered the trade licence/Ex.A-8 for

kirana shop and Ex.A-9/encumbrance certificate reflecting the

agricultural lands and the membership of the deceased in

toddy tappers association is estimating the income. The

tribunal should have deducted the amount for personal

consumption basing on the number of dependants. Hence

prayed for reappraisal.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C.

pleaded that the tribunal basing on the evidence had rightly

considered and leniently granted compensation and no tenable NTR,J ::3:: macma_2635_2006

ground is made out in the appeal, hence, no interference is

required.

6. Heard the leaned counsel for the appellants and the

respondent.

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

"Whether the Tribunal had awarded just and reasonable compensation?"

8. For awarding compensation under the head 'Loss of

Dependency', the age and income of the deceased are

foundational factors.

9. The appellants / petitioners pleaded that Sri T.Ashok

Kumar Goud / deceased was aged 40 years. Basing on

inquest report/Ex.A-5, and post mortem report/Ex.A-6, the

tribunal had taken the age of the deceased as 40 years. In

absence of any particular document proving the age of the

deceased, the course adopted by the Tribunal is found

reasonable, therefore this conclusion is affirmed.

                                                                NTR,J
                              ::4::                  macma_2635_2006

10. With regard to income, the petitioners / appellants

contended that Sri T.Ashok Kumar Goud was business man

running kirana general stores at Pathancheruvu and was a

member of toddy tappers association, along side he was also

doing agriculture in his own land, thereby earning Rs.8,000/-

per month. In support thereof, the appellants/petitioners filed

original professional licence/Ex.A-8, encumbrance

certificate/Ex.A-9. The Tribunal on considering that the author

of document/Secretary Gram Panchayat was not examined to

prove the certificate/Ex.A-8 and as no title passbooks were

filed in support of the possession and ownership of agricultural

lands, discredited the documents and by relying on the Second

Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, had

taken notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum.

11. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners failed to file

any specific document confirming income. Mere having licence

or claim of having agricultural lands per se cannot be read as

proof of income pleaded by the petitioners. Thus on guess

work, having regard to the probable income earning capacity

at the age of the deceased and the fact that the pleaded NTR,J ::5:: macma_2635_2006

occupations are of supervisory in nature and the probable

expense in engaging such services, the monthly income of the

deceased can be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month.

12. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the future

prospects of income of the self-employed deceased shall be

included in determining the compensation. Thus, considering

the age of the deceased, 40% of the annual income, is added

towards future prospects of income, accordingly the monthly

income would be Rs.4,500/- + 1800/- = Rs.6,300/-.

Resultantly, the annual income would be of Rs.75,600/-

(Rs.6,300/- x 12).

13. The appellants are wife and children of the deceased.

Having regard to the age and marital status the petitioners 1,

3, 4 and 5 can be considered as dependants. As per the

dictum of Sarla Verma as the dependant family members

are 4 in number, 1/4th of the income is deducted towards the

personal expenses of the deceased. For that reason, the

(2017) 16 SCC 680

ACJ 2013 Page 1409 NTR,J ::6:: macma_2635_2006

annual contribution of the deceased to the appellants /

petitioners would be of Rs.56,700/-.

14. Further, the relevant multiplier prescribed in the

authority of Sarla Verma (2 supra) is 15. Correspondingly,

multiplied value comes to Rs.8,50,500/- (Rs.56,700/- x 15).

The appellants/claimants are entitled to this amount under the

head of 'Loss of Dependency'.

15. Besides, the appellants / petitioners are also entitled for

compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the

dictum of Pranay Sethi (1 supra), i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards

loss of Estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges; and

Rs.40,000/- to 1st appellant / 1st petitioner towards spousal

consortium.

16. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the

comprehensive interpretation of '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. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur

(2018) 18 SCC 130 NTR,J ::7:: macma_2635_2006

and others4 reinforced 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'.

17. Duly, Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to 3rd, 4th and 5th

appellants / petitioners towards parental consortium, totalling

Rs.1,20,000/-.

18. Therefore, appellants/petitioners are entitle for the

compensation in the following terms, viz., :

(i) Loss of dependency : Rs.8,50,500.00

(ii) Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000.00

(iii) Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00

(iv) Spousal Consortium to 1st appellant / petitioner : Rs. 40,000.00

(v) Parental Consortium to 3rd,4thand5thappellants/ [email protected] Rs.40,000/- : Rs.1,20,000.00 Each.

=============================== TOTAL : Rs.10,40,500.00

=============================

Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::8:: macma_2635_2006

19. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed as under:

(i) the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th appellants / petitioners are

awarded compensation of Rs.10,40,500/- (Rupees ten

lakhs forty thousand and five hundred only) with interest

at 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs from the

date of petition till realization;

(ii) the respondent is liable to pay the compensation;

(iii) the respondent is directed to deposit the awarded

amount with interest within one (1) month from the date

of receipt of copy of the order;

(iv) on deposit of enhanced amount with interest, the

appellants / petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire

amounts as apportioned by the Tribunal in the award.

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

stand closed.

_______________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date:06.06.2022 ccm