Telangana High Court
Burri Limbavva, Nizamabad Dist And 3 ... vs Syed Yousuf Ali And Anr on 29 December, 2023
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.97 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Order dated 07.05.2014 in
O.P.No.638 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad.
2. The appellants/petitioners filed O.P.No.638 of 2010,
claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of the
deceased, Burri Gangadhar in the road traffic accident occurred
on 17.10.1999. The Police, Kamareddy, registered F.I.R. No.234
of 1999 under Section 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of
the crime vehicle.
3. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary
evidence granted Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition to till the date of realization.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners
contended that the contributory negligence of the deceased as
25% was taken by the Trial Court but there was no pleading in
the counter regarding and the age of the parents of the deceased
was considered for taking the appropriate multiplier instead of
considering the age of the deceased. Therefore, requested this
Court to modify the order of the Trial Court.
5. On 17.10.1999, Burri Gangadhar/deceased was
proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 25 C 2332 and
Pradeep Kumar was the pillion rider. At 12.00 noon, they
reached in front of Balaji Petrol Pump, Kamareddy and one lorry
bearing No.MH 29-7869 at high speed in rash and negligent
manner was going ahead of their motorcycle and the driver of
the said lorry applied sudden brake in the middle of the road.
As a result, Burri Gangadhar came under the lorry and
sustained rupture of liver, heart and lungs and sustained
grievous head injury and died on the way to hospital at
Kamareddy.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.
7. As the driver of the lorry applied sudden brakes and the
deceased was going behind the vehicle, the deceased went
under the lorry and sustained injuries and he died. Therefore,
it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased.
8. It was stated that he was working as beedi commission
agent and also doing milk business and was earning
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, but he has not filed any document.
As such, the trial Court taken his income as Rs.8,000/- and
this court needs no reason to interfere with the salary taken by
the trial Court.
9. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum
of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1 if the
deceased was unmarried, ½ of his income has to be deducted
his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased
after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.48,000/- per
annum and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, held that the
future prospects of income of the self-employed deceased shall
also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus,
considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income has to
be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would
become Rs.67,200/-. This sum if multiplied with the multiplier
applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.18, it would come to
Rs.12,09,600/-. Thus, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to
Rs.12,09,600/- under the head 'Loss of Dependency'.
10. Besides, the appellants are also entitled for compensation
under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, i.e.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral charges.
11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the
comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the
authority of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others 3, and in the authority
between United India Insurance Company Limited vs.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 4, fortified that
the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the
children 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. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award
Rs.40,000/- as filial consortium to the petitioners.
12. Therefore, the appellants/petitioners are entitled for the
compensation in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,09,600/-
2. Conventional Heads Rs.30,000/-
3. Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/-
TOTAL Rs.12,79,600/-
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(2020) 9 SCC 644
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.12,79,600/-
(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred
only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing the petition till date of realization. Respondent No.2
shall deposit the entire amount within a period of one
month from the date of order. On such Deposit, the
petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire amount
with the interest accrued on it equally. The
appellants/petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court
fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 29.12.2023
CHS
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 29.12.2023
CHS
