Telangana High Court
Yaramakala Prayush vs Mohd.Maqbool Khan on 1 November, 2023
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.2395 of 2013
and
M.A.C.M.A.No.1087 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The present appeals arise out of the judgment and decree
dated 11.06.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.1235 of 2010 passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XII Additional Chief
Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (for
short, 'the impugned award').
2. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of ₹.65,25,528/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.
3. M.A.C.M.A.No.1087 of 2023 is filed by the appellants /
claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, and
M.A.C.M.A.No.2395 of 2013 is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the award passed by the Tribunal.
4. Heard Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants / claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1087 of 2023 and
Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel for the United
India Insurance Company Limited / appellant / 2nd respondent
in M.A.C.M.A.No.2395 of 2013.
5. The brief facts of the case are that, according to the
appellants, the deceased met with a road accident on
19.01.2010 at about 09:00 P.M. while he was returning to his
home on his two-wheeler. According to the appellants, when the
deceased reached Kolan Raghava Reddy function hall, situated
on the Nizampet Road, one Tata Indica Car bearing Registration
No.AP-11-TV-0887, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner hit the motorcycle of the deceased from behind as a
result of which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged around
34 years.
M.A.C.M.A.No.2395 of 2013
6. M.A.C.M.A.No.2395 of 2013 is filed by the Insurance
Company / appellant / 2nd respondent challenging the
impugned award passed by the Tribunal claiming that the
quantum of compensation as also so far as liability aspect.
7. According to learned counsel for the appellant, there is a
total denial of the accident, proof of employment and also the
deceased not having proper and valid driving license.
Nonetheless, when we peruse the material on record, it would go
to show that the claimants had examined themselves and in
addition the employer of the deceased was also examined as
P.W.3. P.W.2, who is said to be an eye-witness to the incident,
alleged that the accident occurred only on account of rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle
which has been duly insured with the appellant/insurance
company, i.e., the United India Insurance Company Limited.
8. The appellant / insurance company examined two
witnesses, viz., RW.1 and RW.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.10 and Exs.X.1
and X.2 were marked on behalf of them.
9. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the
Tribunal has passed the impugned award with a condition that
the awarded amount shall be paid by the appellant / insurance
company, however with liberty to recover the awarded
compensation from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
10. Having heard both sides and after perusing the record, we
do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant /
insurance company, more particularly, when the Tribunal itself
has appreciated the same and has applied the principle of "pay
and recover". Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2395 of 2013 stands
dismissed. No costs.
M.A.C.M.A.No.1087 of 2023
11. As regards M.A.C.M.A.No.1087 of 2023 is concerned,
which was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, admittedly the deceased
in the instant case was a Software Engineer working as Team
Leader at M/s.Foursoft Limited in the Human Resources
Department. The net salary of the deceased was ₹.47,589/- and
the gross salary was ₹.57,702/-. The net salary was after
deduction of taxes. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve
the said evidence adduced by the claimants and this Court
accepts the salary of the deceased to be ₹.47,589/-. Since there
is no proof of any further source of income, we accept the
monthly income of the deceased, i.e., net income @ ₹.47,589/-
and proceed to quantify the compensation in terms of the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 1 and Sarla Verma vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation 2.
12. Firstly, taking into account the net income of the deceased
@ ₹.47,589/-, the annual income would come to ₹.5,71,068/-.
Since the deceased had a regular income which has been duly
proved by the employer as well, the deceased would be entitled
(2017) 16 SCC 680
2 ACJ 2013 pg.1409
to 50% of the annual income towards future prospects as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (2 supra),
i.e., 50% of ₹.5,71,068/-, which comes to ₹.2,85,534/-. Thus,
the annual income of the deceased comes to (₹.5,71,068/- +
₹.2,85,534/-) = ₹.8,56,602/-.
13. As per the decision in Sarla Verma (2 supra), where the
dependents are more than three, 1/4th of the income shall be
deducted towards personal expenditure, i.e., [Rs.8,56,602/- (-)
[1/3rd of ₹.8,56,602/-] = ₹.8,56,602 (-) ₹.2,14,150 = ₹.6,42,452.
In effect, the contribution of the deceased to the claimants /
dependents would be ₹.6,42,452/-. Considering the age of the
deceased at the time of accident to be 35 years, and applying the
relevant multiplier 16, the amount of compensation would be
(16 x ₹.6,42,452/-) = ₹.1,02,79,232/-. Therefore, the appellants
/ appellants are entitled to compensation of an amount of
₹.1,02,79,232/- towards 'Loss of Dependency'.
14. This apart, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi (1 supra), the appellants / petitioners are also
entitled for compensation under the conventional heads, viz.,
Rs.15,000/-, towards Loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/-, towards
funeral charges.
15. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating
the comprehensive interpretation to 'consortium' given in
Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors. 3, and
also in the decision between United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 4, 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.
16. Correspondingly, the appellant / petitioner Nos.1 and 2
are entitled for 'parental consortium' of Rs.40,000/- each,
totaling to Rs.80,000/-; appellant / petitioner No.3 is entitled for
'spousal consortium' of ₹.40,000/-; and appellant / petitioner
Nos.4 and 5 are entitled for 'filial consortium' of ₹.40,000/- each,
totaling to ₹.80,000/-. In all, the consortium awarded to
appellant / petitioner Nos.1 to 5, is ₹.80,000 + ₹.40,000 +
₹.80,000/- = ₹.2,00,000/-.
17. Thus, in total, the amounts awarded by this Court under
various heads are summed up as under, viz.,
(2018) 18 SCC 130
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 1,02,79,232.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Spousal Consortium to 40,000.00
appellant / petitioner No.3
Filial Consortium to appellant 80,000.00
/ petitioner Nos.1 and 2, i.e.,
₹.40,000 x 2 = ₹.80,000/-
Parental Consortium to 80,000.00
petitioner / respondent nos.4
and 5, i.e., Rs.40,000 x 2 =
Rs.80,000/-
TOTAL 1,05,09,232.00
18. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A.No.1087 of 2023 is allowed in
part as above and the appellants / petitioners therein are
entitled for an amount of ₹.1,05,09,232.00 towards
compensation. The rest of the terms of the award passed by the
Tribunal shall remain intact. No costs.
19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in
these appeals, shall stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date : 01.11.2023
Ndr
