Telangana High Court
Muppalaneni Subhadra And Another vs G Venkanna And Another on 3 November, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1285 & 1377 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These appeals are filed against the Order dated
28.02.2013 in O.P.No.728 of 2010 passed by the learned
I - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XV Additional
Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The petition vide O.P.No.728 of 2010 was filed by the
petitioners/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-
for the death of the deceased M.Naresh, who died in the motor
vehicle accident occurred on 29.09.2009. The trial Court after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,
granted compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.1285
of 2013.
3. The Insurance Company has also filed
M.A.C.M.A.No.1377 of 2010 against the same Order in
O.P.No.728 of 2010 and disputed the quantum of compensation
2
awarded by the trial Court and requested the Court to set aside
the Order of the trial Court.
4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
evidence on record.
5. Parties herein are referred as petitioners and respondents
as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
6. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.09.2009, when
the deceased M.Naresh, was proceeding on a bike along with
one V.Kishore, as a pillion rider to his residence at Chowtuppal
from his work place in Lingojiguda and when he reached
outskirts of Lingogiguda, a mini lorry bearing No.AP 24 X 9360
came from opposite direction and dashed them by crossing the
middle line of the road. As a result, the deceased M.Naresh died
on the spot and the rider V.Kishore sustained fracture to head
bone and subsequently he was also died. The police registered a
case in Cr.No.268 of 2009 and filed a copy of the inquest under
Ex.A2 and a copy of the Charge sheet under Ex.A5.
7. As the present appeals are preferred only against the
quantum of compensation granted by the trial Court, the issue
regarding rash and negligence of the rider of the vehicle need
not be gone into.
8. The petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and got
examined P.Ws.2 & 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A21 on their behalf
and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the respondents.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended
that though they got examined the employer of the deceased as
P.W.3 and also filed Ex.A6 salary certificate to show that
deceased was earning Rs.6,500/- per month, the trial Court
without assigning any reasons taken his salary as Rs.4,000/-
per month. Therefore, requested this Court to take his salary as
Rs.6,500/- per month.
10. Considering the evidence of P.W.3 and also the salary
certificate filed under Ex.A6, this Court finds that it is just and
reasonable to take the salary of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- as
on the date of incident and thus the annual income of the
deceased would comes to Rs.78,000/- (Rs.6,500/- X 12 =
Rs.78,000/-).
11. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum
of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1 if the
deceased was Bachelor, half of his income has to be deducted
i.e., Rs.39,000/- towards his personal expenses. Thus, the
annual income of the deceased after deducting personal
expenses would comes to Rs.39,000/- per annum (Rs.78,000/2
= Rs.39,000/-) and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 2,
held that the future prospects of the income of the self-
employed deceased shall also be included in determination of
the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased
i.e., 23 years, 40% of the income i.e., Rs.15,600/- has to be
added towards future prospects and thus the amount would
become Rs.54,600/- (Rs.39,000 + Rs.15,600 = Rs.54,600). This
sum if multiplied with the multiplier 18, as applicable to the age
of the deceased i.e.23, it would comes to Rs.9,82,800/-
(Rs.54,600 X 18 = Rs.9,82,800/-). Thus, petitioner No.1 is
entitled to Rs.9,82,800/- under the head 'Loss of Dependency'.
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
12. Besides, petitioner No.1 is also entitled for compensation
under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, i.e.,
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral charges.
13. 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/- to petitioner No.1 towards filial consortium.
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(2020) 9 SCC 644
14. Therefore, petitioner No.1 is entitled for the compensation
amount in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.9,82,800/-
2. Conventional heads Rs.30,000/-
3. Filial Consortium for parents Rs.40,000/-
TOTAL Rs.10,52,800/-
15. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1285 of 2013 is allowed and
M.A.C.M.A.No.1377 of 2013 is dismissed. The amount of
compensation granted by the trial Court is enhanced from
Rs.4,28,000/- to Rs.10,52,800/- (Rupees Ten lakhs Fifty two
thousand Eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of
realization. Though, Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation, respondent
No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire
amount within a period of one month from the date of this
Judgment. Petitioner No.2 is a married sister and not
dependent on deceased, as such she is not entitled for any
compensation. On such deposit, petitioner No.1 is
permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with
interest accrued on it. The petitioners are also 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
DATE: 03.11.2023
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A Nos. 1285 and 1377 of 2013
DATE: 03.11.2023
TRI
