Telangana High Court
Vannam Shivaparvathi vs G.Venkanna on 3 November, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2493 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Order dated 28.02.2013 in
O.P.No.721 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 Vannam Kishore, 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.5,79,000/- along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferred the present appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.09.2009, the
deceased V.Kishore, was proceeding on a bike along with pillion
rider M.Naresh, 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 pillion rider M.Naresh died on the
spot and the rider V.Kishore sustained fracture to head bone
and he succumbed to injuries while he was shifting to hospital.
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.
4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
evidence on record.
5. As the present appeal is 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.
6. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1
to A6 on behalf of the petitioners and Ex.B1 was marked on
behalf of the respondents.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellants 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.
8. 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/-).
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 married, 1/3rd of his income has to be deducted
as there are 3 dependents i.e., 26,000/- towards his personal
expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after
deducting personal expenses would comes to Rs.52,000/- per
annum (Rs.78,000/- - Rs.26,000/- = Rs.52,000/-) and the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, held that the future
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
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., 24 years, 40% of the
income i.e., Rs.20,800/- has to be added towards future
prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.72,800/-
(Rs.52,000 + Rs.20,800 = Rs.72,800). This sum if multiplied
with the multiplier 18, as applicable to the age of the deceased
i.e.24, it would comes to Rs.13,10,400/- (Rs.72,800 X 18 =
Rs.13,10,400/-). Thus, appellants No.1 to 3 are entitled to
Rs.13,10,400/- under the head 'Loss of Dependency'.
10. Besides, appellants No.1 to 3 are 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 and Rs.40,000/- to the first appellant
towards spousal consortium.
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/- to appellant No.2 towards parental consortium and
Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.3 towards filial consortium.
12. Therefore, appellants No.1 to 3 are entitled for the
compensation amount in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,10,400/-
2. Conventional heads Rs.70,000/-
3. Parental consortium for children Rs.40,000/-
3. Filial Consortium for parents Rs.40,000/-
TOTAL Rs.14,60,400/-
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(2020) 9 SCC 644
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.5,79,000/- to Rs.14,60,400/-
(Rupees Fourteen lakhs Sixty thousand Four 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. Appellant No.4
is a married sister and not dependent on the deceased, as
such she is not entitled for any compensation. On such
deposit, appellant No.3 i.e., mother of the deceased is
entitled to Rs.4,00,000/-. As the appellant No.2 is the
minor daughter of the deceased aged about 3 years at the
time of filing the appeal, out of the remaining
compensation, Rs.5,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit
in the name of minor daughter in any nationalized bank
till she attains the age of majority and the appellant No.1
i.e, the mother of the appellant No.2 is permitted to
withdraw the interest accrued on fixed deposit once in six
months to meet out day to day needs of the minor child
and she is also permitted to withdraw the balance
compensation amount along with interest accrued on it.
The appellants 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 No. 2493 of 2013
DATE: 03.11.2023
TRI
