Telangana High Court
V. Danamma And 3 Others vs Nabi Khan And Another on 7 November, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A. No.1245 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the
Order and Decree dated 10.09.2007 passed in O.P.No.455 of 2003 by
the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal).
2. The brief facts of the case are that 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd
petitioner is the son, 3rd petitioner is daughter and 4th petitioner is
father of the deceased. The deceased was hale and healthy and was
earning Rs.4,500/- per month by attending to masonary work. On
16.06.2003 at about 08:00 PM while deceased was proceeding as
pillion rider of the cycle of Hanumanthu near Madinaguda village,
auto bearing No.AP-13-U-4756 came at high speed, rashly, negligently
and dashed the cycle. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad but he succumbed to injuries on the same
day at 09:45 PM. Due to sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners
are suffering a lot. The loss which the petitioners sustained cannot be
compensated in terms of money. At this accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurance company are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte.
Further, respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the material
averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount
claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,
the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto and
awarded total compensation of Rs.2,84,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per
annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the
appellants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.
5. Heard.
6. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is
that the Court below committed serious irregularity and illegality in
awarding meager compensation of Rs.2,84,000/- as against the claim
of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation.
7. Further, as the occupation pleaded in part of unorganized
sector, no proof of document can be expected. The learned counsel for
the appellants relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court between
Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance
Co. Ltd. 1 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
"in case of labourer, minimum wages can be taken as Rs.150/-
per day". Though the deceased was stated to be worked as stone
cutter at the time of accident but, since no cogent evidence is placed
before the learned tribunal pertaining to his income proof, the learned
tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- but,
in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, this
Court feels that the minimum wage of the deceased at relevant period
can safely be fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court is
(2011) 6 ALD 75 (SC)
inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at relevant period
at Rs.4,500/-.
8. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in assessing the compensation for
the death, future prospects shall be included. Accordingly, in view of
the age and occupation of the deceased 40% of his income shall be
considered towards future prospects.
9. As the petitioners being three in number as dependents of the
deceased 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal
living expenses of the deceased, resultantly, the annual contribution
of deceased inclusive of 40% of future prospects to the petitioners
would be Rs.56,700/- {(Rs.4,725/- X 12 = Rs.56,700/-, inclusive of
40% future prospects). If this amount is multiplied with the multiplier
applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 50, the sum comes to
Rs.8,50,500/- (Rs.56,700/- x 15). The petitioner is entitled for this
amount towards 'Loss of Dependency'.
10. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the
comprehensive interpretation to '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 and others 4 reinforced that the amounts for loss of
(2017) 16 SCC 860
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020
consortium shall be awarded to the children as parental consortium
for the loss of the parental aid, protection, security, love and affection
and filial consortium to the parents for the loss of love and affection
and companionship of their grown up children. Therefore, petitioner
being the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards
spousal consortium. The petitioner No.3 being the minor daughter of
deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium.
Lastly, petitioner No.4 being mother of the deceased is entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium.
12. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensation
as follows:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 8,50,500.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Consortium 1,20,000.00
TOTAL 10,00,500.00
13. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A is disposed of by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.2,84,000/- to Rs.10,00,500/- (Rupees ten
lakhs five hundred only). The enhanced amount shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization.
The owner and insurer/respondents are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation as they are directed to deposit the awarded
amount by setting of the amounts if any, within one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On deposit of the awarded
amount, the petitioners are is permitted to withdraw entire amount in
their favour, on payment of Court fee on enhanced compensation
amount.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date:07.11.2023
VRKS
