Telangana High Court
Ahmed Begum And 3 Others vs C. Chandrashekar And Another on 7 November, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A. No.1778 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the
Order and Decree dated 19.12.2007 passed in O.P.No.1409 of 2003 by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge) At
Nizamabad (for short, the Tribunal).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/appellants are
wife, children of deceased. On the midnight of 30.05.2003 the
deceased who was cleaner of the lorry bearing No.ABP-0459 was
proceeding in the lorry towards Tandoor from Godavarikhani. There
was load of Charcoal in the vehicle. When the vehicle reached near
Ranith Pharma Limited at 06:15 AM on 31.05.2003 at DCM Van
bearing No.AP-13-V-4482 belonging to the first respondent came in
opposite direction at high speed and while trying to overtake one RTC
bus, it dashed against the lorry and as a result deceased and driver of
the lorry sustained serious injuries. Immediately both of them were
taken to Government Hospital, Sangareddy. On the advice of the
doctors in the hospital, the deceased was being taken to Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad but he died during the journey. The deceased
was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as cleaner. The accident occurred
only on account of rash and negligent driving of DCM Van. Therefore,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are being the owner and insurer of the vehicle
are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte. On the
otherhand, the second respondent in his counter denied all the
allegations as to the manner of the accident and disputed the claim of
the petitioners for compensation.
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 lorry and
awarded total compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- 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 erred in fixing the monthly income of the
claimant @ Rs.2,000/- by ignoring the fact that the appellant's
evidence to the effect that he is earning Rs.4,000/- per month.
7. Further, as the occupation pleaded in part of unorganized sector,
no proof of document can be expected. The learned counsel for the
appellants contended that though the it is the evidence of appellants
that the deceased used to earn Rs.4,000/- by way of cleaner. Though
no proof to that effect was filed by the appellants but, in view of the
evidence available on record and taking into account the age of the
deceased @ 35 by the date of his death, the monthly income of the
deceased can be fixed at Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, this Court is inclined
to fix the monthly income of the deceased at relevant period at
Rs.3,000/-.
8. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others 1 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 four 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.37,800/- {(Rs.3,150/- X 12 = Rs.37,800/-, inclusive of 40%
future prospects). If this amount is multiplied with the multiplier
applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 16, the sum comes to
Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.6,04,800/- x 16). 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. 2, in the
authority between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur and others 3 reinforced that the amounts for loss of
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
(2017) 16 SCC 860
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020
companionship of their grown up children. Therefore, petitioner being
the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards spousal
consortium.
12. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensation
as follows:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 6,04,800.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Spousal Consortium 40,000.00
Parental Consortium 1,20,000.00
TOTAL 7,94,800.00
13. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A is disposed of by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.2,73,000/- to Rs.7,94,800/- (Rupees Seven
lakhs ninety four thousand eight 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 depositing
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
