Mekala Venkatamma And 3 Ors vs P.Srinivasulu And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3714 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.2677 OF 2007
ORDER:

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the

Judgment and Decree dated 09.05.2007 passed in O.P.No.702 of 2006

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal V Additional District Judge,

Nalgonda at Miryalguda (for short, the Tribunal).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.2004 at about

08:00 PM the deceased Mekala Venkaiah was returning from his

agricultural fields to his village on foot with extreme left side of the

road with cautious manner, when he reached Pottivani Thanda Stage,

meantime an auto bearing No.AP-24-V-2822 came from his backside

with rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed to the

deceased. As a result of which the deceased sustained grievous

injuries on his head, face and all over the body and died on the spot.

The Police, Peddavoora registered a case in Cr.No.73 of 2004 under

Sections 337, 304-A of IPC against the driver of the auto of

respondent No.1. The deceased was hale and healthy person prior to

the accident, aged 54 years at the time of accident and used to earn

Rs.4,000/- per month by doing agriculture and he used to contribute

the same for welfare and maintenance of the petitioners. The

appellants filed aforesaid OP claiming compensation against

respondents, for the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained exparte and

respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments of the

claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and

prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. Before the tribunal, on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the

following issues are settled for trial:

(i) Whether the deceased Mekala Venkaiah died in the road accident ?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

5. 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 auto and awarded

total compensation of Rs.79,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants filed the

present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Court

below erred in taking the age of the deceased and wrongly applied

multiplier and also erred in taking monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.1,500/- instead of Rs.4,000/- per month. Further, the learned

counsel for the appellants submitted a calculation memo, dated

16.03.2023 agreeing the age of the deceased at 60 years as on the

date of death of the deceased.

7. Though the learned counsel for the appellants during the course

of filing grounds of appeal, relied on Ex.A-7 and sought to take the age

of the deceased at 54 years on the date of his death but however, the

learned counsel for the appellants has taken a turn by filing a

calculation memo, dated 16.03.2023 and agreed to the age taken by

the learned tribunal at 60 years. Since the age of the deceased is

taken at 60 years by the learned tribunal after doing considerable

exercise and the appellants agreeing to the same, the age of the

deceased can safely be fixed at 60 years at the time of his death.

8. Though no proof of income of the deceased was filed, the

learned counsel for the appellants insisted upon to take the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- but, taking into the age of the

deceased at the time of his death at 60 years, the monthly income of

the deceased by way of working as agriculture labour at Rs.1,500/- is

on lower side, at the same time it would be on higher side to take the

monthly income at Rs.4,000/- as represented by the learned counsel

for appellants. However, taking into account the age and avocation of

the deceased, this Court feels that it would be just and proper to fix

the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month notionally. Apart

from the same, the appellant is entitled to addition of 10% towards

future prospects, as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay

Sethi 1. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.2,750/- (Rs.2,500/- + Rs.250/-), and after deduction of 1/4th as

the dependants are four, the annual income comes to Rs.24,750/-

(Rs.2,062.50/- X 12). As the deceased was aged 60 years, the

appropriate multiplier is '9. Hence, the compensation under the head

'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.2,22,750/- (Rs.24,750/- X 9).

2017(6) ALD 170 (SC)

9. Apart from the same, the appellants are entitled to Rs.30,000/-

towards conventional heads i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges

and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, as per Pranay Sethi's case

(supra).

10. 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

companionship of their grown up children. Therefore, petitioner being

the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards spousal

consortium. Therefore, the total compensation comes to

Rs.2,92,750/- (Rs.2,22,750/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.40,000/-).

11. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

allowed, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.79,500/- to Rs.2,92,750/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till

realization. On deposit of the awarded amount, the petitioners are

permitted to withdraw entire amount in their favour, on depositing

Court fee on enhanced compensation amount.

(2018) 18 SCC 130

Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

costs.

_______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date:08.11.2023 VRKS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

M.A.C.M.A. No.2677 OF 2007

Date:08.11.2023 VRKS