Smt. G.Sakku Bai vs Sanjay Pandey
2023 Latest Caselaw 3716 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.3006 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned

counsel for the insurer.

2. The appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants

challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and

award dated 21.08.2007 in O.P.No.166 of 2006 on the file of

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2006 at about

12:45 PM at Mahatma Nagar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, while the

deceased was proceeding on foot to his house, in the meanwhile a

Lorry bearing No.UP-78-AT-0343 came with high speed in a rash and

negligent manner, driven by its driver and dashed the deceased, due

to which the deceased sustained serious injuries all over the body. He

was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad but he succumbed to

the injuries on the way to the hospital. The accident took place due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. The

deceased was working as LMV driver and was earning Rs.3,300/- per 2 NBK, J MACMA_3006_2007

month. The S.H.O.Bowenpally registered a case in Cr.No.108 of 2006.

The 1st respondent being the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent

being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation at Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners.

4. The learned Tribunal, on analyzing the evidence concluded that

the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry

and awarded Rs.2,79,360/- with 7.5% interest per annum as

compensation and the owner and insurer of the lorry/1st and 2nd

respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation.

5. In appeal, the appellants contended that the tribunal failed to

deduct 40% of the amount towards the personal expenditure of the

deceased instead of deducting 1/3rd of the earnings and the tribunal

failed to assess the correct age of the mother of the deceased while

computing the compensation and ought to have granted total

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, prayed for re-assessment of

compensation.

6. In these rival pleas, the point arises for determination is:

"Whether the compensation granted to the petitioner by the

tribunal is just and proper".

                                        3                              NBK, J
                                                            MACMA_3006_2007

7. The rival contention putforth by the appellants before this Court

is that the tribunal erred in assessing the age of the mother for

computing multiplier and deducted 40% instead of 1/3rd under the

head of personal expenses of the deceased.

8. In M/s Royal Sundraram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Mandala yadagiri Gour and others 1 the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that

"it is the age of the deceased and not such of the dependents in case

of the death of a bachelor which is to be the basis for the multiplier".

9. The petitioners did not file any particular document to prove the

age. However, on a perusal of Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-4 C.C of Charge sheet,

C.C of Inquest Report and C.C of P.M.E.Report respectively goes to

show that the age of the deceased is disclosing as 29 years. Thus, the

age of the deceased by the date of accident can safely be taken at 29

years.

10. With regard to the income the deceased, PW-2/employer of the

deceased deposed that deceased worked under him as a driver and he

used to pay Rs.3,300/- per month. On this aspect, except suggestions

nothing specific is elicited in cross examination denying the income of

the deceased at the time of his death. Therefore, the monthly income

(2019) 5 SCC 554 4 NBK, J MACMA_3006_2007

of the deceased at the time of his death can be taken as Rs.3,300/-

per month.

11. 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.

12. As the sole petitioner No.1 being the mother of the deceased and

petitioner No.2 being brother of deceased as dependents of the

deceased and since the deceased as a bachelor is not disputed, 50% of

the income has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the

deceased, resultantly, the annual contribution of deceased to the

petitioner would be Rs.19,800/-, to which 40% of future prospects is

added, it comes to Rs.27,720/- (Rs.19,800/- + 40% of Rs.27,720/-).

If this amount is multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of

the deceased i.e., 17, the sum comes to Rs.4,71,240/- (Rs.27,720/-

x 17). The petitioners are entitled for this amount towards 'Loss of

Dependency'.

    (2017) 16 SCC 860
                                                      5                                NBK, J
                                                                            MACMA_3006_2007

13. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards

loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.

14. 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

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 No.1

being the mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards

filial consortium.

15. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensation as follows :

               DESCRIPTION                                           AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency                                                         4,71,240.00
Loss of Estate                                                               15,000.00
Funeral Charges                                                              15,000.00
Filial consortium to the petitioner                                          40,000.00
                                                   TOTAL                  5,41,240.00




    (2018) 18 SCC 130

Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 6 NBK, J MACMA_3006_2007

16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The petitioners are

awarded with the compensation of Rs.5,41,240/- (Rupees five lakhs,

forty one thousand, two hundred and forty rupees only) with interest

@ 7.5% per annum with costs., from the date of petition till date of

realization;

i) the owner and insurer/respondents are jointly and severally

are 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;

(ii) on deposit of the awarded amount, the petitioners are

permitted to withdraw entire amount in their favour, on payment of

court fee on enhanced compensation awarded.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

                                          _______________________
                                           NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

Date: 08.11.2023
VRKS
                               7                         NBK, J
                                              MACMA_3006_2007

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

M.A.C.M.A.No.3006 of 2007

Date:08.11.2023 VRKS