Telangana High Court
Bacharapu Mallaiah And Anr vs K. Suguna Ratnakumari And Anr on 9 November, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2763 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been filed by the claim petitioners aggrieved and
dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation amount granted in the
decree and order dated 27.10.2006 in O.P.No.799 of 2004 on the file
of III Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Chairman, Motor
Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Medak (for Short "the tribunal").
2. The claim petitioner's case in brief is that, on 13.11.2004 the
claimants and their deceased daughter went to a Tea Hotel near the
chowrastha of Hanuman Temple at Jogipet. After taking tea the
claimants and deceased were going to Government Hospital, Jogipet,
when they were crossing at the end of road the lorry bearing No.AP-
23-V-4817 came from Annasagar village side proceeding towards
Sangareddy town side at high speed and in rash and negligent manner
and dashed to the deceased and the lorry ran over from the deceased
due to which the deceased died on the spot. The Police of Jogipet
registered a case in Cr.No.124 of 2004 against the driver of crime
vehicle. The deceased age was 15 years at the time of her death and
she was assisting the claimants in agricultural operations and
contributing worth of Rs.2,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of
2 NBK,J
MACMA_2763_2007
deceased, the claimants put to loss mentally and monetarily and put to
indescribable agony and distress. The deceased was the only daughter
to claimants. The respondent No.1 is owner of crime vehicle and
respondent No.2 is insurer to the said vehicle. Thereupon, the parents
of deceased filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short "the M.V.Act') seeking compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-.
3. The learned Tribunal, considering the material on record held
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
lorry and awarded Rs.60,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum by
resting the liability against the owner and insurer of the lorry/1st and
2nd respondents.
4. In appeal, appellants/claim petitioners (for short 'the
petitioners') contended that the tribunal ought to have considered the
settled preposition of law in delineating notional income. Further no
future prospects are accounted and meager amounts are granted
under conventional heads. Thus, prayed for re-assessment.
5. In support, the petitioners placed reliance on the authority
between Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore
Murmu 1 and pleaded that for the death of 7 year old boy in the
(2022) 1 SCC 317
3 NBK,J
MACMA_2763_2007
accident the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken notional income at
Rs.25,000/- per annum and prayed for adopting the same in the
instant case.
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer (for short 'the
respondent') pleaded that the tribunal had leniently considered the
claim and awarded appropriate amounts. However, fairly submitted
that by considering the settled law, just compensation may be
awarded.
7. In this position, the point arises for determination is:
"Whether the claimants are entitled for any enhancement of
compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount"?
8. The petitioners pleaded that the deceased was aged about 15
years and he was school going boy by the date of the accident. The
deceased was not only a student but, also it is the contention of the
parents of the deceased that he used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month by
doing agriculture work and used to contribute the same to the family.
As per the material available on record, the age of the deceased is
shown as 12 years. Taking into account the averments of the petition
and since none have challenged the same by way of cross
examination, the age of the deceased can be safely accepted at 12
4 NBK,J
MACMA_2763_2007
years. Though the parents of the deceased stated that the deceased
was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by way of agriculture operations,
but, at the age of deceased, no income generating avenue can be
presumed. However, having regard to the settled proposition in the
authority Kurvan Ansari (supra) the notional income of the deceased
can be presumed as Rs.25,000/- per annum.
9. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others 2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while assessing the
compensation for the death future prospects shall be taken into
account. Accordingly, considering the age of the deceased 40% of
income is added towards future prospects and out of this 50% of the
income has to be deducted towards personal living expenditure. Thus,
annual contribution of the deceased to the petitioners would be
Rs.17,500/-. If this amount is multiplied with the multiplier to the age
of the deceased i.e., 12, the sum comes to Rs.2,62,500/- (Rs.17,500x
15). The petitioners are entitled for this amount towards 'Loss of
Dependency'.
10. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for compensation under
'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 860
5 NBK,J
MACMA_2763_2007
(supra) i.e., Rs.15,000/- for funeral charges and Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate.
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
consortium shall be awarded to the parents for the loss of love and
affection and companionship of their children. Correspondingly, the 1st
and 2nd petitioners being the parents are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
towards filial consortium.
12. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensation
as follows:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 2,62,500.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Filial consortium to 1st and 2nd 80,000.00
petitioners
TOTAL 3,72,500.00
13. The Section 168 of M.V.Act contemplates duty on the Courts to
award just compensation to the claimants. In Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020
6 NBK,J
MACMA_2763_2007
Singh 5 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence of any bar in
the Act, the competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation
to the petitioners, if they are entitled for such compensation. For the
reasons, the above arrived sum shall be granted to the petitioners.
14. For the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in the following terms:
(i) The petitioners are awarded Rs.3,72,500/- (Rupees three
lakhs seventy two thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 7.5%
per annum with costs., from the date of petition till date of realization;
(ii) the owner and the insurer of the lorry/1st and 2nd
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation
and they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount by setting of
the amounts paid, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment;
(iii) the apportionment among the petitioners shall be in terms
of the tribunal award.
(iv) on deposit of the awarded amount, the petitioners are
permitted to withdraw entire amount apportioned in their favour, on
payment of Court fee on enhanced compensation amount.
(2003) 2 SCC 274
7 NBK,J
MACMA_2763_2007
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date:09.11.2023
VRKS
8 NBK,J
MACMA_2763_2007
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2763 of 2007
Date:09.11.2023
VRKS
