Telangana High Court
Rasheeda Bee And Another vs M.Yadagiri And Another on 12 October, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A. No.2817 OF 2007
ORDER:
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the
Judgment and Decree dated 24.07.2007 passed in O.P.No.94 of 2007
by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District
Judge), at Nalgonda.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.02.2005 while the
deceased Khaja was returning to Gajwel from Rajapet in an auto
trolley bearing No.AP-24-U-4320 of R-1 and the driver of the auto
trolley drove the same in rash and negligent manner, dashed a blow,
as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and the injured
succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad. The accident was reported with the Police at
Rajapet, who in turn initially registered a case in Cr.No.03 of 2005
under Section 338 of IPC and later it was altered to Section 304-A of
IPC. It is submitted by appellants that the deceased ws hale and
healthy and earning Rs.2,000/- per month from hotel business and
sought for a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-.
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. 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.1.96.000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum
i.e., Rs.1,92,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.2,000/- each
towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants filed
the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.
5. As per Ex.A.3, autopsy report, the age of the deceased is 19 and
since no proof of age is produced, the age of the deceased can be
safely fixed at 19.
6. 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".
7. The first petitioner as PW-1 deposed that by the date of accident
deceased was aged about 19 years and was doing hotel business with
monthly income of Rs.3,000/. The petitioner did not file any
particular document to prove the age. However, the Postmortem
examination report/Ex.A-3 is disclosing the age of the deceased at 19.
Thus, the age of the deceased by the date of accident can safely be
taken at 19 years.
8. With regard to the income the deceased, PW-1/mother of the
deceased deposed that her son used to earn Rs.3,000/- 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
(2019) 5 SCC 554
death. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased at the time of
his death can be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month.
9. 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.
10. As the petitioners being the mother of the deceased as a
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 petitioners would be Rs.18,000/- {(Rs.3,000/- X12
= Rs.36,000/-) (Since deceased being bachelor 50% of his annual
contribution is deducted i.e., Rs.18,000/-)}, to which 40% of future
prospects is added, it comes to Rs.25,200/- (Rs.18,000/- + 40% of
Rs.18,000/-). If this amount is multiplied with the multiplier
applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 18, the sum comes to
Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.25,200/- x 18). The petitioner is entitled for this
amount towards 'Loss of Dependency'.
11. Besides, the petitioners are also entitled for Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the
comprehensive interpretation to 'consortium' given in the authority of
(2017) 16 SCC 860
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, petitioners
being the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards
filial consortium.
13. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensation
as follows:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 4,53,600.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Filial consortium to the petitioners 80,000.00
TOTAL 5,63,600.00
14. The Section 168 of the M.V.Act contemplates that the courts
duty is to award just compensation and three judge bench of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 5 held that the Court can
award more compensation that the amount claimed.
15. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A is disposed of by enhancing the
compensation from 1,96,000/- to Rs.5,63,600/- (Rupees five lakhs,
sixty three thousand, six hundred only). The enhanced amount shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till
date of realization;
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020
2003 (2) SCC 274
i) 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;
(ii) on deposit of the awarded amount, the petitioner is
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:12.10.2023
VRKS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A. No.2817 OF 2007
Date:12.10.2023
VRKS
