Telangana High Court
The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Nimmala Swaroopa on 30 August, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.63 of 2024 and 1514 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These appeals are filed against the Order dated
21.08.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.314 of 2018 passed by the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II-Additional District
Judge, Hanumakonda.
2. The petition vide M.V.O.P.No.1568 of 2014 was filed by
the petitioners/claimants claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Nimmala Ramesh,
who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.08.2023.
The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.23,58,500/-
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition
till realization. Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferred
M.A.C.M.A.No.63 of 2024, seeking to enhance the compensation
amount from Rs.23,58,500/- to Rs.49,20,000/- and the
Insurance Company has preferred an appeal in
M.A.C.M.A.No.1514 of 2023 against the same Order disputing
their liability and requested the Court to set aside the Order of
the trial Court.
3. Parties herein are referred as petitioners and respondents
as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.2018, the
deceased Nimmala Ramesh, was proceeding on a bike towards
Nanchari Maduru. When they reached near Government Degree
College, Thorrur village, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TS 12
UB 7468 drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the deceased motorcycle from back side. As
a result, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries and
died on the spot. The police registered a case in Cr.No.89 of
2018, under Section 304-A of IPC, against the driver of the
Lorry.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that
deceased was working as a car driver in Sridevi Travels,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad from 1992 onwards and used to run
cabs in Uber and Ola and earning Rs.18,500/- per month.
Apart from that he was doing fish business and earning
Rs.30,000/- per month, but the trial Court has taken the
income of the deceased as Rs.15,600/-. He further requested to
enhance the interest rate from 7.5% to 9%. Therefore, requested
the Court to modify the Order of the trial Court.
6. Petitioner No.1 was examined herself as P.W.1 and also
got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on behalf of the petitioners and
marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf and also marked Ex.B1 on
behalf of the respondents.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance
company mainly contended that petitioners failed to prove the
income of the deceased, but the trial Court has taken the
excessive amount of Rs.15,600/- per month. The trial Court has
discarded the oral evidence of P.W.3 and also Ex.A6-Salary
Certificate. The compensation granted by the tribunal is
excessive and arbitrary, therefore requested the Court to set
aside the Order of the trial Court.
8. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
evidence on record.
9. Perusal of the Order of the trial Court shows that
petitioners have claimed for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-
and the trial Court has granted an amount of Rs.23,58,500/-.
P.W.3 has filed Salary Certificate of the deceased under Ex.A6,
in which his monthly salary was shown as Rs.18,500/- and
petitioners contended that apart from that minimum wage for
the fisherman in the year 2018 was Rs.8829.80/- per month,
but no license was filed by P.W.1 to prove that deceased was
doing fish business, as such the trial Court has considered the
income of the deceased as Rs.15,600/- per month.
10. No doubt, petitioners have filed salary certificate, but they
have not examined the employer to prove the salary certificate
and also not filed Income Tax Returns. However, their claim is
that deceased was working as car driver from 1992 onwards
and he was aged about 42 years as on the date of accident.
Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take
the income of the deceased as Rs.18,500/- and thus his annual
income would comes to Rs.2,22,000/- (Rs.18,500/- X 12 =
Rs.2,22,000/-).
11. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum
of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1 if the
deceased was married, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted
towards his personal expenses, as there are 6 dependents.
Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting
personal expenses would comes to Rs.1,66,500/- per annum
(Rs.2,22,000 - Rs.55,000= Rs.1,66,500/-) and the Hon'ble Apex
(2009) 6 SCC 121
Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, held that the future prospects of income of
the self-employed shall also be included in determination of the
compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e.,42
years, 25% of the income i.e., Rs.41,625/- has to be added
towards future prospects and thus the amount would become
Rs.2,08,125/- (Rs.1,66,500/- + Rs.41,625/- = Rs.2,08,125/-).
This sum if multiplied with the multiplier 14 applicable to the
age of the deceased i.e., 42 years, it would come to
Rs.29,13,750/- (Rs.2,08,125 x 14 = Rs.29,13,750/-). Thus,
petitioners are entitled to Rs.29,13,750/- under the head 'Loss
of Dependency'.
12. Besides, appellants are also entitled for compensation
under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, i.e.,
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral charges and Rs.40,000/- to petitioner No.1 towards
spousal consortium. Therefore, they are entitled for Rs.70,000/-
under the 'Conventional heads'.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the
comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the
authority of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others 3, and in the authority
between United India Insurance Company Limited vs.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 4, fortified that
the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the
children who lose the care and protection of their parents as
'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium'
for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their
agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased
children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award
Rs.40,000/- each to petitioners No.5 and 6 under 'Filial
Consortium' and Rs.40,000/- each to petitioners No.2 to 4
under 'Parental Consortium'.
14. Therefore, petitioners/claimants are entitled for the
compensation in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.29,13,750/-
2. Conventional heads Rs.70,000/-
3. Filial Consortium Rs.80,000/-
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(2020) 9 SCC 644
@ Rs.40,000/- each
4. Parental Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
@ Rs.40,000/- each
TOTAL Rs.31,83,750/-
15. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1514 of 2023 is dismissed
and M.A.C.M.A.No.63 of 2024 is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount from Rs.23,58,500/- to
Rs.31,83,750/- (Rupees Thirty One lakhs Eighty Three
thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till
date of realization. Though, Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation, respondent
Nos.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire
amount within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Out of total
compensation amount Petitioners No.2 to 4 are entitled to
Rs.5,00,000/- each and Petitioners No.5 and 6 are
entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- each and the petitioner No.1 is
entitled for the balance amount. On such deposit, all the
petitioners are permitted to withdraw the said amount
along with interest accrued on it. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 30.08.2024
tri
