Telangana High Court
S Andalu vs Jatangi Nagaraju 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.222 & 2354 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These appeals are filed against the Order dated
19.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.1568 of 2014 passed by the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II-Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
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 S.Santhosh
Kumar, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on
14.02.2014. The trial Court after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of
Rs.9,37,200/- 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.222 of 2019, seeking enhancement of
the compensation amount. The Insurance Company has also
preferred an appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2354 of 2019 against the
same Order disputing their liability and requested the Court to
set aside the Order of the trial Court.
3. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
evidence on record.
4. Parties herein are referred as petitioners and respondents
as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
5. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2014, the
deceased Santhosh Kumar, was proceeding on a bike along with
his friend, as a pillion rider. When they reached near Katta
Maisamma Temple, outskirts of Gundala, Nalgonda District, the
rider of the motor cycle drove it with high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed one TVS XL moped, which was
coming in opposite direction. As a result, the deceased fell
down, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries while
undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad on the
same day. The police registered a case in Cr.No.8 of 2014 and
filed a copy of the inquest under Ex.A3 and a copy of the Charge
sheet under Ex.A2.
6. The petitioner No.2 was examined himself as P.W.1 and
also got examined P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their
behalf. One Hemavathi (Administrative Officer) was examined on
behalf of the respondent No.2 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance
company mainly contended that the owner/insured was riding
the motor cycle in triple riding, which is not only against the
rules of M.V.Act, but also responsible for the death of the pillion
rider, as such insured alone is liable to pay compensation.
When the accident took place in the opposite direction, in the
middle of the road (according to the sketch plan) and when
P.W.2 clearly stated that there are speed breakers at the place
of accident and when it is not the plea of the petitioners that the
insured motor cycle came in wrong direction and dashed the
deceased, who was on moped, the trial Court ought have
consider the contributory negligence of 50% on both of them. He
also contended that Ex.B2-M.V.I Report clearly shows that
accused driver also the owner of the vehicle was not having
driving license, as such the tribunal ought to have exonerated
the liability of the insurance company and further contended
that the deceased was a student and not a earning person. The
tribunal arbitrarily taken the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.6,000/- per month for granting compensation and awarded
excess compensation. Therefore, requested the Court to set
aside the Order of the trial Court.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended
that trial Court has taken the income of the deceased on the
lower side without considering the evidence of P.W.1 and
educational qualification certificates marked under Exs.A5 to A7
and also interest was granted at lower side. Apart from that less
amount was granted under loss of estate, loss of love and
affection and funeral expenses and also failed to grant filial
consortium and thus requested the Court to modify the Order of
the trial Court.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance
Company mainly contended that accused driver and also the
owner of the Motor cycle were not having valid driving license,
as such they are not liable to pay the compensation, but the
trial Court observed that insurance Company has appointed
their own investigator and he submitted his report, but they
have not submitted the said report before the Court. The said
investigator had also not recorded the evidence of the owner or
rider of the crime vehicle and also the S.H.O, who filed the
Charge sheet and even the said investigator was not examined
before the Court. The insurance Company has not summoned
either the driver or owner of the crime vehicle to establish that
they are having no valid license and thus the trial Court has not
relied upon the evidence of R.W.1 and the Charge sheet and
held that Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally
responsible to pay compensation. Therefore, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the said Order.
10. As per the evidence on record, deceased Santosh Kumar
was aged about 19 years as on the date of accident. He was
studying graduation. It was stated that he used to take tuitions
and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The learned Counsel for
the petitioners/claimants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and
another, 1 in which notional income of the girl aged about 16
years was taken as 10,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court
finds it reasonable to enhance the income of the deceased from
Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, as such his annual
income would comes to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- X 12 =
Rs.1,20,000/-).
11. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum
of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2 if the
deceased was bachelor, 50% of his income has to be deducted
2014 ACJ 1441
(2009) 6 SCC 121
towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the
deceased after deducting personal expenses would come to
Rs.60,000/- per annum (Rs.1,20,000 - Rs.60,000= Rs.60,000/-)
and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 3, held that the
future prospects of income of the self-employed/deceased shall
also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus,
considering the age of the deceased i.e.,19 years, 40% of the
income i.e., Rs.24,000/- has to be added towards future
prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.84,000/-
(Rs.60,000/- + Rs.24,000/- = Rs.84,000/-). This sum if
multiplied with the multiplier 18 applicable to the age of the
deceased i..e.,19 years, it would come to Rs.15,12,000/-
(Rs.84,000 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/-). Thus, appellants/petitioners
are entitled to Rs.15,12,000/- 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
(2017) 16 SCC 680
funeral charges. Therefore, they are entitled for Rs.30,000/-
under the 'Conventional heads'.
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 4, and in the authority
between United India Insurance Company Limited vs.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 5, 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.1 and 2 under 'filial
consortium'.
14. Therefore, petitioners/claimants are entitled for the
compensation in the following terms:
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(2020) 9 SCC 644
1. Loss of dependency Rs.15,12,000/-
2. Conventional heads Rs.30,000/-
3. Filial Consortium Rs.80,000/-
@ Rs.40,000/- each
TOTAL Rs.16,22,000/-
15. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2354 of 2019 is dismissed
and M.A.C.M.A.No.222 of 2019 is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount from Rs.9,37,200/- to
Rs.16,22,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs Twenty Two thousand
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 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation,
respondent Nos.2/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 Petitioner No.3 is entitled to
Rs.2,00,000/- and Petitioners No.1 and 2 are 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
