Telangana High Court
Smt.Y.Lakshmi And 3 Others vs M/S. Balaji Crane Services And Another on 28 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.95 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants-claimants filed this appeal against the
Judgment and Decree dated 06.11.2009 in M.O.P.No.1399 of 2007
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court),
Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, wherein the Tribunal granted an
amount of Rs.4,35,000/- towards compensation along with interest
@ 7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- on
account of the death of the deceased.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and
the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-ICICI Lambord
General Insurance Company Limited.
3. The claimants are aggrieved by the meager compensation
that was granted by the Court below on account of the death of the
deceased. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased.
According to the claimants, accident happened on 10.11.2007.
When the deceased was going on the motor cycle bearing No.AP 28
AM 8786, as a pillion rider, the offending vehicle came in a rash
and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased. As a
result, deceased died on the spot. The offending vehicle also
dashed to one mini bus. The P.S.Kukatpally, has registered a case
in Cr.No.1039 of 2007, against the driver of the offending vehicle
and after investigation, filed charge sheet under Section 304-A of
IPC.
4. The manner in which the accident had taken place and the
liability is not in dispute.
5. The only ground raised by learned counsel for the claimants
is that deceased was running a tent house and earning more than
Rs.10,000/- per month. The original municipal license and the
original license fee receipt received for obtaining the said license
was marked as Exs.A8 and A9. In fact, the employee of the
deceased was also examined as PW.3. The said employer was paid
more than Rs.3,000/- per month. In the said circumstance, the
tribunal committed an error in considering the income of the
deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month.
6. Having considered the evidence on record, this Court deems
it appropriate to take into consideration the income of the deceased
as Rs.6,000/- per month and accordingly granted compensation, as
such his annual income would be Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12 =
Rs.36,000/-).
7. 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 her income has to be deducted i.e.,
Rs.18,000/- towards his personal expenses, as there are four
(2009) 6 SCC 121
dependents. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after
deducting personal expenses would come to Rs.54,000/- per
annum (Rs.72,000 - Rs.18,000= Rs.54,000/-) and the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi 2, held that the future prospects of the income of a
self-employed shall also be included in determination of the
compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e.,38
years, 40% of the income i.e., Rs.21,600/- has to be added towards
future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.75,600/-
(Rs.54,000 + Rs.21,600 = Rs.75,600/-). This sum if multiplied with
the multiplier 15 applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 38 years,
it would come to Rs.11,34,000/-(Rs.75,600 X 15 = Rs.11,34,000/-).
Thus, appellants are entitled to Rs.11,34,000/- under the head
'Loss of Dependency'.
8. Besides, appellants herein 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 appellant No.1 towards
spousal consortium.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
9. 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 appellant Nos.2 to 4 as
parental consortium.
10. Therefore, appellants/petitioners are entitled for the
compensation in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.11,34,000/-
2. Conventional heads Rs.70,000/-
3. Parental Consortium for children Rs.1,20,000/-
@ Rs.40,000/- each
TOTAL Rs.13,24,000/-
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(2020) 9 SCC 644
11. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
from Rs.4,35,000/- to Rs.13,24,000/-. The enhanced amount shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the
entire amount of compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee.
Except the above enhancement, the award of the Tribunal shall
remain same on all other aspects.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Date : 28.06.2024
ssy
