Telangana High Court
Dandugula Varamma And 5 Others vs Mohd. Aabid And Another on 24 January, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.855 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Order dated 01.06.2012 in
O.P.No.786 of 2011 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I - Additional District Judge,
Nalgonda.
2. The petition vide O.P.No.786 of 2011 was filed by the
appellants/petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-
for the death of the deceased Dandugula Raju, who died in the
motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.09.2011. The trial Court
got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the
appellants/petitioners and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their
behalf and also marked Exs.B1 and B2 on behalf of the
respondents. The trial Court after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of
Rs.5,14,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Order, they
preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount granted by the trial Court.
3. Parties hereinafter referred to 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 01.09.2011, the
deceased Dandugula Raju, was proceeding on a motorcycle
along with his mother Yadamma towards Narketpally Police
Station. When they reached near Narketpally Police Station and
taking diversion towards Police Station, the driver of the Lorry
bearing No.HR 55 C 7851 drove it with high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the deceased motorcycle. As a
result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries
and he was shifted to KIMS, Narketpally. Later, he was shifted
to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he was succumbed to
injuries on 02.09.2011.
5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
evidence on record.
6. As the present appeal is preferred only against the
quantum of compensation granted by the trial Court, the issue
regarding rash and negligence of the driver of the vehicle need
not be gone into.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that
deceased was aged about 32 years as on the date of incident
and he was doing stone cutting and selling business and also
transportation of chips business and earning Rs.20,000/- per
month, but the trial Court considered his income as only
Rs.3,400/- per month. They further requested to enhance the
interest rate from 6% to 24%. Therefore, requested the Court to
modify the Order of the trial Court.
8. Considering the nature of the business done by the
deceased, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to
consider the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month
as on the date of incident and thus the annual income of the
deceased would comes to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- X 12 =
Rs.1,20,000/-).
9. 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.90,000/- per annum
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(Rs.1,20,000 - Rs.30,000= Rs.90,000/-) and the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, held that the future prospects of income of
the self-employed shall also be included in determination of the
compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e.,
32 years, 40% of the income i.e., Rs.36,000/- has to be added
towards future prospects and thus the amount would become
Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.90,000/- + Rs.36,000/- = Rs.1,26,000/-).
This sum if multiplied with the multiplier 16 applicable to the
age of the deceased i.e., 32 years, it would come to
Rs.20,16,000/- (Rs.1,26,000 x 16 = Rs.20,16,000/-). Thus,
petitioners are entitled to Rs.20,16,000/- under the head 'Loss
of Dependency'.
10. Besides, appellants/petitioners 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
11. 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'.
12. Therefore, petitioners/claimants are entitled for the
compensation in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.20,16,000/-
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.22,86,000/-
13. In the result, the present appeal is allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount from Rs.5,14,600/- to
Rs.22,86,000/- (Rupees Twenty two Lakhs Eighty six Thousand
only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing the petition till the date of realization. Though,
Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation, respondent No.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 petitioners
No.2 to 4/children are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- each.
Though petitioners No.2 to 4 are minors at the time of
filing of the appeal, now they would have been attained
the age of majority, as such they are entitled to withdraw
the said amount. The petitioners No.5 and 6/parents are
entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- each and the petitioner
No.1/wife 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. Petitioners
are also directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the
enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 24.01.2025
tri
