Telangana High Court
Smt.P.Vijaya vs J.Srinivas on 26 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
M.A.C.M.A.No.168 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at
Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.2054 of 2015 by the order and decree
dated 08.09.2020, the petitioners have filed the present Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have
filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees twenty lakhs only) from respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 for
the death of the deceased viz., "J.Vijay Kumar". Petitioner No.1
is the mother, petitioner No.2 is the father, petitioner Nos.3 and
4 are the sisters of the deceased. The reason assigned by the
petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 29.07.2015
at about 1:00 am, when the deceased was proceeding on his
motorbike from Kushaiguda to Nagaram Village and reached
Sri Abhaya Anjaneya Swamy Temple Kaman, S.V.Nagar, the
GMM,J
driver of tipper vehicle bearing No.A.P.29.T.8997 was negligently
stationed in the middle of the road without switching on the
parking lights, indicators or placing any precautionary signs or
warning boards. The absence of such mandatory precautions
rendered the vehicle unidentifiable in the darkness.
Consequently, the deceased, while proceeding on the said road,
failed to notice the stationed tipper, collided with it from the
rear side; and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the
same on the spot.
4. Based on a complaint, the police, Kesara Police Station,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District, registered First Information Report
No.223 of 2015 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
against driver of the crime vehicle i.e., tipper bearing
No.A.P.29.T.8997 and after investigation filed charge sheet.
5. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about
22 years at the time of accident and was working as Sub-Staff,
Central Recovery Cell, Kapil Chit Fund Private Limited,
Secunderabad and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. It was
stated that the petitioners were majorly dependant on the
income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the
said accident, the family suffered a lot and lost a young earning
GMM,J
family member, his love and affection and were left in misery.
Therefore, the petitioners as dependants of the deceased, filed
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees
twenty lakhs only) against all the respondents jointly and
severally.
6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte. The
respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter denying the
manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity,
relationship of petitioners with the deceased, negligence,
involvement of crime vehicle in the accident, rash and
negligence of crime vehicle and called for strict proof of the
same. It was contended that the driver of the said tipper was
not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and
respondent No.1 got insurable interest in the vehicle and also
he was not in possession of requisite documents, such as, RC,
valid permit and fitness certificate; and seriously disputed the
issuance of any insurance policy by the respondent company in
favour of owner of the crime vehicle. It was further contended
that the occurrence of accident was not reported by the insured
or driver of crime vehicle on the date of accident. Therefore,
respondent No.3 shall be permitted to take all necessary defense
as contemplated under Sections 170-B, 147 and 149 of Motor
GMM,J
Vehicles Act, 1988. It was contended that compensation claimed
is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed
the following three issues.
i) Whether the deceased J. Vijaya Kumar S/o J.
Devadhanam died on 29.07.2015 due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of tipper
bearing No.AP.29.T.8997?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the
petitioner No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 apart from
examining P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On
behalf of respondent No.3, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was
marked.
9. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record partly allowed the claim petition in favour of
the petitioners/claimants by awarding a total compensation of
Rs.10,82,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs eighty two thousand only)
with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition
GMM,J
till the date of deposit holding that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are
jointly liable to pay the compensation amount. Aggrieved by
the reduced quantum of compensation, the petitioners have
filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
10. Heard Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri C.Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.3-Insurance Company. The respondent Nos.1
and 2 are set ex parte. The main contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants is that though the appellants proved
their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on
the documents under Exs.A1 to A9, the Tribunal without
considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount.
It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have
considered the income of the deceased based on the gross salary
and not the net salary as per Ex.A6 i.e., salary certificate and
ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the
Tribunal ought to have considered the sister to be included for
the purpose of consortium under the head of 'filial consortium';
and in order to support his contention, he relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma
GMM,J
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and others 1,
wherein 'filial consortium' has been awarded to sister and
prayed to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed
the income of the deceased and awarded just and reasonable
compensation. It is also urged that the sisters of the deceased
are not entitled for 'filial consortium'; as in the instant case,
principle laid down in the case of Nanu Ram's case (supra) does
not apply. In this regard, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has referred to para 8 of Nanu Ram's case (supra),
whereas it was rendered that "looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case". Therefore, on the above ground,
interference of this Court in the reasoned order passed by the
Tribunal is unwarranted.
12. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the impugned order and decree passed by
the Tribunal calls for any interference by this Court? If so,
whether the appellants/petitioners are entitled for any
enhancement of compensation?"
2018 ACJ 2782
GMM,J
13. Heard both sides and perused the record.
14. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has not
preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order dated
08.09.2020. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship
between the petitioners and the deceased. There is also no
dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident
occurred. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of P.W.1
(mother of the deceased) coupled with the documentary
evidence under Ex.A1 (FIR), Ex.A2 (Charge Sheet), Ex.A3
(Inquest Report) has arrived at a conclusion that the accident
occurred only due to the negligent act of the driver of the crime
vehicle, who parked the crime vehicle i.e., Tipper in the middle
of the road without any indication or precautions and not due to
any other reasons and answered the same in favour of the
petitioners.
15. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants is that though the deceased was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month working as Sub-staff, Central Recovery
Cell, Kapil Chit Fund Private Limited, Secunderabad; as per
Ex.A6 (i.e., salary certificate), the Tribunal has erroneously
considered the net salary (i.e., Rs.6,000/- per month) instead of
GMM,J
gross salary (i.e., Rs.10,174/-per month) of the deceased and
awarded very meager amount towards compensation.
16. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have proved the
income of the deceased by relying upon Ex.A6-salary certificate,
wherein it is categorically mentioned that the net salary of the
deceased as Rs.5,944/- per month and gross salary as
Rs.10,174/- per month. The short question which arises for
consideration in this appeal is that:
"What is the appropriate amount under the caption of salary
('Net salary' or 'Gross salary') has to be taken into account
for the purpose of computing the income of the deceased?"
17. It is pertinent to discuss the distinction between a net
salary and gross salary of a person. The term 'Salary' is the
regular payment made by the employer to the employee for the
work performed by him. Whereas, 'Gross salary' is inclusive of
bonus, overtime pay, holiday pay and other benefits; some of
the benefits includes basic salary, house rent allowance,
conveyance allowance, medical allowance, uniform allowance,
newspaper allowance, etc; on the other hand 'Net salary' is the
income that an employee actually takes home after deducting
income tax, provident fund and other deductions subtracted
GMM,J
from it. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the observations
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Indira Srivastava and others 2, wherein
this Court observed that:
"9. The term 'income' has different connotations for different
purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal
conditions must consider the question not only having regard to
pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but
also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire
family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear
one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms."
18. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenakshi v.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited 3 observed that
"9. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. [Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No.4230/2019], this Court held that,
allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent
allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special
allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary
of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor.
10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible
benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to
be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the
component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the
dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified
in factoring these components into the salary of the deceased,
before applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future
prospects, while calculating the total compensation payable to
the appellant.
12. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has erred while
omitting to add the components of house rent allowance, flexible
benefit plan and Company contribution to provident fund to the
basic salary of the deceased while applying the principle of rise
in income by future prospects.
13. However, we are of the opinion that the High Court was
justified in deducting Income Tax from the gross salary of the
deceased-Suryakanth for calculating his gross income. This
2008(2) SCC 763
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1433
GMM,J
factor was overlooked by the Accident Claims Tribunal while
quantifying the award."
19. In view of the settled proposition of law, the gross salary
(i.e., Rs.10,174/-) of the deceased person has to be taken into
consideration in determining the monthly salary/income; thus,
the question posed above is answered accordingly in favour of
the petitioners. The Tribunal for the purpose of computation of
the monthly income considered the net income of the deceased
instead of gross income. In that view, the Tribunal erred in
opining otherwise. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set-
aside on the above aspect.
20. The other contention of the learned counsel for petitioners
is that 'filial consortium' shall be granted to appellant Nos.3 and
4, who are the sisters of the deceased. In Harpreet Kaur and
others v. Mohinder Yadav and others 4, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in para Nos.12 and 13 has held as under:
12. The judgment in Rajesh v. Rajbir 5, was followed in other
decisions. However, the approach in these decisions, was
disapproved by a five-judge bench decision in National Insurance
Co. v. Pranay Sethi 6, where this court indicated what should be
the correct approach in awarding amounts towards consortium:
"52. [...] Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It
seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
AIR 2023 SC 111
(2013) 9 SCC 54
(2017) 16 SCC 680
GMM,J
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an
acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or
quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the
amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement
should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years...." Applying
this principle, in Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram 7, this
court held as follows:
"20. MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any
compensation with respect to loss of consortium and loss of
estate, which are the other conventional heads under which
compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognised by
the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi. The Motor Vehicles Act is
a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and
entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of whether any
plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant. In exercise of our
power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem
it appropriate to award an amount of Rs 15,000 towards loss of
estate to Respondents 1 and 2.
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680: (2018) 3
SCC 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 (Civ) 248 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium",
"parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to
consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort,
guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to
his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54].
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining
to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation
to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation,
affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's
Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is
granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss
of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance
and training".
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation
in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading
to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the
(2018) 18 SCC 130
GMM,J
parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are
valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the
family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about
the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions
worldover have recognised that the value of a child's consortium
far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in
the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit
parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on
the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a
compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine
claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or
unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be
awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial
consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose
their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High
Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there
was no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium."
21. Considering the law laid down in the above case on the
principles of law with respect to award of "consortium", it can be
culled out as under or in other words an inference can safely be
drawn that 'Consortium' can be awarded only under the head of
"Spousal Consortium", "Parental Consortium" and "Filial
Consortium" and each one of them is well defined as above.
Persons not coming under any of above category, are not
entitled to receive consortium. Grandparents, sister and
brother do not fall/come within any of the category of "Spousal
Consortium", "Parental Consortium" and "Filial Consortium",
GMM,J
hence they are not entitled to receive consortium. In Nanu
Ram's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded
consortium to sister in the facts and circumstances of the case
therein, but no general principle has been laid down that sister
is entitled to receive consortium. Therefore, petitioner Nos.3
and 4 are not entitled for 'filial consortium'.
22. Now reverting to the issue of computation of
compensation, in the present case, the deceased was aged about
24 years at the time of accident, as evident from Ex.A1-FIR,
Ex.A2-charge sheet, Ex.A3-Inquest report. The Tribunal as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation 8 has rightly taken the
appropriate multiplier as "18", considering the age of the
deceased.
23. The Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of future
prospects while calculating the compensation, taking into
consideration the age of the deceased i.e., 24 years old at the
time of accident (i.e., below 40 years) and the deceased being
self employed and held that he is entitled for future prospects @
40% as per the decision laid down in National Insurance
8 (2009) 6 SCC 121
GMM,J
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 9, which seems
to be just and reasonable. Thus, the monthly income of the
deceased with future prospects comes to Rs.14,244/- per month
(Rs.10,174/- + Rs.4070/-). Since, the deceased was a bachelor,
50% of his monthly income has to be deducted towards his
personal expenses and thereby, the monthly income of the
deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to
Rs.7,122/-; annual income of the deceased based on the above
computation comes to Rs.85,464/- (7,122/- x 12 months). As
stated supra, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased
is '18'. When the annual income of the deceased after deducting
his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier,
it comes to Rs.15,38,352/- (Rs.85,464/- x 18). Thus, the loss of
dependency on account of sudden demise of the deceased is
Rs.15,38,352/-.
24. The Tribunal as per the principle laid down in Pranay
Sethi's case (supra 5), has rightly awarded a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each was awarded towards 'filial consortium' to
petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e., father and mother of the deceased),
which is just and reasonable. Further, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards
9 2017 ACJ 2700
GMM,J
loss of estate. However, as per the principle laid down in
Pranay Sethi's case (supra 5), the appellants/petitioners are
entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs.77,000/- under the
conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon).
Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.16,95,352/- (Rs.15,38,352/- + Rs.77,000/ + 80,000/- (i.e.,
40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 'filial consortium')
25. It is to be seen that out of the initially awarded
compensation of Rs.10,82,000/-, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.3,00,000/- to petitioner No.1, who is mother of the deceased
and Rs.3,82,000/- to petitioner No.2, who is father of the
deceased. The Tribunal further directed that out of their
respective shares, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each by petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of two
years and they were permitted to withdraw the remaining
amount of their share along with accrued interest and
proportionate costs of their entire share. Further, a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- each was awarded to petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who
are the sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal further directed
that out of the awarded sum to petitioner Nos.3 and 4, a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of two
years and they were permitted to withdraw the remaining
GMM,J
amount of their share along with accrued interest and
proportionate costs of their entire share. It is pertinent to note
that by this day the time frame of two years fixed by the
Tribunal with regard to the deposit of part of compensation
amount in any nationalized bank has expired.
26. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by
the Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above
observations.
27. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation from Rs.10,82,000/- to Rs.16,95,352/-,
which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. The
respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced
compensation after duly deducting the amount already
deposited/withdrawn, if any, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the petitioner No.1 i.e., mother and petitioner No.2 i.e.,
father of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.5,47,500/-
each and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are awarded an amount of
Rs.3,00,176/- each. The petitioners are entitled to withdraw
GMM,J
the entire amount awarded to them without furnishing any
security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
Date: 26.09.2025
ssp
