In motor accident death claims, compensation must include future prospects even for fixed-salaried employees, and compensation for loss of consortium should be awarded to each dependent, while separate compensation for 'love and affection' is not justified.

JUDGMENT :

TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J.

Heard, Smt. O.Varalakshmi, learned counsel representing Smt. S.N.K.Mahanthi, learned counsel for the claimants, and Sri Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent insurance company. None appeared for the respondent Nos.1 and 3, being the owner and the driver, and admittedly they remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

2. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants, who are the appellants moved the appeal, challenging the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), dated 23.02.2016, in M.V.O.P.No.254 of 2012, on the ground that the Tribunal misplaced in not awarding the future prospects to the claimants and is contrary to the very ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The facts essential are detailed hereunder:

4. The deceased by name Pinisetty Venkata Narasayya, after attending his duties intended to go to his house and, while crossing the road, on NH-5 at police out post, one Tata Indica car bearing registration No.AP 31 TV 0579 coming from Vizianagaram in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed without following traffic rules, dashed the deceased, which resulted in the deceased sustaining severe head injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Seven Hills hospital through 108 Ambulance for first aid and thereafter, on 03.08.2008 he was admitted in Surya Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, on 08.08.2008, he was shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam for better treatment and on 08.09.2008 at about 9.30 hours he succumbed to death while undergoing treatment. The PM Palem Police registered the case in Cr.No.247 of 2008 under Section 338 of IPC and thereafter, it was altered to Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the accident vehicle.

5. The 1st petitioner, being wife of the deceased, filed the claim petition and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are daughter and son of the deceased. The entire family is dependent on the earning of the deceased and after the death of the husband, 1st petitioner lost the conjugal bliss and enjoyment in her life. Except the deceased, no one is there to look after the welfare of the 1st petitioner and her children. At the time of death, petitioner Nos.2 and 3/claimants were unmarried and unemployed. Towards funeral expenses, they spent Rs.10,000/- and Rs.90,000/- towards medical expenses and also spent Rs.10,000/- towards transportation for shifting the dead body and in total, the claim by the claimants was Rs.15,00,000/-.

6. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent is the insurer to the car and the 3rd respondent is the driver and the petitioners sought compensation against them jointly and severally.

7. Adverting to the notices, respondent Nos.1 and 3 before the Tribunal remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, being the insurer contested the Claim Petition by filing the counter. The 2nd respondent’s version is that the accident occurred on 02.08.2008 and the complaint was lodged belatedly on 05.08.2008 i.e., after 3 days and it is a belated complaint. Further, the 2nd respondent alleges