THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Award, dated 01.08.2011, in M.V.O.P.No.607 of 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal and directing the Insurance Company to initially pay the compensation amount of Rs.4,75,000/- to the claimants and later recover the same from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, though the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving license.

3. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna Vs. the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others1

1 (2018) 9 SCC 650

wherein it was held that it is for the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving license, the ground raised by the Insurance Company is unsustainable,

hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. However, learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others², wherein it was held that the Courts should not take hyper technical approach while granting compensation, though no cross objections are preferred, the Court can consider enhancing the compensation if the claimants are entitled to on the facts of the case.

5. The deceased was aged around 54 years and had Acs.18-00 guntas of land which is not in dispute. In proving his ownership to the said extent of land, Exs.A7 to A10 were filed before the trial Court. After due consideration of the said documents, the Trial Court has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.200/- per

2 MANU/SC/0803/2020

Acs.18-00 guntas of land, out of which according to the Government records, more than 50% of the land is cultivable, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month.

6. In view of the above, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per annum and as the age of the deceased is 54 years 10% of future prospects are to be added as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, [month. However, keeping in view that the deceased owned] Therefore, the future annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,05,600/- (Rs.96,000/- + Rs.9,600/-). From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation4, since there are only three dependents. After deducting 1/3^rd therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of income by the deceased to the family comes to Rs.70,400/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased was 54 years as held

3 2017 (6) 170(SC)

4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

by the Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier is ‘11’ as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (4 supra). Adopting multiplier ‘11’, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 70,400/- x 11= Rs.7,74,400/- That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.36,000/- under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses and claimant No.1 is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (3 supra). Further, since the claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, [2018 Law Suit (SC) 904]. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,30,400/-.

7. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. However, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,75,000/- to Rs.9,30,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to