THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE K.SURENDER M.A.C.M.A. No.3272 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2012 passed in O.P.No.315 of 2011 by the Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, (for short ‘the Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.6,03,000/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.9,00,000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Vemulawada Sridhar, aged 20 years, on 11.01.2010, went to the fields and after attending the agricultural operations was returning to the house by walk and when he reached near Punjabi Dhaba Hotel at Katnapalli Village, the driver of the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, as a result, he sustained severe head injury and fracture to his right hand and bleeding injuries all over the body, and during treatment he succumbed to injuries.

3. The manner in which the accident had taken place and the liability is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

4. However, as seen from the order of the Tribunal, the notional income of the deceased was taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and accordingly, the compensation has to be enhanced.

5. Insofar as the deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned, the deceased was bachelor and survived by parents, then total dependents are two (02). As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-half.

6. In National I nsurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased was self-employed, an additional 40% of income should be awarded towards future prospects, where the deceased age was 20 years. Since the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 20 years, 40% of monthly income of the deceased can be taken towards future prospects.

7. With regard to the multiplier, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (1 supra), the appropriate multiplier is ‘18’ for the age groups of 15 to 20. The age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 20 years.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others, [2023(1) ALD 107(SC)] , decided on 06.12.2022, taking into consideration the decision of Sarala Verma (supra) and also the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and also taking into consideration the rise in expenditure and cost of living, has awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium.

9. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is enhanced as under:

10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,03,000/- to Rs.8,74,000/-. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondents jointly and severally within a period of two