THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

M.A.C.M.A.No.2170 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 29.10.2007

in O.P.No.290 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (District Judge), at Nizamabad.

2. The respondents/claimants filed O.P.No.290 of 2006, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Jatroth Yamini in the road traffic accident occurred

on 21.03.2006.

3. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs.4,28,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court erred in giving a finding that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. The trial Court ought to have at least fixed the liability at the ratio of 50:50 and it is a case of head on collusion. The trial Court erred in applying multiplier of ’17’ and ought to have applied the multiplier ‘14’ as per judgment

in Bhagwan Dass Vs.Mohd, Arif reported in 1987(2) A.L.T page 137.

5. Claimants deposed that the deceased was doing agriculture and vegetable business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. This Court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.4,500/- per month, as per citation reported in Ramachandrappa Vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited1

6. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, if the deceased was married, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted as there are 5 dependants. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.54,000/- per annum and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, held that the future prospects of income of the self-employed deceased shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income has to be added

1 2011 (13) SCC 236 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.56,700/-. This sum if multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.16, it would come to Rs.9,07,200/-. Thus, the respondents are entitled to Rs.9,07,200/- under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’.

7. Besides, the appellants 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.

8. 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, (2018) 18 SCC 130, and in the authority between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others, (2020) 9 SCC 644, 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.80,000/- as filial consortium, Rs.80,000/- towards parental consortium and Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium to the respondents. 9. Therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following terms:

10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and compensation amount is enhanced from from Rs.4,28,000/- to Rs.11,07,200/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Seven Thousand Two Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annu