THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.334 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Ram Chandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Agasthya Sharma Sridi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/Insurance Company.

Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.562 of 2018, dated 21.11.2022, wherein, compensation of Rs.12,15,500/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum has been awarded in a claim petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

3. The appellants/claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally on account of death of one K.R. Jawahar in a road traffic accident that occurred on 28.10.2017, at about 21 hours, in front of Little Flower Degree College, Uppal. On the said date, the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.TS-09-EF- 4768 to Ranigunj, Secunderabad to purchase required electrical goods on wholesale as per the order placed by his employer and after completion of his work, while he was going to his house, when he reached near Little Flower school, situated at Uppal, a bus bearing No.TS-08-UB-5266 which was hired by TSRTC, Hayathnagar bus depot, driven by respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from backside, due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries to vital organs and died on the spot. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Respondent No.4 did not examine any witness, but got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

5. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,15,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally. Respondent No.2-TSRTC was exonerated from liability to pay the compensation, in view of Ex.B1, Agreement dated 12.01.2015, under which the bus was hired by TSRTC, while the third-party risk was to be owned by the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.4 who is insurer of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the said order and decree passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred.

6. In grounds of appeal, the claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month in view of the evidence lead through PW-3 and Ex.A10-Salary Certificate. Further, it is contended that loss of consortium was awarded only to appellant No.1 and loss of parental consortium and filial consortium is not awarded to appellant Nos.2 to 5.

7. During arguments in appeal, emphasis is made on the income of the deceased being taken at Rs.10,000/- per month in view of the oral evidence of PW-3, who deposed that he paid Rs.20,000/- as salary to the deceased for his work of purchase and transport of electrical goods from Raniganj to Kakinada. Further, reference is made on Exhibit A10-Salary Certificate issued by PW-3 to support the contention of the appellants that the deceased had income of Rs.20,000/- per month. In that context, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Siddique and Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others1, wherein, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.9,600/- per month for the

1 (2020) 3 SCC 57

accident that took place on 05.09.2008. It is emphasized that in the said case too, PW-2 was examined and salary certificate was marked and the said evidence was taken as the basis for considering the income of the deceased at Rs.9,600/-, by setting aside the finding of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which has ta