THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTI CE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.533 OF 2023 JUDGMENT:-

Heard Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. I.Mammu Vani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by the order, dated 26.12.2022 passed in O.P.No.220 of 2018 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

3. The appellants filed claim petition seeking compensation from the respondents following death of one Chandraiah in a road traffic accident which occurred on 02.04.2018 at 19:00 hours in the limits of Manganur Village of Bijinepally Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing No.TS 31B 0384. When the deceased was returning along with his sheep, the motorcyclist dashed the deceased from back side resulting in bleeding injuries to head which ultimately resulted in his death while undergoing treatment on 02.04.2018. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants through P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A9, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.11,02,024/- with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred.

4. In grounds of appeal, the appellants contended that meager amount is taken as income of the deceased and meager amount is awarded towards spousal consortium, loss of estate and transportation. Further, no compensation was awarded towards parental consortium, filial consortium and funeral expenses.

5. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellants argued that income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken Rs.7,885/- per month and thereby granted lesser compensation towards loss of income. Further, it is argued that no compensation is awarded towards parental consortium and filial consortium.

6. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income as Rs.7,885/- per month and that future prospects may be awarded as per the judgment of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National I nsurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700

7. As per Ex.A1-FIR registered by the police and the complaint given by the wife of the deceased, the deceased was aged 40 years belongs to shepherd community and was a labour living at Kottalagadda Village. The same information is given in the inquest report marked under Ex.A2. The accident occurred in the year 2018. In the year 2011, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance I nsurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236’s case, the notional income of a labour was taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal taking Rs.7,885/- in the year 2018 towards notional monthly income of shepherd seems appropriate. 8. The age of the deceased is shown to be 40 years as per Ex.A1-FIR and complaint, Ex.A2-inquest report as well as Ex.A3- post-mortem report. As per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra 1), if future prospects at 25% is added to the annual income, the net annual income comes to Rs.1,18,275/- (Rs.94,620/- + Rs.23,655/-). Since there are three dependents of the deceased,

if 1/3^rd of the income is deducted towards personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.78,850/- If the said amount is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier ‘15’ as per Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)6 SCC 121’s case, the total compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.11,82,750/-.

9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards loss of love and affection. The said findings are set aside and the appellants are granted Rs.70,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. Further, appellant Nos.2 and