THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No. 2001 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 26.09.2006 in O.P.No.370 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad.

2. The appellants/petitioners filed O.P.No.370 of 2002, claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Kunta Ashok in the road traffic accident occurred on 25.09.2001.

3. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs.6,60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit. Challenging the quantum of compensation as meagre, appellants filed the present appeal.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that the claimants are dependants of the deceased and upon his death, the claimants have become destitutes as no other to look after them. The appellants have no source of income except the income derived out of the lands belonging to the deceased and consequent upon the death of the deceased.

5. Petitioners deposed that the deceased was cultivating his 7 acres of land and another 7 acres of land of others and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As per Ex.A10, income certificate issued by P.W.3, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,83,000/- for the year 2001-02.

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, 1/4^th of his income has to be deducted as there are 5 dependants and towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.1,37,250/- 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 towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.1,92,150/-. This sum

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121

if multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.15, it would come to Rs.28,82,250/-. Thus, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to Rs.28,82,250/- 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 petitioners.

9. Therefore, the appellants/petitioners are entitled for the compensation in the following terms:

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.6,60,000/- to Rs.31,12,250/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Twelve Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) with interest at the rate of 7.5%