THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.3761 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 31.01.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.167 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. The appellants/petitioners filed M.V.O.P.No.167 of 2005, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Bommorala Narsimha in the road traffic accident occurred on 16.02.2005.

3. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners contended that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are non-earning members and are totally depending on the earnings of their father, deceased. The trial Court ought to have taken the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.12,516/- and applied the proper multiplier.

5. Petitioners deposed that the deceased was working in ECIL Company and was earning Rs.12,516/- per month. Therefore, as per Ex.A7, Court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.12,516/- per month.

6. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,¹ if the deceased was married, 1/3^rd of his income has to be deducted as there are 3 dependents. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.1,00,128/- per annum and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi², 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, 25% of the income has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.1,25,160/-. This sum if multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.13, it would come to Rs.16,27,080/-. Thus, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to Rs.16,27,080/- 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 & others³, and in the authority between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others⁴, 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.1,20,000/- as parental consortium to the petitioners.

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

10. Learned counsel for respondents stated that they respondent No.2 already deposited Rs.1 lakh and the same is to be deducted from the enhanced amount.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.16,77,080/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Eighty only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of realization. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such Deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amount equally. There shall be no order as to costs.

Misc