THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.2011 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 27.07.2006 in O.P.No.125 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda.

2. The appellants/petitioners filed O.P.No.125 of 2005, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Jala Saidulu in the road traffic accident occurred on

16.10.2004.

3. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs.2,10,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit. Challenging the quantum of compensation as meagre, petitioners herein preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that deceased was earning Rs5,000/- per month and the trial Court erred in taking his income as Rs.1,800/- per month. Meager amount was granted towards funeral expenses and consortium. Therefore, requested the Court to modify the award of the trial Court.

5. Petitioners deposed that the deceased was an agriculturist and labourer by profession and he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month but the trial Court taken his income as Rs.1,800/- per month. This Court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.5,000/- per month, as per citation reported in Ramachandrappa Vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 (13) SCC 236

6. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,² if the deceased was unmarried, ½ of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.30,000/- per annum and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi³, 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.42,000/-. This sum if multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.18, it would come to Rs.7,56,000/-. Thus, the

appellants/petitioners are entitled to Rs.7,56,000/- 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 & others⁴, and in the authority between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others⁵, 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 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.2,10,200/- to Rs.8,66,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Seven 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 order. On such Deposit, the petitioners are pe