THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.226 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 18.08.2007 in O.P.No.728 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

2. The appellants/petitioners filed O.P.No.728 of 2005, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Santhosh Kumar Sharma in the road traffic accident occurred on 27.04.2005.

3. The tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs.2,05,000/- 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 findings of the tribunal with regard to contribution of income to the parents by the deceased son ought to be two thirds of his income and it cannot be half as laid down by various High Court and Supreme Court. The tribunal erroneously held that age of the appellant No.2 in the age group of 50-55 instead of 45-50 thereby the compensation was got reduced by 2 factors.

5. Petitioners deposed that the deceased was doing Travel business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the trial Court taken his income as Rs.3,000/- per month, but they did not produce any proof regarding his income. Therefore, this Court finds that the tribunal rightly taken his income as Rs.3,000/- 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 unmarried, 1/2 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.18,000/- 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, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.25,200/-. This sum if multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.17, it would come to Rs.4,28,400/-. Thus, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to Rs.4,28,400/- 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.80,000/- towards filial consortium.

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

9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.5,38,400/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred 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 entitled to withdraw the entire amount along with