THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No. 2086 of 2010

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 17.08.2010 in O.P.No.1014 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SC/STs (POA) Act Cases) at Nalgonda.

2. The appellants/petitioners filed O.P.No.1014 of 2007, claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of the deceased, Kommarajula Veera Swamy in the road traffic accident occurred on 14.08.2007. The Police Huzurnagar P.S, Nalgonda District had registered a case in Cr.No.101/2007.

3. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs.2,50,000/- 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 trial Court found fault in not awarding the entitlement compensation amount of Rs.4,81,125/- to the appellants herein even though the Court below assessed that the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,81,125/-. The trial Court ought to have considered that the deceased died in the road accident left behind the appellants and his dependants depending on the earnings of the deceased. The trial Court ought to have assessed the income of deceased Rs.6000/- per month as claimed in claim petition by deducting

1/5^th towards personal expenses.

5. Learned counsel further contends that the age of the deceased was 45 years and he was working as Centring worker and he was earning Rs.250/- per day and the trial Court taken his income as Rs.4,170/- per month. Therefore, requested the Court to modify the award of the trial Court. This Court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.4,500/- 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,, (2009) 6 SCC 121 if the deceased was married, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted as there are 5 dependants towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.40,500/- 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.50,625/-. This sum if multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.14, it would come to Rs.7,08,750/-. Thus, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to Rs.7,08,750/- 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.1,60,000/- towards parental consortium and Rs.40,000/-

towards spousal consortium to the petitioners.

9. Therefore, the appellants/petitioners ar