HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.221 of 2022

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance Company.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 08.10.2021 passed in O.P.No.220 of 2019 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short “the Tribunal”), seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. The wife, children and mother of Palusa Surender Goud (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) have filed the said O.P.No.220 of 2019 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in a road accident that occurred on 07.12.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the Audi Car bearing registration No.TS-06-

ER-1116 by its Driver at Devarakadra village.

4. The Tribunal, after elaborate enquiry and trial, has passed an award and decree granting compensation of Rs.16,45,000/- under various heads. The appellants/ claimants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants is that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly assessing the earnings of the deceased and in not granting compensation towards loss of spousal consortium to wife, loss of parental consortium to the children and filial consortium to the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal also erred in granting meager amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is not in consonance with the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other High Courts.

6. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellants that as per the version of P.W.3 and Ex.A9, the salary of the deceased is Rs.18,000/- per month. As such, this Court finds the Tribunal has erred in taking Rs.10,000/- per month, as the salary of the deceased and thus, this Court fixes the salary as Rs.18,000/- per month as evidenced from Ex.A9.

7. In view of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the deceased being 44 years, his future prospects should be 25% of the income, which comes to Rs.4,500/-. Hence, the monthly income after future prospects of the deceased would be Rs.22,500/- (18,000/- + 4,500/-). Further, as there are 4 dependants, 1/4th of the income is to be deducted i.e., Rs.5,625/-. After deducting 1/4th, the net salary of the deceased comes to Rs.16,875/- per month and the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,02,500/- (Rs.16,875/- X 12).

8. As the deceased being 44 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘14’ in pursuance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another². Thus, the total loss of dependency be Rs.28,35,000/- (Rs.2,02,500/- X 14).

2017 ACJ 2700

[2009] 6 SCC 121

9. With regard to the other contention of the learned counsel for appellants towards loss of consortium, perusal of the impugned award, under the conventional heads i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively. With regard to award of consortium, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ³, at paragraph No.59.8 held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others4, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring its own judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- to each claimants.