THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.81 of 2022

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr.C.Mohan Prakash, learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants and Mr.A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance Company.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 16.04.2021 passed in MVOP No.386 of 2015 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar (for short “the Tribunal”).

3. The appellants-claimants being the parents of the deceased have filed the said MVOP No.386 of 2015 claiming a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal after elaborate enquiry and trial, has passed an award granting compensation of Rs.20,32,488/- under various heads and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, as per Ex.A10-salary certificate issued by employer of the deceased, the petitioner was earning Rs.15,500/- per month, but the Tribunal has erroneously taken the salary as Rs.14,788/- per month by deducting the provident fund contribution and contended that only the professional fee of Rs.150/- has to be deducted, and after deducting the same, the net salary of the deceased comes to Rs.15,350/-. It is also contended that the other heads were not properly taken by the Tribunal in arriving at just and proper compensation.

5. In view of the findings of the tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the liability being fixed on respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally, the only point needs to be determined is “whether the compensation of Rs.20,32,488/- is adequate and just compensation and whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement”.

6. Coming to the said point, the income of the deceased as per Ex.A10 i.e., salary certificate was Rs.15,500/- per month and the deduction of provident fund from the salary by the Tribunal is not justified. However, the professional fee of Rs.150/- has to be deducted from the salary in arriving the income of the deceased, in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. V. Karan Singh & Ors. 1 . Hence, after deducting Rs.150/- towards professional fee, the income of the deceased would be Rs.15,350/- per month. In view of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others² as the deceased was aged about 33 years, future prospects i.e., 40% of the monthly income should be added.

7. Hence, the net monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to Rs.21,490/- (Rs.15,350 + Rs.6,140/-). As the deceased was unmarried, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses and after deducting the same, the net contribution of the deceased comes to Rs.10,745/- per month.

1 2010(12) SCC 378

2017 ACJ 2700

8. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,28,940/- (Rs.10,745/- X 12). As the deceased was aged 33 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘16’ in pursuance of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another³, and after applying the multiplier ‘16’, the total loss of earning comes to Rs.20,63,040/- (Rs.1,28,940 X 16).

9. Further, under the conventional head of loss of love & affection, which falls under the broader category of loss of consortium, the Tribunal has erred in granting Rs.15,000/-, as is contrary to the law laid in Pranay Sethi (supra) as further clarified in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors, (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein it was held that Rs.40,000/- is to be granted towards loss of consortium to each of the claimant, i.e., wife, children or parent, with an enhancement @ 10% every three years. Although the tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- under the heads of funer