1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants against the Order and Decree dated 19.06.2004 in O.P.No.906 of 1999 passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Nizamaad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the claimants, who are wife and son of Mr. Deekonda Gangaram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of lorry bearing registration No. DL – 1 – G – D – 1729 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27.04.1999. On 27.04.1999 at 6:00 am, the deceased was proceeding towards new bus stand to go to Armoor and when he reached on NH – 7 Road near Balkonda bus stand, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the offending vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple crush injuries and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.48/1999 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased, who was aged about 50 years, alleged to have been earning Rs.4,000/- per month as a tailor. It is the specific claim of the claimants that since the accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the registered owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are joint and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

4. Though Respondent No.1 appeared through counsel, he failed to file counter. The respondent No.2 filed counter, denied the material averments made in the petition and contended that the claim of the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant. It was further contended that the claimants have to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by its driver resulting in death of the deceased and finally prayed to dismiss the claim application.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

5. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed three issues. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced but got marked copy of insurance policy under Ex.B1. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred the present Appeal seeking to enhance the compensation.

7. Heard Sri K. M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri K. Kishore Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire record including the grounds of Appeal.

ANALYSIS:

8. Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to note down some of the admitted facts. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not prefer any appeal against the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as the learned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of PW1 (son of the deceased) and PW2 (eyewitness to the accident) and documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A5, answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.

9. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the salary of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- instead of Rs.4,000/- per month.

10. It is settled law that once certificate establishing the income of the deceased is produced, its not necessary to examine its author. However, if the contesting respondents elicit some suspicious circumstances doubting such certificate, the burden is caste on the claimants to examine the concerned person, who had issued such certificate, to establish the evidentiary value of such document.

11. In this connection, the claimants placed reliance upon Ex.A6, which is the certificate issued by Leemac Mens Wear, Bus Stand, Balkonda – 503217. Ex.A6 was alleged to have been signed by one D. Vijay Kumar but there is no description as to what is his role/designation/capacity in the said tailor shop i.e., ‘Leemac Mens Wear’. The claimant No.2, who was examined as PW2, deposed in his chief examination that his father was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In the cross examination, a suggestion was given to PW1 that due to old age his father was not doing tailoring and not earning anything and that Ex.A6 is brought into existence for the purpose of this case. PW1 further admitted that he has not mentioned in his petition that his father was doing readymade clothe business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. a old age The learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A6 on the ground that the author of the said certificate was not examined.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the year of the accident and since the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 raised suspicious circumstances with regard genuineness of Ex.A6, this Court is not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the deceased was earning either Rs.4,000/- or Rs.10,000/-. However, considering the fact that the occupation of the deceased was ‘tailor’, this Court is inclined to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month.

13. As per the version of the claimants, the deceased was aged 50 years as on the date of the accident. Admittedly, the claimants did not place on record the date of birth certificate of the deceased to ascertain the age of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal by relying on Exs.A1 to A4, arrived to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 55 years. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal rightly fixed the relevant multiplier ‘11’ for the age of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged 55 years and self employed, 10% of future prospects on his income is added. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased along with future prospects at 10%, comes to Rs.3,850/- (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.350/-). Since there are two claimants, 1/3rd has to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. After deducting personal and living expenses, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.2,567/- (Rs.3,850/- - Rs.1,283/-). Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.30,804/- [Rs.2,567 x 12]. After multiplying the annual income of the deceased with the relevant multiplier ‘11’ the loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,38,844/- (Rs.30,804/- x 11).

14. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation under the head conventional heads.

15. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium.

16. As per the calculation memo filed by the learned counsel for the claimants, both the claimants claimed compensation towards loss of consortium. As per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur((2021) 11 SCC 780), consortium is a compendious term that includes spousal, parental, and filial consortium. It is settled law that parental consortium is awarded strictly to minor children to compensate for the loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, and guidance during their formative years. In the instant case, since the claimant No.2, who is already an adult, he is legally deemed to have passed the stage where he requires active parental guidance and upbringing. Thus, the claimant No.2 is not entitled for any amount under the head ‘loss of parental consortium’. However, since the claimant No.1 lost her husband, she is certainly entitled for compensation under the head ‘spousal consortium’. Thus, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement) under conventional heads (loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-, funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/- and loss of spousal consortium at Rs.40,000/-). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,15,844/- towards just compensation and the details of which are as under: