1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants against the order and decree dated 20.05.2008 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the impugned order’) in M.V.O.P.No.188 of 2005 passed by the learned Chairman Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for the death of Late A. Madhavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased) in the road traffic accident that occurred on 20.04.2005.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the learned Tribunal.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from the record are as under:

               a) The claimants, who are the husband, children and mother of the deceased, filed claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident. As per the averments in the claim petition, on 20.04.2005 while the deceased was going on TVS Scooty bearing registration No. AP 28/K 6869 from Sithaphalmandi to supervise the construction of new house at Malkajgiri along with pillion rider, at 11.00 AM near Railway Degree College, a Indica Car bearing registration No. A 10/N 7052 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the scooty of the deceased. As a result, the deceased as well as the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein she died. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was household woman and also doing tailoring work and used to get an income of Rs.1,500/- per month. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants sustained loss of service, love and affection. It is urged that since the accident alleged to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the insured and insurer of the offending vehicle.

               b) The respondent No.1 remained exparte and whereas the respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of claim petition including the age, occupation and earning capacity of the deceased. It was further case of the respondent No.2 that the driver had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It was further contended that the claim of the claimants is excessive and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

4. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, the claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

5. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order by awarding an amount of Rs.1,84,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard Sri V. Hariharan, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri N.S. Bhaskar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record including the grounds of Appeal.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

7. On considering the rival contentions, the only point that arises for determination in the present appeal is:

               “Whether the appellants/claimant have made out any valid and sustainable grounds for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and consequent interference with the impugned award?”

ANALYSIS:

8. Admittedly, the respondents did not prefer any appeal challenging the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal while relying upon oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence under Exs.A3 to A5 (certified copies of FIR, investigation report and PME report) rightly answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle.

9. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the death of housewife, who otherwise is sheet anchor in the family, that too at the time of her age is an incalculable loss and therefore, ought to have taken into contribution her un-assessed value of service to the family for awarding a higher compensation. It is further urged that the learned assumption of contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.1,500/- per month was only from the income of tailoring business she was conducting and the failed to take into account her services to the family, which ought to have been properly valued and substituted.

10. As per the calculation memo filed by the learned counsel for the claimants, the income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.4,000/- per month i.e., Rs.1,500/- towards tailoring work and Rs.2,500/- towards household work. It is settled law that that a homemaker's gratuitous services to the family are invaluable and cannot be treated as zero or minimal. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that there is some strength in the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/-. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month. Since the claimant did not place on record any date of birth certificate of the deceased to ascertain the age of deceased, the learned Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 45 years by considering the inquest report. Hence, the age of the deceased is to be reckoned as 45 years. Though the claimants urged to consider the future prospects at 40%, since the deceased was aged 45 years and self employed, future prospects at 25% has to be considered in terms of decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700). Hence, the monthly income of the deceased along with future prospects comes to Rs.5,000/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1,000/-).

11. It is further case of the claimants that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing a multiplier of ‘13’, which is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)), the relevant multiplier for the persons aged between 41 to 45 years is ‘14’ but not ‘13’. Thus, the learned Tribunal erred in adopting wrong multiplier.

12. Since there are four claimants, 1/4th of income of the deceased has to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses. Thus, the monthly contribution of the deceased to her family members after deducting her personal and living expenses comes to Rs.3,750/- (Rs.5,000/- - Rs.1,250/-). Thereby, the annual contribution of the deceased to her family comes to Rs.45,000/- [Rs.3,750/- x 12 months]. After multiplying the annual contribution of the deceased to her family members with relevant multiplier ‘14’, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.45,000/- x 14).

13. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount to the claimant No.1 for loss of consortium. As seen from the record, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which was granted without any basis. Moreover, the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under the head ‘conventional heads’ in proper perspective. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement) under conventional heads (loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-, funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and loss of consortium) as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700).

14. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges, which is appearing to be just and reasonable. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal so far as awarding Rs.1,000/- towards transportation expenses is concerned.

15. As on the date of filing the claim petition, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 were minors. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others ((2018) 18 SCC 130), the claimant Nos.2 and 3 being sons of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the head of parental consortium. Accordingly, claimant Nos.2 and 3 awarded Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10% enhancement) each.

16. Though the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, it is well settled by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (2003 ACJ 12) that the learned Tribunal or Court is not precluded from awarding compensation more than the amount claimed, provided the claimant is otherwise found entitled to such compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record. Though the learned counsel for the claimants filed calculation memo claiming compensation of Rs.9,27,800/-, the claimants failed to establish that they are entitled for the said compensation.

17. However, in view of the above facts and circumstances, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,96,000/- (Rs.6,30,000/- + Rs.77,000/- + Rs.88,000/- + Rs.1,000/-) .



18. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which belongs to respondents, the learned Tribunal rightly fixed the liability of payment of compensation on the respondents.

CONCLUSION:

19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in choosing wrong multiplier and also erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on lesser side. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be modified to the extent of above observations.

RESULT:

20. In the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.1,84,000/- Rs.7,96,000/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant No.1 being husband of the deceased is awarded Rs.4,00,000/- and claimant Nos.2 and 3 being children of the deceased are awarded Rs.1,50,000/- each and claimant No.4 being the mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.96,000/-. The claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares in the compensation along with accrued interest without furnishing any security, however, subject to deposit of deficit court fee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.