1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants against the Award and Decree dated 13.09.2012 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the impugned Award’) in O.P.No.277 of 2010 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for the death of Late Bandari Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased) in a road traffic accident that occurred on 05.05.2009.

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 parents of the deceased, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident. As per the averments of the claim petition, on 05.05.2009 while the deceased was proceeding to Goddess Yellamma Temple on his Suzuki Motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 23 D 6496, the respondent No.3 drove an Auto bearing registration No. AP 15 Y 8362 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) came in rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased suffered grievous injuries on his right leg, below right eye bone and right hand besides other bleeding injuries all over the body. The deceased was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Karimnagar and from there to Osmania General Hospital, wherein he succumbed to injuries on the next day. The deceased, who was studying B. com second year, alleged to have been earning Rs.3,000/- per month by conducting tuitions. 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.3,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the insured, insurer and driver of the offending vehicle respectively.

               b) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their respective counters denying the manner of the accident and attributed that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of deceased. The respondent No.3 denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further case of the respondents that the claim of compensation as claimed by the claimants is excessive and finally 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 apart from examining the eyewitness to the accident i.e., Ponnam Ramulu as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11 on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

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.3,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard Sri Ramachandar Rao Veumgani, learned counsel for the claimants, Ms. Satya Manjula, 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, neither of the respondents had preferred any appeal challenging the impugned award. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal while considering the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 and A2 i.e., FIR and charge sheet, answered issue No.1 by holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. There is also no dispute with regard to the subsistence of insurance policy under Ex.B1 as on the date of the accident.

9. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the learned Tribunal erred in adopting the age of the mother of the deceased instead of the age of the deceased. In Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others (2012 ACJ 2002), the Honouraable Apex Court observed at paragraph No.17 that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. It was further held that there may be number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and therefore the age of dependents has not nexus with the computation of compensation. A similar view was taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in M. Mansoor and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another (2013 ACJ 2849).

10. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal while adopting appropriate multiplier, considered the age of claimant No.1 (mother) on the ground that the deceased was a bachelor. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, it is amply clear that while choosing relevant multiplier, it is the age of the deceased that has to be taken into consideration. Admittedly the deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of the accident. It is pertinent to note that the relevant multiplier for age of the deceased in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation3 is ‘18’.

11. Now coming to the earnings of the deceased, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted calculation memo alleging that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Even as per the averments in the claim petition, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Even the learned Tribunal accepted the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month as sought by the claimants. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his earnings has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, the contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.1,500/- (Rs. 3,000/- - Rs.1,500/-). That apart, since the claimant was self employed and aged 24 years, future prospects at 40% is required to be considered as per the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others4. After addition of 40% towards future prospects, the contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.2,100/- (Rs.1,500/- + Rs.600/-) and the annual contribution comes to Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2,100/- x 12 months). The relevant multiplier for age of the deceased in terms of the judgment 3 2009 ACJ 1298 4 2017 ACJ 2700 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) is ‘18’. After multiplying the annual contribution of the deceased to his family with the relevant multiplier ‘18’ comes to Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.25,200/- 18).

12. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is without any basis. The claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement) under conventional heads (loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-) as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700). 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) and since the claimants lost their son at his young age, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the head ‘filial consortium’. Accordingly, claimants are awarded Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10% enhancement) each towards ‘filial consortium’.

13. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was driven by respondent No.3 and belongs to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.1, the learned Tribunal rightly fixed the liability of payment of compensation on the respondents jointly and severally.

CONCLUSION:

14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on lesser side. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be modified to the extent of above observations.

RESULT:

15. In the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,74,600/-, 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 claimants being parents of the deceased are entitled for equal shares in the compensation amount. The claimants are entitled to withdraw entire compensation awarded to them along with accrued interest without furnishing any security. 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.