Considering the age, income, orai and documentary evidence, and in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Rogal Sundaralm Alliance Insurance Compang

counsel for the Appellant Nos. 1 to 5: sRl. K VENKATESH GUprA, Advocate Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: T MAHENDER RAO, Advocate The Court delivered the following: Judgment. THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.32OO of 2OO9 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award of the Tribunal made in O.P.No.681 of 2000 dated 28.O2.2005 on the file of MACT-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar.

2. This appeal is filed by the wife, children and mother of the deceased Mohd. Mahemood Ali aged 28 years who died in the accident occurred on 30.O4.1998. Claimants are seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.3,OO,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence granted an amount of Rs.3,00,OO0/- with arl interest @9o/o per annum from the date of hling of the petition till the date of realization. Against the said judgment, the claimants preferred this appeal for enhalcement of compensation.

3. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Perused the entire evidence on record.

4. In the appeal it is mainly contended that the Tribuna-l grossly erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,0O0/- per month as on the date of the death of the 2 deceasecl. However, it is stated that the decelsed rvas aged 28 years as on the date of death and it was stated that he was a buslnessmen and also stated that he was an agriculturrist

5. Considering the age, income, orai and documentary evidence, and in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaralm Alliance Insurance Compang "r*i1"4t, th,e Apex Court has held that in the absence ol any proof of income rvith regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- :rer month can be safely taken as the income. Therefore, this. Court finds it reasonatrle to take income of the deceased as lis.4,50O I per month. Therefore, the annual income of the d:ceased would be Rs.54,000/- (Rs.a,500/- X 12 = Rs.54,000/-t per annum

6. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble r rpex Court in dictum of Sarta Venna Vs. Delhi 'Transport Corporation,2 if the deceased was married, 1/5ttt of his income has to be deductec though there are 6 depender-Lts i.e., 10,8OO/- (Rs.54,000/- X I/5= Rs.1O,80O/-) towards hrs personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the rleceased after deducting personal expenses would come to R,;.43,200/- per annum (Rs.54,00O Rs.10,800= *..Oa,20r)/_) and the ' lzor r1 rz scc z:o '(zoog) o scc tzr 3 Hon'lcle Apex Court in the dictum of .nfafion al hr.suro,nce Comltang Limited Vs. Prdnag Sethi3, held that the future prospects of income of the employed shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased r.e., 28 years, 4Oo/o of the income i.e., Rs.17,280/- (Rs.43,20O X 40%=Rs.17,28O/-) has to be added towards future prospects ald thus the amount would become Rs.60,48Ol- (Rs.43,2OO + Rs.17,280 Rs.6O,480/-). This sum if multiplied with the multiplier '18, as applicabie to the age of the deceased i.e., 28 years, it would come to Rs 10,28,160/-(Rs.6O,480 X t7 Rs. 10,28,160l-). Thus, appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs. 10,28, 160/-under the head 'Loss of Dependency'

7. Besides, appellants are also entitled for compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of Na:tional Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi, i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,0OO/- towards funeral charges. Therefore, they are entitled to Rs.30,000/- under the 'Conventional heads'.

8. Further, the Honlcle Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the 3 lzotz; to scc 6so 4 authoritrr of Magma General Insurance Compang Limited us Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Rann & other.*, and in the authoritrr between United India Insurance Compang Litnited us. Satind.er Kaur @ Satuinder Kaur and otherss, fortifred that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consorti rm' and to the parents as, '{ilial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and cornpanionship of deceased children. Ac< rordingly, it is just ancl reasonable to award Rs.40,00O/- to the each petitioner. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards consortium

9. Th,:refore, appeilants are entitled for the compensation in the follorving terms: 1 2 3 Loss of dependency Conventional heads Loss of Consortium TOTAL Rs 10,2 8, 160 / - Rs. 30,OO0/- Rs 2,00,000/- Rs. 12,58,16Ol- a lzors; ra scc r:o '1zozo; e scc o+a 5

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs. 12,58, 160/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only) with interest at the rate of 7.5'h per annum from the date of frling the petition till the date of realization Respondents No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are entitled for an amount of Rs.25,OOO/- each, petitioner No.6 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.5O,OO0 /- and petitioner No.1 is wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the balance arnount and all the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the said arnounts along with interest accrued on it. Appellants are also directed to pay defrcit cor.rrt fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand To, "/ closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.T.JAYASREE DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V at Mahabubnagar.(With records) Additional District Judge)

2. One CC to SRl. K VENKATESH GUPTA, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRl. T MAHENDER RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies M/ PB HIGH COURT DATED: 1810312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE i] DRAFTS MACMA.No.3200 of 2009 S1AT;' 11 \ .;.,t-. ,. ,,..., t ,) t) >a-.4.. rl stl r$l i f'-... '' "i:-^.::-_rrt..-:. ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t \ ( \2 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3200 OF 2009 Between:

7. Mumtaz Begum, W/o. Mohd. Mohamood or Mohan Mahamood Ali FUo. H.No. 5-127, Gangapoor (V), Jedcherla (M), Mahboobnagar District.

8. Mohd. Fayaz @ Mohd. Afroze, S/o. Mohd. Mohamood or Mohan Mahamood Ali minor ug of their natural mother Mumtaz Begum the '1st pet R/o. H.No. 5- 127, Gangapoor (V), Jedcherla (M), Mahboobnagar District.

9. Amseren Begum, D/o. tt/ohd. Mohamood or Mohan Mahamood Ali minor ug of their natural mother Mumtaz Begum the 1st pet Ri/o. H.No- 5-1 27, Gangapoor (V), Jedcherla (M), Mahboobnagar District. r

10.Afreen Begum, D/o. Mohd. Mohamood or Mohan Mahamood Ali minor ug of their natural mother Mumtaz Begum the 1st pet Ryo. H.No. 5-127, Gangapoor (V), Jedcherla (M), Mahboobnagar District. ll.Samreen Begum, D/o. Mohd. Mohamood or Mohan Mahamood Ali minor ug of their natural mother Mumtaz Begum the 1st pet Ryo. H.No. 5-1 27, Gangapoor (V), Jedcherla (M), Mahboobnagar District. l2.Zaheera Bee, W/o. [t/ohd. Mohamood or Mohan Mahamood Ali Fi/o. H.No. 5- 127, Gangapoor (V), Jedcherla (tvl), Mahboobnagar District. ...Petitioner/ Appellants AND

3. Mohd. Sadiq, S/o. M.A. Hameed Owner of Lorry bearing No. ATf 4522 No. 15-4-485, Osmangunj, Hyderabad. presently Rl/o. H.No. 5-7-88, Old Palmoor, 4. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep. by its Divisional Manager The Divisional Manager United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd 40/439, Station Road,Kurnool. ... RespondenURespondents ---lr'-7 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Ac1, against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.681 of 2000 dated.28.02.2005 on ther file of the Cou( of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Additio ral District Judge) at Mahabubnagar. This apperal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. K VENKATESH GUPTA, Advocate for the Appellants and T II/AHENDER RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil t\/iscellaneous a:peal be and hereby is partly-allowed;

2. fhal the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal enhancing from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs. 12,58,160i- which shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till thr: date of realization; 3. That respondent No.2/lnsurance Company be and hereby directed to deposit the compensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

4. That upon such deposit Nos.2 to 5 be and hereby entitled for an amount ofd Rs.25001 each, petitioner No.6 be and hereby permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and prltitioner No.1 iswife of the deceased be and hereby permitted to withdraw the balance amount and the petitioners be and hereby elttitled to withdraw the said amounts along with interest occurs on it

5. That the appeal appellants be and hereby clirected to pay defect court fee on the enhanced amount

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal Shall stands Confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there be no order as to costs in this appe€ I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.T.JAYASREE PUTY REGISTRAR \5I ) SECTION OFFICER \ (

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V AdJitional District Judge) at Mahabubnagar.(With records)

2. Two CD Copies PB Ly HIGH COURT DATED: 1810312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE 2: DRAFTS MACMA.No.3200 of 2009 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1/ $