In the light of Notlonal Insurance Compang Llmlted v. Pranag Sethi othersl case, Rs

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI T.SRUJAN KUMAR REODY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT SWATHI GUDA Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: None Appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I I I I I I /: THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE TIRI'MALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.629 0F 2021 JI,IDGMEI{T: This appeal is hled by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 27.O1.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.310 of 2O17 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the deceased- Wagmare Balaprasad was going by walk from Madnoor towards Peddathadgur village side and at about 6:30 p.m., when he reached near Peddathadgur village shivar, a jeep bearing No.MH-26-C316 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high sped and dashed against the deceasr:d from behind due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries Immediately he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Nanded and from there to Global Hospital, Nanded where he died on O4.O6.2O15 while undergoing treatnlent. Thus, claimants sought a compensation of Rs.9,17,0O0/ -

4. karned counsel for the respondent No.l, who is tJle owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex-parte and did not deny the claim of the petitioners u,hich lends support to the case of the petitioners. \\ ETD,J MACMA No-629 2021

5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has also filed its counter 2 denying the material averments in the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased and has further contended that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No. 1 was not holding valid driving license as on the date of ttre accident, and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. He has further contended that there is 2O days delay in reporting the matter to the Police creating a doubt with regard to the occurrence of the accident.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunai has framed the following issues for consideration:- I 2 3 Whether tle deolh of the deeased "Wagmare Balaprasad" was due to rash and negligent diuing of jeep beartng No.MH-26-C-316 bg its diuer? Whether the petilioners are enlilbd for compensation and if so from whom and to uhat esdent? Wtnt relief if anA, ore the petitioners entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 7 . To prove their case, the claimants got examined PWs.l and 2 and Exs.A I to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined and no document was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on reoord, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,17,0O0/-. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9 Heard Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants 3 and Smt. Swathi Kuda, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance ETD,J MACMA No.629 2o21 Company. /

10. lrarned counsel for the appellants submitted t]rat the tribunal has granted very meagre amount under the heads loss of consortium only to the wife of the deceased by ignoring the parents of the deceased. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the appeal by enhancing ttre compensation.

11. l,earned Standing Counsel lor respondent No.2-lnsurance Company has fairly submitted that this Court may follow the leeal principles laid down by the Apex Court while in assessing compensation for loss of consortium.

12. A Perusal of the award passed by the tribunal discloses that considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the tribunal has rightly granted compensation to\r,ards loss of dependency, funeral expenses and loss of estate, which needs no inference by this Court. However, tJre tribunal has granted Rs.44.0OO/ to the wife of the deceased under the head loss of \ \ consortium by ignoring the parents ofthe deceased.

13. In the light of Notlonal Insurance Compang Llmlted Vs. Pranag Sethi & othersl case, Rs.4O,OOO/- towards loss of consortium has to be awarded ald further the said amount has to be enhanced by 10% every three years tlzott; tz scc zlo ETD,J MACMA No.629 2021

14. ln Magma. General Insuro:nce Compang Ltmtted a. Nanu Ram @ 4 Chuhnt Ram and. others2, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Ptznag Sethl's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of tlle deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in tJre present case, the appellant Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of the deceased are also entitled for loss of filial consortium. Hence, the claimants Nos.2 ald 3 are entitled to Rs.48,400/ - each towards loss of filial consortium. Therefore, without disturbing the award by the tribunal on ot-her aspects, this Court is inclined to award Rs.48,a0O/- each to appellant Nos.2 and 3/mother and father of the deceased under the head of loss of filial consortium. Thus the compensation granted by the tribunal is enhanced by Rs.96,800/-.

15. The M.A.C.M.A. is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR e I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ,b.

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

2. One CC to Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt Swathi Guda. Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies '1zota; rt scc r;o I HIGH COURT DATED:1110612025 t S 31 JAN ?rl7$ * t JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.629 ot 2021 DISPOSING OF MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 b a