CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS 806 of 2009 on 3 September 2003

1. Smt. Gummadi Sridevi, W/o. Late Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 33years.House-wife, R/o.D.No.29-2-47/A, Viswanatham Road, SinghHotel Junction, Visakhapatnam-20.years.House-wife, R/o.D.No.29-2-47/A, Viswanatham Road, SinghHotel Junction, Visakhapatnam-20.

2. Gummadi Narmada, D/o. Late Sri G. Venkateswara Rao. Hindu, Aged.7'years, rep by her mother and natural guardian R1years, rep by her mother and natural guardian R1

... Respondents/Petiti

oners

3. Mr. Koppu Rama Rao, S/o.K.Sanyasi, Hindu, Aged 41years.LorryDriver R/o.D.No.9-29-33, Balaji Nagar, Visakhapatnam.Driver R/o.D.No.9-29-33, Balaji Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

.4, Mr.T. Jamina Das, S/o.VenlannaHindu, Aged 45 years.OwnerHindu, Aged 45 years.OwnerR/o.D.No.9-48-14/2,NH-5Road,GreenPark,NGO'sColony,VisakhapatnamVisakhapatnam5. Mr. Gummadi Narasimha Rao, S/o. Not Known, Hindu,Aged about 75yearsR/o.D.No.16-163,Valandapalem,Machilipatnam,(Proformarespondents)yearsR/o.D.No.16-163,Valandapalem,Machilipatnam,(Proformarespondents)

6. Smt. Gummadi BiksHam, W/o. Gummadi Narasimha Rao, Hindu, Agedabout65years.House-wife,R/o.D.No.16-163,Valandapalem,Machilipatnam, (Proforma Respondent)about65years.House-wife,R/o.D.No.16-163,Valandapalem,Machilipatnam, (Proforma Respondent)

... Respondents

LA NO: 2 OF 2005(MACMAMP NQ.667 OF 2005)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedvacatethe orderdated29-6-2004in CMPNo. 11763/2004inCMASRNo.29954/2004 in the interest of justice. Pending disposal of MACMA 806 of2009, on the file of the High Court.

[A NO: 3 OF 2005rMACMAMP N0.873 OF 200.*^)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleaseddirect the office to post CMP No.481/05 and CMP No.667/05in CMASR

No.29954/04 under the caption "For Being Mentioned'so asto.Pendingdisposal of MAGMA 806 of 2009, on the file of the High[Court.]

lA NO: 1 OF 2009fMACMAMPNQ.1390 OF 2009)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedstay the operationof decree and judgmentin OP No.894/2001dated03.09.2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VI Addl. DistrictJudge, Visakhapatnam.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. NARESH BYRAPANENI

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI. CH. VENKATA NARAYANA

jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 136 OF 2023

Appeal filed underSection173 of Motor Vehicle Act.against theAward dated 3-9-2003 in M.V.O.P.No.894 of 2001 on the file of theCourt oftheMotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-VIAddl.DistrictJudgeVisakhapatnam Between:

1. Gummadi Sridevi, W/o. Late Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Hinduaged 33years. House-wife, Residing at D.No. 29-.2-47/A Viswanadham RoadSingh Hotel Junction, Visakhapatnam - 20.years. House-wife, Residing at D.No. 29-.2-47/A Viswanadham RoadSingh Hotel Junction, Visakhapatnam - 20.

2. Chy. Gummadi Narmada,D/o. Late Sri G.Venkateswara Rao,Aged 7StStyears.Minor, rep. by her mother and natural guardianit,the1petitioner rest do.petitioner rest do.

Appellants

1. Koppu Rama Rao, S/o. K. Sanyasi, Hindu, aged 41 years, Lorry Driver,D.No.9-29-33, Balaji Nagar, Visakhapatnam.D.No.9-29-33, Balaji Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

2. T. Jaminadas, S/o. Venkanna, Hindu, aged about 45 years, (Owner)D.No.9-48-14/2, NG5 Road, Green Park, NGO's Colony,VisakhapatnamD.No.9-48-14/2, NG5 Road, Green Park, NGO's Colony,Visakhapatnam (RR1 & 2 dis. for default vide C.O., dt:13/2/2015)

3. The Branch Manager, M/ s. United India Insurance Co.Br. Office No.4,Sri Kanya Vihar, D.No.47-7-38, 4th Lane, Dwarakanagar,Visakhapatnam.Sri Kanya Vihar, D.No.47-7-38, 4th Lane, Dwarakanagar,Visakhapatnam.

4. Gummadi Narasimha Rao, S/o.Not known, Hindu, aged[about][ 75]yearsL.No. 16-163, Valandapalem, Machilipatnam, Krishna Dist ( ProformaRespondent)L.No. 16-163, Valandapalem, Machilipatnam, Krishna Dist ( ProformaRespondent)

5. Smt. Gummadi Biksham, W/o. Narasimha Rao, Hindu, Aged about 63years House wife. Rest do (Proforma Respondent)years House wife. Rest do (Proforma Respondent)

...Respondents

lA NO: 1 OF 2015(MACMAMP NO. 1662 OF 201 fi)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toset aside the default order against the 1st and 2nd respondent byrestore thepetition against the 1st and 2nd respondents. Pending disposal of MACMA136 of 2023

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI. G. RAMA GOPAL

Counsel for the Respondents:

The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT:- '

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

M.A.C.M.A.No.806 of 2009 & I.A.N0.1 OF 2004 IN/ANDM(NC.M.A.fgm.No.(r523^ of (200^07^

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Srinivas)

These appeals aredirected against the judgmentoftheChairman,MotorVehicleAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-VIAdditionalDistrict Judge, Visakhapatnam(hereinaftercalledas‘the Tribunal’) in M.O.P.No.894 of 2001 dated 03.09.2003.

2. These appeals arise out of same accident andare beingdecided by this common judgment since the material[facts][ are]common.decided by this common judgment since the material[facts][ are]common.

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.806 of 2009 is preferred by the insurer[of][ the]Ashok Leyland Water Tanker bearing No.ABV 405 belonging[to][ the]4*^^ respondent herein.Ashok Leyland Water Tanker bearing No.ABV 405 belonging[to][ the]4*^^ respondent herein.

4. C.M.A.(SR).No.15236 of 2004 is preferred with delay[of][ 60]days (I.A.No.1 of 2004) by the claimants i.e., wife and daughter ofthe deceased, for enhancement of compensation.days (I.A.No.1 of 2004) by the claimants i.e., wife and daughter ofthe deceased, for enhancement of compensation.

5. TheavermentsmadeintheclaimpetitionbeforetheTribunal are as follows:Tribunal are as follows:

i). The claimants are wife and daughter of the deceased byname G.Venkateswara Rao and respondent Nos.4 and 5[therein][ are]the parents of the deceased.

ii). According to the claimants, on 17.10.2000 at about[08.00]a.m.,whenthe deceasedwasproceedingonhismotor cyclebearing No.AP 31R 4690, the driver of one Ashok Leyland[Water]Tanker bearing No.ABV 405 driven in a rash and negligent[manner]with high speed and dashed the motor cycle. As a result of which,the deceased died on the spot. He was shifted to K.G.H.Hopsital,Visakhapatnam, wherehewasdeclaredas dead.AcasewasregisteredinCrimeNo.374of 2000under Section304-AI.P.C.against the driver of the water tanker.

iii). By the time of accident, the deceased was working[as a]Transmission Executivein AllIndia Radio Station, Visakhapatnamand earning Rs.11,400/- p.m. He is the sole bread winner[of][ the]family.Due to sudden demise of the deceased,the petitionersbec^'tne helpless and there is no other source of livelihood[and][ the]1^*^ petitioner became gloomy.The deceased was well[educated]

and there is bright prospects in his future and there[are][ several]chances of his promotion to reach highest position. As the parentsof the deceased, who areresiding at Machilipatnam,arenotcooperating, they are impleaded as respondent Nos.[4 and][ 5][ in][ the]claim petition. Hence, the wife and daughter of the[deceased][ filed]saidO.P.under Section166of the Motor Vehicles Act claimingcompensation of Rs.21,00,000/- initially. Thereafter,[I.A.No.580][ of]2002 was filed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.30,00,000/-and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.09.2002.

6. The driver, who is the1^*^ respondent therein with adoptionmemo of the owner/2"'^ respondent therein filed counter denyingall the material allegations. Further stating that[the][ accident][ did]not take place due to rash and negligent driving of[the][ driver][ of]water tanker.The deceasednegligently entered on the road.which was in upper in gradient from the cross lane[and]tried toovertake the vehicle without giving any caution.It[was][ further]contendedthatthevehicle wasinsuredwiththeinsurer,theinsurance policy was subsisting at the time of accident[and]thatmemo of the owner/2"'^ respondent therein filed counter denyingall the material allegations. Further stating that[the][ accident][ did]not take place due to rash and negligent driving of[the][ driver][ of]water tanker.The deceasednegligently entered on the road.which was in upper in gradient from the cross lane[and]tried toovertake the vehicle without giving any caution.It[was][ further]contendedthatthevehicle wasinsuredwiththeinsurer,theinsurance policy was subsisting at the time of accident[and]that the3'^'^ respondent has to indemnify the liability[of][ the][ owner][ and]that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is[too][ exorbitant]and thereby, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. The insurance company, whois the3'^^ respondent thereinfiled counter denying all the material averments, stating[that][ the]accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving[of][ the][ driver]of the water tanker.It also denied the age and earnings[of][ the]deceased.The compensation claimed by the petitionersis tooexorbitant. The claimants haveto prove that the driver[of]thewater tanker was having valid and subsisting driving license by thedate of accident and that the rate of interest claimedis also toohigh and thereby, prayed for dismissal of the petition.filed counter denying all the material averments, stating[that][ the]accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving[of][ the][ driver]of the water tanker.It also denied the age and earnings[of][ the]deceased.The compensation claimed by the petitionersis tooexorbitant. The claimants haveto prove that the driver[of]thewater tanker was having valid and subsisting driving license by thedate of accident and that the rate of interest claimedis also toohigh and thereby, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. The parents of the deceased, who are respondents 4[and]5therein filed counter admitting the relationship between[them][ and]the claimants.They denied that they did not cooperate in filingthe claim petition along with the claimants and they are havingimmovable properties.It is further stated that the[deceased][ used]to look after their welfare and they are depending on him as theytherein filed counter admitting the relationship between[them][ and]the claimants.They denied that they did not cooperate in filingthe claim petition along with the claimants and they are havingimmovable properties.It is further stated that the[deceased][ used]to look after their welfare and they are depending on him as they are not capable to earn for their livelihood due to old age andhence,they are also entitled for compensation along[with]theclaimants.

9. Basing onthe abovepleadings,the Tribunalsettledthefollowing issues:following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on account[of]rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.ABV405, Ashok Leyland Water Tanker Lorry drivenby thefirst respondent-driver?rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.ABV405, Ashok Leyland Water Tanker Lorry drivenby thefirst respondent-driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation,ifso, to what amount and from which of the respondents?so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?3.Whetherthepetitionerisentitledforthe enhancedcompensation or not ?compensation or not ?

4. To what relief ?

10. In the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants,[PWs.1 and]2 were examined and Exs.A.1to A.3 were marked. On behalf oftherespondents,owner oflorry was examinedasRW.1,theemployee of insurer was examined as RW.2 and parentsofthe2 were examined and Exs.A.1to A.3 were marked. On behalf oftherespondents,owner oflorry was examinedasRW.1,theemployee of insurer was examined as RW.2 and parentsofthe deceased were examined as RWs.3 and 4 and Exs.B.1to[B3][ were]marked. On X-Series, Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked

11. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusionthatthe accident wasoccurred duetotherashandnegligentdriving of the driver of water tanker, partly allowed[the][ said][ M.O.P.]holding that claimants and respondent Nos.4 and 5/parents[of][ the]deceasedare entitledfor compensationofRs. 13,94,000/-withproportionate costs and interest thereon at 9% p.a[from][ the][ date]of petition i.e. 28.02.2001till the date of deposit by deducting oneyear interest on account of the delayin making the[enhanced]claim and the respondent Nos.1to3 were jointly and severallyliable to pay the compensation within one month from[the][ date][ of]the judgment.thatthe accident wasoccurred duetotherashandnegligentdriving of the driver of water tanker, partly allowed[the][ said][ M.O.P.]holding that claimants and respondent Nos.4 and 5/parents[of][ the]deceasedare entitledfor compensationofRs. 13,94,000/-withproportionate costs and interest thereon at 9% p.a[from][ the][ date]of petition i.e. 28.02.2001till the date of deposit by deducting oneyear interest on account of the delayin making the[enhanced]claim and the respondent Nos.1to3 were jointly and severallyliable to pay the compensation within one month from[the][ date][ of]the judgment.

12. Beingnotsatisfiedwiththeaward,theseappealsarepreferred by the claimants and insurer.preferred by the claimants and insurer.

13. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Standing Counsel[for]the insurer of water tanker,Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned[counsel][ for]the insurer of water tanker,Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned[counsel][ for]

-N.

theclaimantsandSriCh.VenkataNarayana,learnedcounselappearing for the parents of the deceased.

14. SriNareshByrapaneni,learnedStandingCounselfortheinsurer submits that the Tribunal erredin applyingthecorrectmultiplier while awarding the compensation.insurer submits that the Tribunal erredin applyingthecorrectmultiplier while awarding the compensation.

15. On the other hand, Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned counsel[for][ the]claimants and Spi Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel appearingfor the parents of the deceased submitsthat the Tribunal[has not]applied the correct multiplier in calculating the compensation.Hefurther submits that the Tribunal has not considered the age of thedeceased correctly. They also submit that deduction of one yearinterestonthecompensation amountinlieuofpendencyofI.A.No.580 of 2002 is not correct.claimants and Spi Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel appearingfor the parents of the deceased submitsthat the Tribunal[has not]applied the correct multiplier in calculating the compensation.Hefurther submits that the Tribunal has not considered the age of thedeceased correctly. They also submit that deduction of one yearinterestonthecompensation amountinlieuofpendencyofI.A.No.580 of 2002 is not correct.

16. After hearing both sides, the following points that[arise for]determination are:determination are:

1. Whether there was any mistake of law while arriving[at]the conclusion to award compensation by the Tribunal?the conclusion to award compensation by the Tribunal?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement[of]compensation? andcompensation? and

3. To what relief ?

17. POINT Nos.1 and 2:

A perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal framed[issue]No.1as ‘whether the petitioner sustained injuries[on][ account][ of]rashandnegligentdrivingof the vehiclebearing No.ABV 405,Ashok Leyland Water Tanker Lorry driven by the first respondent-driver’ instead of ‘whether the deceased Venkateswara Rao died inthe accident due to rash and negligent driving of Ashok LeylandWater Tanker bearing No.ABV 405 driven by its driver.But in issueNo.1, it was held that the accident occurred due to[the][ fault][ and]negligent driving of the vehicle by crime vehicle driver[and][ that]the deceased Venkateswara Rao diedin the said accident due tothe fault and negligent driving of the tanker by its driver.Hence,there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident[and][ that]the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of thedriverjDf-t'he offending tanker in which the deceased[died.]

18. On verifying therecordplacedbefore the Tribunal,theTribunalconsideredthedateofbirthofthedeceasedas01.12.1958onthedateofaccidentbasingontheS.S.C.certificate, which was mentionedin Ex.XI-true copyofserviceregister of the deceased. At that time, the deceased was running42"'* year. Hence, the Tribunal applied the relevant multiplier ‘15’.Ex.XI Copy of Service Register also clearly goes to[show][ that][ the]dateofbirthofdeceasedbynameG.VenkateswaraRaois01.12.1958 and even in the S.S.C. certificate, which[was][ available]in the service register of the deceased and the date of birth wasmentioned as 01,12.1958. Thus, it is undisputed that[the][ accident]occurred on 17.10.2000,therebyitis clear that 42nd year wasrunning when the deceased Venkateswara Rao died in the accidentas wellitis established andprovedfact that the age of thedeceased Venkateswara Rao was 42 by the time ofhisdeath.Thus, the contention of the claimants that the age[of][ the][ deceased]by the date of accident is ‘39’ does not hold water.Tribunalconsideredthedateofbirthofthedeceasedas01.12.1958onthedateofaccidentbasingontheS.S.C.certificate, which was mentionedin Ex.XI-true copyofserviceregister of the deceased. At that time, the deceased was running42"'* year. Hence, the Tribunal applied the relevant multiplier ‘15’.Ex.XI Copy of Service Register also clearly goes to[show][ that][ the]dateofbirthofdeceasedbynameG.VenkateswaraRaois01.12.1958 and even in the S.S.C. certificate, which[was][ available]in the service register of the deceased and the date of birth wasmentioned as 01,12.1958. Thus, it is undisputed that[the][ accident]occurred on 17.10.2000,therebyitis clear that 42nd year wasrunning when the deceased Venkateswara Rao died in the accidentas wellitis established andprovedfact that the age of thedeceased Venkateswara Rao was 42 by the time ofhisdeath.Thus, the contention of the claimants that the age[of][ the][ deceased]by the date of accident is ‘39’ does not hold water.

19. As per thedecisioninSarlaVerma and Ors.v.DelhiTransport Corporation^ the multiplier applicable betweentheage of 41to 45is‘14’.Thus, the relevant multiplier can beapplied is only ‘14’ but not ‘15’ as contended by the[claimants.]Transport Corporation^ the multiplier applicable betweentheage of 41to 45is‘14’.Thus, the relevant multiplier can beapplied is only ‘14’ but not ‘15’ as contended by the[claimants.]

20. The other contention raised by the learned counsel[for][ the]claimants is that not only the claimants, but also the parents ofthe deceased, who are arrayed as respondents 4 and5intheM.O.P are also dependents on the deceased. As per the[decision][ of]the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National[Insurance]Company Limited Vs.Pranay Sethi^, at para-39, the Hon’ble ApexCourtby followingSarla Verma, ReshmaKumari,RajeshandMunna Lai Jain, held as follows:claimants is that not only the claimants, but also the parents ofthe deceased, who are arrayed as respondents 4 and5intheM.O.P are also dependents on the deceased. As per the[decision][ of]the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National[Insurance]Company Limited Vs.Pranay Sethi^, at para-39, the Hon’ble ApexCourtby followingSarla Verma, ReshmaKumari,RajeshandMunna Lai Jain, held as follows:

“39.Before we proceed to analyse the principle foraddition of future prospects,wethinkit seemlytoclear the maze whichis vividly reflectible from SarlaVerma, Reshma Kumari,Rajesh and Munna Lai Jain.Threeaspects needtobeclarified.Thefirstonepertainstodeductiontowardspersonalandliving /

/

expenses.In parasraphs 30, 31 and 32,Sarla Vermalays down:-“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be madetowards personal and living expenses is calculated[on]the basisofunitsindicatedinTrilokChandra,thegeneral practiceisto apply standardised deductions.Having considered several subsequent decisions of this(2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view thatwherethedeceasedwasmarried,thedeductiontowards personal and living expenses of the deceased,should beone-third(1/3rd)wherethe numberofdependentfamily membersis2to3,one-fourth(1/4th)wherethenumberofdependentfamilymembersis 4 to6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where thenumber of dependent family members exceeds six.

21. The Hon’ble Apex Courtin PranaySethi’s case(statedsupra) at Paragraph No.57 it is observed thattaking intoconsideration the cumulative factors, namely passage of time, thechange in society, escalation of price, the change in price index,the human attitude to follow particular pattern of life extra anaddition of 40% of established income of deceased towards futuresupra) at Paragraph No.57 it is observed thattaking intoconsideration the cumulative factors, namely passage of time, thechange in society, escalation of price, the change in price index,the human attitude to follow particular pattern of life extra anaddition of 40% of established income of deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years[an][ addition]of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40[to][ 50][ years]would be reasonable." In the present case the deceased is aged 42years and he is permanent employee in Central Government,[since]his age is 42, 25% of addition to be awarded to his[annual][ income.]22.Inthe presentcase,there arefour dependentsi.e.theclaimants1 and 2, who are wife and daughter of the[deceased][ and]the parents of the deceased, who are arrayed as respondents[4 and]5 in the M.O.P.Hence,1has to be deducted from the incomearrived at towards personal expenses of the deceased.

23. BasingonEx.X2-SalaryCertificate,TheTribunalalsoaccepted the version of the claimants that he was workingasaTransmission Executive in All India fladio Station, Visakhapatnam.Salary of the appellant at that point of time was consideredasRs.11,400/- p.m.and he got 21 years of service by[the][ time][ of]accident,whichfacts wereconfirmedthroughPW.2bynameP.Nageswara Rao, who was working as Audience Research[Officer][ in]All India Radio and he brought Ex.XI-true copy of th^[service]accepted the version of the claimants that he was workingasaTransmission Executive in All India fladio Station, Visakhapatnam.Salary of the appellant at that point of time was consideredasRs.11,400/- p.m.and he got 21 years of service by[the][ time][ of]accident,whichfacts wereconfirmedthroughPW.2bynameP.Nageswara Rao, who was working as Audience Research[Officer][ in]All India Radio and he brought Ex.XI-true copy of th^[service]

register of the deceased and produced Ex.X2-salary[certificate][ of]the deceased.Both the documents clearly show that the salary ofthe deceased was Rs.11,358/- p.m. rounded to Rs.11,400/-p.m.24.In Magma General Insurance Co.Ltdv.Nanu RamaliasChuhra Ram^, different kinds of consortium have been explainedin para-21 and relevant observations in consequence[thereto]arehereunder:

“21. A constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi[dealt][ with]the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded[ in][ a]death case. One of these headsisloss of consortium.Inlegalparlance,‘consortium’ is a compendious term which encompasses‘spousalconsortium’,parentalconsortium’,and‘filialconsortium’. The right to consortium would include the company,care,help,comfort,guidance,solanceandaffectionofthedeceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse,itwould include sexual relations with the deceased spouse:21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertainingto the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensationto the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation,affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”.

21.2. Parentalconsortiumisgrantedtothechilduponthepremature death of a parent, for loss of “parental[aid,][ protection,]affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”.21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensationin the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leadingto the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parentsand family of the deceased. The 7 2009 ACJ 1298 8 (2018)18 SCC130 MVR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1934of 20116 greatest agony for aparentisto lose their child duringtheir lifetime.Children arevalued for their love, affection, companionship and[their][ role]inthe family unit.

22. Consortiumis a special prism reflecting changing[norms][ about]the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictionsworld-over have recognized that the value of a child’s[consortium]far exceeds the economic value of the compensation[awarded][ in]the case of the deathof achild.Most jurisdictions thereforepermitparentstobeawardedcompensationunderlossofconsortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded[to][ the]parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection,[care][ and]companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor[Vehicles][ Act][ is]a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief[to the victims or]their families,in cases of genuine claims.In case where a parenthaslosttheir minorchild,or unmarried son or daughter,theparents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium[under][ the]headoffilialconsortium.Parentalconsortiumisawardedto children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents underthe Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation[on]thiscount. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principlesonwhichcompensationcouldbeawardedonlossoffilialconsortium. 24.The amount of compensationto be awardedasconsortiumwillbegovernedbytheprinciplesofawardingcompensation under “loss of consortium’ as laid downin PranaySethi.In the present case, we deem it appropriate[to][ award][ the]father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/-each for loss of filial consortium. ”

25. Therefore, in view of the above observations, filial[consortium]shall be appropriate for the present purpose and following PranaySethi’scase,Rs.40,000/-hastobe awarded. Thoughitisnotspecifically claimed by the claimants,itisnot a[bar]to considerhaving regard to scope and ambit of Section 166 of[the][ Motor][ Vehicles]Act, which requires ‘just compensation’ to be awarded.It includescompensation based on pecuniary damages, which the[claimants][ have]to prove producing appropriate evidence and non-pecuniary damages,which includes a claim based on consortium. Towards loss of estateshall be appropriate for the present purpose and following PranaySethi’scase,Rs.40,000/-hastobe awarded. Thoughitisnotspecifically claimed by the claimants,itisnot a[bar]to considerhaving regard to scope and ambit of Section 166 of[the][ Motor][ Vehicles]Act, which requires ‘just compensation’ to be awarded.It includescompensation based on pecuniary damages, which the[claimants][ have]to prove producing appropriate evidence and non-pecuniary damages,which includes a claim based on consortium. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, needless to state that following[Pranay][ Sethi’s]case, appropriate amounts have to be awarded.

26. Thus, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate,Rs.40,000/-[towards]spousal consortium to the wife of the deceased, Rs.40,000/-[towards]parental consortium to the daughter of the deceased[and][ Rs.15,000/-]towards funeral expenses have to be awarded in this[case.]spousal consortium to the wife of the deceased, Rs.40,000/-[towards]parental consortium to the daughter of the deceased[and][ Rs.15,000/-]towards funeral expenses have to be awarded in this[case.]

27. In Pranay Sethi’s case,itis categorically observed[that][ the]decision in Rajeshv. Rajbir Singh"* is not a binding[precedent][ to]award compensation on the head of love and affection.decision in Rajeshv. Rajbir Singh"* is not a binding[precedent][ to]award compensation on the head of love and affection.

28. Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,thisCourtdeemsitappropriate to grant future prospects as per Pranay[Sethi’s][ case.]appropriate to grant future prospects as per Pranay[Sethi’s][ case.]

28.

29. The Tribunal has fixed interest at 9% p.a. from the[date][ of]claim petition till the date of payment by deducting[one][ year][ interest]time of appeal in making an enhanced claim. As per[the][ judgment][ of]the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport v. S.Rajapriya^taking note of the prevailing rate of interest in bank[deposits,][ the]same is fixed at 7.5% per annum. Even in other judgments[of][ the]claim petition till the date of payment by deducting[one][ year][ interest]time of appeal in making an enhanced claim. As per[the][ judgment][ of]the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport v. S.Rajapriya^taking note of the prevailing rate of interest in bank[deposits,][ the]same is fixed at 7.5% per annum. Even in other judgments[of][ the]

'^2065 Lawsuit SC 742

Supreme Court, the same principle is followed.Therefore,in thepresent case also, the rate of interest is fixed at 7.5% p.a., whichis just and reasonable.

30. Therefore, the compensation awarded under different heads isas under:as under:

31. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, we are[of][ the]opinionthattheawardpassedbytheTribunalwarrantsinterference by enhancing the compensation fromRs. 13,94,000/-toRs. 19,05,500/-. Thus, these points are answeredin favour ofclaimants.opinionthattheawardpassedbytheTribunalwarrantsinterference by enhancing the compensation fromRs. 13,94,000/-toRs. 19,05,500/-. Thus, these points are answeredin favour ofclaimants.

32. POINT No.3:

In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the order passedbytheTribunalwarrantsinterferenceregardingquantumofcompensation and the rate of interest only and with regard to theremaining aspects there is no need to disturb the well[articulated]order passed by the Tribunal. As such, the appeal filed by the insurerisliable to be dismissed andthe appealfiled by theclaimants is liable to be allowed partly.

33. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.806 of 2009 is dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.shall be no order as to costs.

"34. In view of the facts and circumstances, I.A. No.1of 2004is allowed andthe delay of 60 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The C.M.A. (SR). No.15236 of 2004 is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 13,94,000/- toRs. 19,05,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs fromthe date of petitiontill the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 to 3(driver,insuredandinsurerofthevehicle).Theyshalldepositthecompensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment. Restof the directions given by the Tribunal with regard to the apportionment of thecompensation between the claimants/ parents, their[entitlement][ for][ withdrawal]of the amounts holds good. On deposit of the enhanced compensation,theyshall be entitled to withdraw as per the terms imposed by the Tribunal in itsaward."

Note: Para No.34 of the Order dated 16.02.2023 is modified as per CourtOrder dated 02.08.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in MAGMA No.136 of 2023.

SDI- U SRIDEVIASSISTANT REGISTRAR

HIGH COURTDATED:16/02/202302/08/2024

52 8 AUG im

AMENDED COMMON JUDGMENTMACMA No.806 of 2009 & 136 of 2023

DISMISSING THE MACMA No.806 of 2009 ANDALLOWING THE MACMA No.136 of 2023