Telangana High Court
S.K.Reshma And 3 Others vs Om Prakash And 2 Others on 7 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
M.A.C.M.A.No.198 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter ''Tribunal"
for brevity) in M.V.O.P.No.474 of 2014 by the order and decree dated 09.07.2019, the petitioners have filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioners have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) from the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the death of one "Shaik Mahmud Pasha" (hereinafter 'deceased' for brevity). Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 05.09.2013, the deceased left his house on his motorcycle to install flexi of Jagadamba Cloth 2 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 Show-room. After completion of work, while he was proceeding to Karimnagar on the motorcycle and when he reached near Alugunur bridge at about 6:00 P.M., a lorry bearing No.MH-06- HC-0663 driven by its driver i.e., respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from opposite direction. Due to the same, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
4. Based on a complaint, Police-L.M.D Colony P.S., registered First Information Report No.179/2013 under Section 304-A of I.P.C. against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.MH-06-HC-0663 and after investigation filed Charge Sheet.
5. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and was engaged in the work of installing flexies (digital advertisement printed on vinyl sheets) and stage decorations and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. It was stated that the petitioners were dependant on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accident, the family suffered a lot and lost a young earning family member, his love and affection, and were left in misery. Therefore, the petitioners as dependants of the deceased, filed 3 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) against all the respondents jointly and severally.
6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the allegations of the petitioners and materially contended that respondent No.2 got insured the crime vehicle by respondent No.3 and the policy was subsisting at the time of accident. Respondent No.1 was holding valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, the petition may be dismissed with costs.
7. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, relationship of petitioners with the deceased, negligence, involvement of crime vehicle in the accident, rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle and called for strict proof of the same. It was contended that the recklessness and negligence of driver of the said lorry alone caused the collision between the crime vehicle and the motorcycle of the deceased. Further, the police complaint was filed after a lapse of one day and seriously disputed the issuance of any insurance policy by the respondent company in favour of owner of the crime vehicle, as it is not traceable in the office. It was further contended that 4 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 the occurrence of accident was not reported by the insured or driver of crime vehicle on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No.3 shall be permitted to take all necessary defences as contemplated under Sections 170-B, 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
8. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following three issues:-
i) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.MH-06-HC-0663 driven by its driver?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as P.W-1 apart from examining P.W-2 and P.W-3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documents were marked.
10. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition in favour of 5 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 the petitioners/claimants by awarding a total compensation of Rs.17,83,600/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs eighty three thousand six hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, holding respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly liable to pay compensation amount. Aggrieved by the reduced quantum of compensation, the petitioners have filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
11. Heard Sri S Mohd. Abdul Kareem Khan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Venkatarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
12. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence, apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A-1 to A-7, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month as per Ex.A-7 i.e., salary certificate and ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation. Learned counsel for appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered appellant 6 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 Nos.2 and 3, i.e., minor daughters, to be included for the purpose of consortium under the head of ''Parental consortium''. The learned counsel in order to support his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and others 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with 'consortium' to be paid in case of death. On the above grounds prayed to allow the Appeal and grant just and reasonable compensation.
13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, on the above ground, interference of this Court in the well reasoned order passed by the Tribunal is unwarranted.
14. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the impugned order and decree passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference by this Court? If so, whether the appellants/petitioners are entitled for any enhancement of compensation and in what quantum?"1
2018 ACJ 2782 7 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020
15. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 09.07.2019. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the appellants and the deceased. There is also no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of P.W-1 (wife of the deceased) apart from the evidence of P.W-3 coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A-1 (FIR), Ex.A-2 (Charge Sheet) and Ex.A-3 (MVI Report) has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the collision of the lorry with the motorcycle of the deceased and answered the same in favour of the appellants.
16. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by engaging in the work of installing flexies (digital advertisement printed on vinyl sheets) and stage decorations. To prove the same, the appellants produced Ex.A-7 (i.e., salary certificate issued by Nitya Advertisement Agency, Karimnagar), but the Tribunal has erroneously discarded the evidence and fixed the salary of the deceased at a paltry sum of Rs.8,000/- 8
GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 per month and awarded very meager amount towards compensation.
17. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have produced Ex.A-7 salary certificate, which was issued by P.W-2, however P.W-2 failed to submit any evidence, such as, salary register of employees. Further, the said advertisement agency is an unregistered business entity without any valid license; considering the same the Tribunal discarded Ex.A-7 and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month.
18. The cornerstone of the Motor Vehicles Act is the principle of 'just compensation'. This means the compensation should be fair, reasonable and equitable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly held that Courts must take a liberal and pragmatic approach, especially for victims from informal economy/unorganized sector and cannot adopt a rigid/pedantic view that penalizes a person for the nature of their employment. Considering the factual matrix of the present case and also taking note of the fact that the year of accident being 2013, this Court is inclined to consider monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-, which in the view of this Court is just and reasonable, which sum is marginally more than person engaged in manual labour or as coolie would earn Rs.250/- per 9 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 day. The sum of Rs.8,000/- per month is considered reasonable on account of nature of work of the deceased.
19. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that 'parental consortium' ought to have been granted to appellant Nos.2 and 3, who are minor children of the deceased. In Harpreet Kaur and others v. Mohinder Yadav and others 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para Nos.12 and 13 has held as under:
"12. The judgment in Rajesh v. Rajbir ((2013) 9 SCC 54), was followed in other decisions. However, the approach in these decisions, was disapproved by a five-judge bench decision in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi ((2017) 16 SCC 680), where this Court indicated what should be the correct approach in awarding amounts towards consortium:
"52. [...] Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years...." Applying this principle, in Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram ((2018) 18 SCC 130), this court held as follows:
"20. MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to loss of consortium and loss of estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognised by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant. In exercise of our 2 AIR 2023 SC 111 10 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs 15,000 towards loss of estate to Respondents 1 and 2.
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680: (2018) 3 SCC 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54].
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature 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 compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium 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 11 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra)."
20. Considering the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case with respect to award of "consortium"; 'Consortium' can be awarded under the head of "Spousal Consortium", "Parental Consortium" & "Filial Consortium". Persons not coming under any of above category are not entitled to receive consortium. Minor children qualify for consortium in the category of "Parental Consortium", in case of death of their parent(s). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.1 (i.e., wife of the deceased) under the head of 'Spousal Consortium', and has not awarded any sum under the head of 'Parental Consortium', which appears to be insufficient in the considered opinion of this Court and deserves interference. In this regard reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India 12 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 3 wherein at para 22, it was held that:
"...spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs.40,000/-. The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased by 10% after every three years. Accordingly, the grant of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is increased to Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant..."
Hence, appellant Nos.2 and 3 in the present case are entitled to receive 'parental consortium'. On application of the principles indicated in Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram 4 and Satwinder Kaur's case (supra 3), this Court is of the opinion that the parental consortium has to be granted to each of the children, hence appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each. Thus, the total amount payable towards spousal and parental consortium is Rs.1,32,000/-.
21. Now reverting to the issue of computation of compensation, in the present case, the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, as evident from Ex.A-1 FIR, Ex.A-2 Charge Sheet and Ex.A-5 Post-Mortem Examination Report. The Tribunal as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 5, has 3 (2021) 11 SCC 780 4 (2018)18 SCC 130 5 (2009) 6 SCC 121 13 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 rightly taken the appropriate multiplier as "17", considering the age of the deceased.
22. The Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of future prospects while calculating the compensation, taking into consideration the age of the deceased i.e., 30 years old at the time of accident (i.e., below 40 years) and the deceased being self employed, and held that he is entitled for future prospects @ 40% as per the decision laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi 6, which appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to Rs.11,900/- per month (Rs.8,500/- + Rs.3,400/-). Since the deceased was having four dependants 1/4th of his monthly income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and thereby the monthly income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.8,925/-; annual income of the deceased based on the above computation comes to Rs.1,07,100/- (Rs.8,925/- x 12 months). As stated supra, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '17'. When the annual income of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs.18,20,700/- (Rs.1,07,100/- x 17). 6 (2017) 16 SCC 680 14 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is quantified at Rs. 18,20,700/-.
23. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. However, as per the principle laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra 6), the appellants are entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Further, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.44,000/- each to appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under the head of 'Spousal Consortium' and 'Parental consortium'. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.20,29,700/- (Rs.18,20,700/- + Rs.77,000/ + 1,32,000/- (i.e., Rs.44,000/- to appellant No.1 towards 'spousal consortium' and Rs.44,000/- each to appellant Nos.2 and 3 towards 'parental consortium')
24. It is noted that out of the initially awarded compensation of Rs.17,83,600/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,83,600/- to appellant No.1, who is wife of the deceased and Rs.5,00,000/- to appellant Nos.2 and 3, who are minor daughters of the deceased and Rs.2,00,000/- to appellant No.4, who is the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal further directed that out 15 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 of their respective shares appellant No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.3,83,600/- out of her share of compensation and appellant No.4 was permitted to withdraw her entire share of compensation and the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each awarded to the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit till they attain majority and the remaining compensation amount to appellant No.1 along with accrued interest and proportionate costs shall be kept in fixed deposit for one year.
25. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observations.
26. In the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.17,83,600/- to Rs.20,29,700/-, which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation amount after duly deducting the amount already deposited/withdrawn, if any within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, 16 GMM,J MACMA.No.198 of 2020 the appellant No.1 i.e., wife of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.6,29,700/- and the appellant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., minor daughters of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- each, which shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Banks till they attain majority and appellant No.4 i.e., mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The appellant Nos.1 and 4 are entitled to withdraw the entire share of compensation amount awarded to them without furnishing any security, subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation, for the sum awarded beyond the amount claimed by the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN Date: 07.11.2025 ssp