1 fa679.14.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.679 OF 2014 1. Smt. Jayrabano Wd/o Farukali, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Household. 2. Sakalin s/o Farukali, Aged about 7 years, Minor through his mother the applicant no.1 3. Sau. Jamilabano W/o Hamidali Aged about 50 years, Occ: Household 4. Hamidali Yawarali, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Retired S.T. Driver, All are R/o Taj Society, Pandharkawada Road, Yavatmal. ...APPELLANTS Claimants on RA ...V E R S U S... 1. Kolaradha s/o Bandu Vyancanna Naidu Aged about 52 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Palcoal, Tq. Padur, Dist. Yelur (West Godavari A.P.) [Driver of Truck No.AP-26-T-9297] 2. Chintalapudi Bhaskar Rao S/o Veeraraju, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Transport Business, R/o D-No.13-11-78, Kolachinavari Street, Tadepalligupum Post 534101 [Owner of Truck No.AP-26-T-9297] [Appeal is abated against Resp. No.1 and dismissed against Resp. No.2 as per order of Registrar (J) dated 6.5.2014.] 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, The New 2025:BHC-NAG:2627 2 fa679.14.odt India Assurance Co. Ltd., Yerawar Building, Datta Chowk, Yavatmal. [Insurer of Truck No.AP-26-T-9297] ...RESPONDENTS Opponents on RA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Appellants. Ms Anita Mategaonkar, Advocate for respondent no.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE :- 07.03.2025. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assails the judgment and order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short) in M.A.C.P. No.73/2005 on the ground that the Tribunal has not assessed the income of the deceased properly while granting compensation to the appellants/claimants on account of loss of dependency due to the death of Faruk Ali who died in vehicular accident on 02.06.2004. 2. Deceased Faruk, who was the owner and driver of the truck bearing registration No.MH296883, was engaged in the business of transportation. On the fateful day, the deceased parked his vehicle on the extreme side of the road and kept the parking light on. The deceased alighted from the truck for tightening the 3 fa679.14.odt rope of the truck alongwith one Bahadur Ali and went to the back side of the truck. At that time, the offending truck bearing registration No.AP26T9297, which was insured with respondent no.3-Insurer gave a dash to the said stationed truck from the back side. In the said collision, Faruk and the conductor/coolie Bahadur Ali were crushed and died on the spot. An offence came to be registered under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the offending vehicle. The appellants being wife and children of deceased Faruk Ali filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and consequently, the Tribunal granted the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- apart from loss of estate and consortium by assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs.3,500/- per month. 3. The finding of Tribunal assessing income of the deceased Faruk Ali @Rs.3,500/- per month has been challenged in the present appeal apart from entitlement to future prospects and enhancement of loss of estate and consortium. 4. Mr. Narwade, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased was not only the driver but also the owner of the truck and was engaged in the business of transportation. The fact that the deceased was paying a monthly 4 fa679.14.odt instalment of Rs.8,500/- itself goes to suggest that the deceased was earning @Rs.20,000/- per month and the amount of Rs.8,500/- cannot be termed as expense being repayment of loan. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed a serious error while assessing the income of the deceased and granted the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only. Apart from erroneous assessment of income, the appellants also claimed that other benefits of future prospects in wake of decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 have not been granted. 5. Conversely, Ms Anita Mategonkar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 vehemently submitted that the amount of Rs.8,500/- includes the interest which is to be treated as an expense and is to be deducted from the income. According to her, learned Tribunal after considering the facts on record has properly assessed the income at Rs.3,500/- per month. However, she submitted that so far as other benefits are concerned, an appropriate order may be passed. 6. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and having gone through the material available on record, 1 2017 (16) SCC 680 5 fa679.14.odt it transpires that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle. Perusal of the record goes to show that the appellants have proved that deceased Faruk Ali was paying a monthly instalment of Rs.8,500/- towards repayment of loan which was taken for purchasing the truck. It is to be noted that when deceased was paying monthly instalment of Rs.8,500/- per monthly then obviously, he would have been earning more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal particularly, when deceased Faruk Ali who was an owner and was driving the truck himself for saving the salary that could be given to a driver. No doubt the amount of Rs.8,500/- may include interest which may be treated as an expense but it also include the principal amount towards purchase of capital goods which cannot be treated as an expense. Be that as it may, the fact remains that deceased Faruk Ali was the driver and owner of the truck and he himself was driving the vehicle. Hence, in all probability he might be earning not less than Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, his annual salary would be around Rs.84,000/- 7. This takes me to question of awarding future prospects and proper consortium. It is worthwhile to mention here the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Company 6 fa679.14.odt Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.1, wherein the Supreme Court has held that parents are also entitled for Filial consortium at rate of Rs.40,000/- apart from the compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each. In wake of this, the appellants shall be entitled for the following compensation : 1. Monthly income of the deceased. Rs. 7,000/- 2. Annual income of the deceased (Rs.7,000/- x 12) Rs. 84,000/- 3. Since the deceased was below the age of 40 years at the time of his death. Add – 40% future prospects as per the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 (+) Rs. 33,600/- Rs. 1,17,600/- 4. Less – 1/3rd deduction as per the judgment of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation – (2009) 6 SCC 121 (-) Rs. 39,200/- 5. Salary for multiplier Rs. 78,400/- 6. Multiplier of 17 as per the judgment of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation – (2009) 6 SCC 121, applicable for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years (Rs.78,400 x 17) (x) Rs. 13,32,800/- 7. Add : Loss of Consortium : Rs.40,000/- for each claimant as per the judgment of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 followed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur – AIR 2020 (SC) 3076 (+) Rs. 1,60,000/- 8. Add : Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/- 9. Add : Funeral Expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/- 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 fa679.14.odt 10. Total compensation payable to the claimants Rs. 15,22,800/- 11. Less : Compensation granted by Tribunal (-) Rs. 5,00,000/- 12. Enhanced compensation: Rs. 10,22,800/- 8. The appellants are entitled to compensation as mentioned above and to that extent appeal succeeds. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The award to the extent of enhanced compensation is modified as under : The appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.10,22,800/- and interest thereon @9% per annum from the date of application till 2012 and after 2012 interest @7.5% per annum till deposition of the amount. 10. Respondent no.3 to deposit enhanced compensation amount in this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. 11. With this, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 12. Award be drawn accordingly. JUDGE Wagh