1 APHC010248372012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 983/2012 Between: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NANDYAL., 1ST FLOOR, VIJAYA COMPLEX, HOUSAE NO. 23/611-A, SRINIVASA NAGAR, ...APPELLANT AND 1. BEVARA CHANDRAMATHI DIED AND 2 OTHERS, S/O.TAKARA NAIK P.B. TANDA. 2. GADI KUMARI, W/O PURUSHOTTAM R/O HONZARAM VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. M SRINIVASULU GOUD, S/O SANJANNA GOUD OWNER OF TRACTOR, MANCHALAKOTTA VILLAGE, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tocall for the records relating to Order and Decree dated 24th March, 2009, made in MVOP.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge cum MACT [FTC] Srikakulam and set aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2009(MACMAMP 5268 OF 2009 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 39 daysin filing the above appeal against the Order and Decree dated 24th March, 2009, made in MVOP.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge cum MACT [FTC] Srikakulam IA NO: 2 OF 2009(MACMAMP 5354 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Order and Decree dated 24th March, 2009, made in MVOP.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge cum MACT [FTC] Srikakulam Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K S GOPALA KRISHNAN The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.983 of 2012 JUDGMENT: Introductory: 1. Heard Smt. S. A. V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam (for short “the learned MACT”) filed the present appeal questioning the order and decree dated 24.03.2009 passed by the learned MACT, where under a claim made by the claimants for compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was allowed in toto. 3. The appellant herein is disputing the liability imposed and quantum of compensation awarded. 4. One Bevara Kiran Prasad (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died in a motor vehicle accident. Respondent No.1 is mother of the deceased. She moved the MACT for awarding compensation, but on her death during the pendency of the legal proceedings, her daughter / Respondent No.2 herein was added being a legal representative / claimant No.2. Respondent No.3 herein is owner of the tractor bearing No.AP 7 V 1795 and trailer bearing No.AP 21 V 1862 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). The deceased was its 4 driver at the relevant time. The accident occurred during and in the course of employment. 5. Respondent No.1/ owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2 (appellant herein) alone contested the case. 7. For the sake of convenience, parties will hereinafter referred to as “the claimants” and “the respondents” with reference to their status before the learned MACT under the impugned proceedings. Case of the claimants: 8(i). The deceased was working as a helper for the vehicle belonging to Respondent No.1. On 11.04.2001 at about 08:45 A.M. at K.C. Canal near Ponnapuram Colony, Nandyal, while the deceased was attending modernization works at K.C. Canal, he being the machine helper and driver of the offending vehicle, operated on the right bund of the canal in order to cross a jeep, lost control over the offending vehicle and fell into the canal. As a result, the hook of the trailer hit the back side of the head of the deceased and consequently, he died on the spot. 8(ii). Claimant No.1 is the mother of the deceased. She is widow and she is dependent on the deceased. She filed the claim petition. But, she died during the pendency of the case. Hence, her daughter / claimant No.2 was joined as a party. Hence, she is entitled for compensation. 5 Case of Respondent-Insurance Company: 9. The claimants shall prove the age, occupation, income of the deceased, manner of accident, dependency of claimant No.2 and the valid and effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle in question. In any event, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 10. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues and additional issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: Issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred involving the deceased Bevara Kiran Prasad, S/o. late Chandrarao and the Tractor Trailor bearing No.A.P.7V1795 and A.P.21 V 1862 due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Tractor Trailer by the deceased Bevara Kiran Prasad? (2) Whether the petitioner mother of deceased is entitled to any compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? Additional issue: (1) Whether the 2nd petitioner as legal heir of 1st petitioner is entitled for compensation or not? If so to what extent and against whom? 6 11. Evidence before the learned MACT: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: B. Chandramathi Claimant No.1 P.W.2: Bevara Narayanarao Eye witness to the accident P.W.3: G. Kumari Claimant No.2 P.W.4: P. Satyanarayana R.W.1: Balivada Chandra Mouli Documentary evidence Ex.A1:The certified copy of First Information Report. Ex.A2:The certified copy of motor vehicle inspector report Ex.A3:Xerox copy of inquest report. Ex.A4:The certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A5:Proceedings of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal Ex.A6: Death Certificate of P.W.1 Ex.A7:Legal heir certificate V.R.O., Salantry, Sarubujjili Mandal Ex.A8: Legal heir certificate issued by Tahasildar Marked on behalf of the petitioner(s). Ex.B1: Investigation Report Ex.B2: Copy of Policy Marked on behalf of the Respondents Findings of the learned MACT: 12. Evidence of P.W.4, an independent witness and evidence of P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident and crime record is in one way indicating that there 7 is no negligence on the part of the deceased and that it is an act of the God. The criminal proceedings stood abated against the deceased. The contents in Ex.A1-FIR show that deceased was unable to control the tractor. But, on the other hand record indicates negligent driving of the vehicle. Hence, the plea that it is an act of God is not tenable and negligence as the cause for accident is acceptable. 13. With regard to the entitlement of mother of the deceased, the learned MACT found that, since her husband had predeceased her, she is dependent on the deceased and hence entitled for compensation. Claimant No.1 died during the pendency of the case, claimant No.2, is her only surviving legal heir and the sister of the deceased. Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 (legal heir certificates) and the evidence of P.W.4, an independent witness, establishing the relationship of claimant No.2 with claimant No.1 and the deceased. Therefore, claimant No.2 is entitled for compensation. 14. While quantifying the compensation, the learned MACT adopted the income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/- per month and Rs.21,600/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, adopted Rs.14,400/- as multiplicand, applied multiplier „17‟ and arrived at a loss of dependency of Rs.2,44,800/-. Added Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Quantified the total entitlement of claimant No.2 at Rs.,2,49,300/-. But by applying the provisions of Workmen‟s Compensation Act, taken only 40% of the monthly wages of the deceased and applied the 8 relevant factor „2290.95‟ applicable to the age of the deceased viz. „23‟ years and arrived at an entitlement of Rs.2,09,484/- and fixed the liability on Respondent No.2 at Rs.2,09,484/- and for the balance amount of Rs.39,816/- on Respondent No.1. However, the award was restricted as the claim was only made for Rs.2,00,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed, present appeal filed. Arguments in the appeal: For the Insurance Company: 15(i) There is violation of conditions of policy. Hence, appellant insurance company is not liable. (ii) The Driving of the offending vehicle by the deceased is without a driving license and the same is violation of the conditions of policy. (iii) When there is no charge sheet filed, the claim ought not to have been entertained. (iv) When the place of accident is in Kurnool district entertaining the claim at Srikakulam district is not proper. (v) When the original claimant (mother of the deceased) died, her daughter or the sister of the deceased, who married long back, cannot be considered as dependent. (vi) When the claim under Motor Vehicles Act and awarding compensation under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act is not correct. 9 (vii) The learned MACT failed to note that Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 are obtained for receiving LIC amount of the deceased and they cannot be the basis. For the claimants: 16(i) The award and decree are well reasoned on every aspect. (ii) The learned MACT ought to have awarded more compensation than what was claimed by taking note of the factual scenario and the legal position that there is no bar to award more compensation than what is claimed if the claimants are otherwise entitled on facts and in law. (iii) There is no bar for entertaining the claim by the learned MACT, although the deceased or injured is a workman, there is an option for victims to invoke the provisions under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act. (iv) Compensation awarded requires enhancement and the same is permissible even in the absence of appeal or cross-appeal by the claimants as per the settled proposition of law by various courts including the Hon‟ble Apex Court. (v) The objections of the insurance company are not tenable and the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs and with enhancement of compensation claimed. 17. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 18. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 10 1) Whether there was negligence on the part of the deceased in handling the tractor and that such self negligence of the deceased will disentitle the claimants to claim any compensation? 2) Whether the claim before the learned MACT is maintainable where the deceased / injured is a workman? 3) When a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is moved invoking provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, whether compensation can be awarded under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or whether the provisions of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act are applicable for quantifying the compensation etc. 4) Whether the 2nd petitioner, sister of the deceased, is entitled for compensation in the capacity of legal representative / legal heir of claimant No.1 (mother of the deceased)? 5) Whether the compensation can be restricted to the extent of claim made or the compensation shall be awarded as per the entitlement arrived at by the Court in Motor Accident Claim cases and whether more compensation than what is claimed can be awarded? 6) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned MACT can be enhanced in the appeal filed by the respondents even in the absence of appeal or cross- appeal by the claimants? 7) Whether the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned order and decree dated 24.03.2009 in 11 M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2004 is just and reasonable or require any modification either by way of by enhancement or reduction and if so, to what tune and on what grounds? 8) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: 19. The intendment of Workmen‟s Compensation Act, 1923 is to ensure welfare of workmen and all the victims, including their family members. The self-risk of a driver for any vehicle is inherent. Whether there was negligence is one aspect; even if there was negligence, whether the same will disentitle the driver of the vehicle or his dependents to claim compensation is another aspect. The legal position as to the entitlement of a worker for compensation against a master for the injuries suffered during and in the course of his employment is well settled. 20. The liability of the master / employer is also settled wherever the employment itself involves risk. The entitlement of workman for compensation or damages for the loss suffered and the liability of the master to make good the loss is based on social welfare measure recognized by law and the said aspect is an incident of employment for both ends. The aspect of indemnity and liability to indemnify is at another branch i.e. contract of insurance which is a contract of indemnity, where the insurance contract specifies the liability by virtue of the policy conditions etc., the liability of the insurance company follows 12 the liability of employer. The present dispute revolves around whether there was self negligence on the part of the deceased. Absence of charge sheet may be for the reason that the deceased was operating the vehicle and died. 21. The evidence of eye witness-Bevara Narayanarao is that when the vehicle was in operation under the directions of the driver, it fell on the right side of the canal and the hook of the tractor hit the backside head of the deceased, causing instantaneous death. The suggestion given to P.W.2 is that the vehicle in possession is not in movement at the time of accident. It was also elicited that the deceased was struck between the tractor and the trailor. 22. RW.1 evidence is that the vehicle was kept on the right bund of the canal. When the jeep was crossing the tractor, the tractor lost control and fell into the right canal. The deceased was sitting in the driver‟s seat and became a victim, died on the spot. There was an authorized driver. The deceased is said to be the helper and was allowed by the driver to sit in the driver‟s seat in a stationed vehicle. In the factual backdrop of the case, particularly in the light of the evidence and inconsistent stands of the respondent Insurance Company before the learned MACT, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation on the ground of negligence of the deceased. The stand of the Insurance Company is that, if the deceased is a driver, there was negligence, therefore, no claim lies. If the deceased is not a driver his handling of the vehicle is unauthorized. Therefore, the 13 Insurance Company is not liable. It is to be noted that, if the deceased is the driver, he becomes a workman and he is entitled for the claim. If he is not the driver but a machine operator and operating the same under the instructions of the driver of the offending vehicle, such conduct of the driver in allowing any other person is also negligence on the part of the driver. For such negligence of the driver, his employer and insurer are accountable and liable for the tort of negligence. In either case, the liability cannot be evaded by the Insurance Company and negligence is attributable to the driver at the relevant time. The point is therefore answered in favour of the claimants and against the Insurance Company. Point No.2: 23. When the insurance company takes the stand that the vehicle was not in operation and the deceased was not an authorized driver and when it is found that the deceased is the victim and the vehicle was in use, the applicability of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act does not arise. If it is the case that the deceased was a driver and joined the duty as per the contention in the FIR then he was a workman. There is an option to the workman to file a case either in terms of Workmen‟s Compensation Act or in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When it is the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not the driver and when the case is filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claim is perfectly maintainable. The Insurance Company cannot take conflicting stands. The 14 point is therefore answered in favour of the claimants and against the Insurance Company. Point No.3: 24. The law with regard to payment of compensation in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, even if a claimant is said to be a workman and having invoked the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act was considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Dyamavva and others1. The provisions under Sections 8 and 9 of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act was discussed in the said case and it is observed that when said provisions are not invoked either by the workman or by the employer and when the option is exercised in terms of the Section 167, there is no bar for proceedings before the learned MACT. The procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act is suo motu, whereas procedure contemplated under Section 10 is at the instance of the claimants or dependents. But when a claim is made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the procedure thereof governs the context. The relevant observations are made in para 16 to 18 which reads as follows: 16. The issue to be determined by us is, whether the acceptance of the aforesaid compensation would amount to the claimants having exercised their option to seek compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 1 (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406 15 17. The procedure under Section 8 aforesaid (as noticed above) is initiated at the behest of the employer “suo motu”, and as such, in our view cannot be considered as an exercise of option by the dependants/claimants to seek compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The position would have been otherwise if the dependants had raised a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In the said eventuality, certainly compensation would be paid to the dependants at the instance (and option) of the claimants. In other words, if the claimants had moved an application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, they would have been deemed to have exercised their option to seek compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Suffice it to state that no such application was ever filed by the respondent claimants herein under Section 10 aforesaid. In the above view of the matter, it can be stated that the respondent claimants having never exercised their option to seek compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, could not be deemed to be precluded from seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 18. Even though the aforesaid determination concludes the issue in hand, ambiguity if at all, can also be resolved in the present case on the basis of the admitted factual position. The first act at the behest of the respondent claimants for seeking compensation on account of the death of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar was by way of filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 30-5-2003. The aforesaid claim petition was the first claim for compensation raised at the hands of the respondent claimants. If the question raised by the appellant has to be determined with reference to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same is liable to be determined on the basis of the aforesaid claim application filed by the respondent claimants on 30-5-2003. The compensation deposited by the Port Trust with the Workmen's 16 Compensation Commissioner for payment to the respondent claimants was much later, on 4-11-2003. The aforesaid deposit, as already noticed above, was not at the behest of the respondent claimants, but was based on a unilateral “suo motu” determination of the employer (the Port Trust) under Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The first participation of Dyamavva Yalgurdappa in the proceedings initiated by the Port Trust under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was on 20-4- 2004. Having been summoned by the Workmen's Commissioner, she got her statement recorded before the Commissioner on 20-4-2004. But well before that date, she (as well as the other claimants) had already filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 30-5- 2003. Filing of the aforesaid claim application under Section 166 aforesaid, in our view constitutes her (as well as that of the other dependants of the deceased) option, to seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The instant conclusion would yet again answer the question raised by the appellant herein under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the same manner, as has already been determined above. 19. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hereby affirm the determination rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot and the High Court in awarding compensation quantified at Rs 11,44,440 to the claimant. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, as also the High Court, ordered a deduction therefrom of a sum of Rs 3,26,140 (paid to the claimants under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923). The said deduction gives full effect to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inasmuch as, it awards compensation to the respondent claimants under the enactment based on the option first exercised, and also ensures that the respondent claimants are not allowed dual benefit under the two enactments. 17 25. In view of the observation in the authority cited vide Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Dyamavva and others (1 supra), the present proceedings cannot be faulted and applicability of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act need not be doubted particularly in the context of the stand of the respondents Insurance Company that the deceased is not a workman. Point No.3 is therefore answered accordingly in favour of the claimants. Point No.4: 26. The 2nd petitioner is sister of the deceased. She is the daughter of the original claimant, who is the mother of the deceased. The mother of the deceased, being both legal heir and dependent, had moved the claim but died during the pendency of the claim petition. Therefore, her entitlement is to be decided with reference to the date of the claim petition. The legal heir status of the 2nd claimant as a legal representative of claimant No.1 need not be doubted and she being the sister of the deceased, loss of love and affection for her is also a relevant aspect. However, in the factual scenario of the present case, the 2nd claimant, in the capacity of the legal representative of the original claimant, the mother of the deceased entitled to continue the proceedings. Point No.4 is answered accordingly against the insurance company and in favour of the claimants. 18 Point No.5: Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 27. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others2, at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.3 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others4 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- 2 (2003) 2 SCC 274 32020 (04) SCC 413 19 “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” 28. In view of the authorities cited above, point No.5 is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that the compensation need not be restricted to the amount claimed and it can be more than what is claimed. Point No.6: 29. Awarding more compensation than what claimed and awarding compensation to the claimants even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections by the claimants require examination. Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal: 30(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company 4 (2019) 2 SCC 192 20 (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others5 in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: 50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants. (ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (5 supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others6. (iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (6 supra) case, in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court 5 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 6 (2021) 16 SCC 467 21 should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made. 31. In view of the observations in the authorities cited above, Point No.6 is answered concluding that even in the absence of appeal or cross-appeal, the compensation can be enhanced . Point No.7: Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 32(i). Hon‟ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.7 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. 7 2009 (6) SCC 121 22 (ii). Hon‟ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased. This shall be as per the table provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. b) Adding of future prospects: 33(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others8 case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent 8 2017(16) SCC 680 23 employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. (ii). The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon‟ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 34. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others9, Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. 9 (2018) 18 SCC 130 24 d) Just Compensation: 35. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others10, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to „make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just‟. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be „just‟. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. 36. The evidence of P.W.1, 3 and 4 is that the deceased was a machine helper. They claimed monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, but except the oral evidence, there is no proof. The learned MACT adopted the income at Rs.1,800/- per month (Rs.60/- per day). The year of accident is 2001, daily 10 (2013) 9 SCC 54 25 wages during the year 2001 was around Rs.63/- in rural areas in an average. The work of the deceased was machine helper and he was aged about „23‟ years, the possibility of progress in the income also required to be considered. Even if the income is taken at Rs.100/- per day considering the nature of employment and age of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. Towards future prospects, the possibility of progress in the income, 40% can be added. Then the income comes to Rs.4,200/- per month which comes to Rs.50,400/- per annum. 37. Since the claim is made by the mother only and as the deceased is unmarried, 50% of the amount is to be deducted towards the personal expenditure. Then, the contribution of the deceased to the claimants becomes Rs.25,200/- per annum, which can be considered as multiplicand. Multiplier applicable to the age group of „23‟ years is 18. Then, the entitlement of claimants for compensation comes under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,53,600/-. Hence under the head of loss of dependency Rs.4,53,600/- is fit to be awarded. Under the conventional heads of funeral expenditure and loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- each is fit to be added. Claimant No.1 being the mother entitled for loss of filial consortium at Rs.40,000/-. The total entitlement of claimants for compensation comes to Rs.5,23,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum only, in view of the long lapse of time. 26 38. In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation is as follows: 39. In view of the discussion made above and conclusions drawn under Point Nos.1 to 6, point No.7 is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,23,600/- and the impugned order and decree dated 24.03.2009 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2004 required modification accordingly. Point framed is answered accordingly. Point No.8: 40. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, (i). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum under the impugned decree and order dated 24.03.2009 is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,23,600/- with Sl. No. Head Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.25,200/- x 18) 2. Loss of filial consortium Rs.40,000/- (for claimant No.1, being the mother) 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4. Funeral expenditure Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.5,23,600/- 27 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. (ii). Claimant No.2 is entitled for entire compensation amount and also permitted to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (iii). The Insurance Company shall deposit the balance compensation amount within a period of two months. (iv). Claimants shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. (v). There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:10.10.2025 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/o. Knr 28 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.983 of 2012 10th October, 2025 Knr