THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
MACMA.No.2631 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
The appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited (insurer) is the respondent No.2 in OP.No.276 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cm The Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The respondents No.1 to 5 are the claimants and the respondent No.6 (owner of the offending vehicle) is respondent No.1 in the OP.
2. The parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the original petition.
3. The claimants No.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased, Sankuna Chandu Chary, who died in the motor accident that took place on 28.12.2004 at Goods Shed Road, Moosapet, Hyderabad. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.
4. The case of the claimants is that on 28.12.2004 at about 10 PM, when the deceased was going by foot in front of the Eenadu Office, a lorry bearing No.AP 9 U 1337 proceeding towards Goodshed from Moosapet, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, due to which the accident occurred, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment at 1.20 AM in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The police, Kukatpally registered a casein Cr.No.972 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry. The deceased was stated to be doing goldsmith business in gold and silver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
2
5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counters denying the accident. It was also stated that the driver of the lorry was observing all traffic rules and regulations. The deceased himself contributed to the accident. The insurance company, in its counter, additionally stated that the claimants did not report the accident to the insurer, as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the insurance company.
6. Insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, as there was no documentary evidence, the tribunal below fixed the notional income as Rs.3,000/- and after deducing 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the contribution to family was worked out to Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier '16', the loss of income was arrived at Rs.3,84,000/-. Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards loss of estate and total compensation was fixed at Rs.4,14,000/-. The compensation towards loss of income, thus, cannot be said to be on the higher side since the tribunal below fixed the salary at basic minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month. The tribunal below held that as per Ex.A4 the license of the driver of the lorry lapsed by the date of the accident. The tribunal below relied on the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Tam Tam Venkata Reddy [2004 (2) ALD 775], wherein the principle of pay and recover was applied following the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru [2003 (3) ALD 20 (SC)].
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the absence of valid driving license the principle of pay and recover cannot be 3 applied. The said argument of the learned counsel is not accepted in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in several cases including the latest decision in MANUARA KHATUN v. RAJESH KR. SINGH1. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal.
The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J April 23, 2021 DSK 1 (2017) 4 SCC 796