1 RRN, J
MACMA No.1940 of 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
MACMA No. 1940 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners.
2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dt.04.03.2016 in M.V.O.P No. 516 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal praying to set aside the above order and decree.
3. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,77,000/- against the claim amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as claimed by the respondents/petitioners, on the account of the death of one Gopishetty Ramchander (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company had contended that the Tribunal erred in granting 2 RRN, J MACMA No.1940 of 2016 excessive compensation i.e. compensation more than that of the claim. He further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per annum in the absence of any evidence. He further contended that the deceased did not possess a valid driving license, which is a violation of the insurance policy and as such, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants. He also contended that the compensation under certain heads is excessive and the interest portion at 9% is also liable to be reduced. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/petitioners contended that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order and no interference is required. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. This Court having considered the rival submissions of both parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal made no error in awarding excessive compensation than that of the claimed amount relying upon the decision of a Full 3 RRN, J MACMA No.1940 of 2016 Bench of this Court in Adam Indur Muttemma Vs. Rathod Reddia Nizamabad & Ors.1 It is observed that though the respondents/petitioners claimed that the income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/- p.m, the Tribunal considered the same as Rs.10,000/- p.m and the appellant/Insurance Company is challenging the said observation in the absence of any income proof and in such absence, the notional income of a person (more particularly - coolie) is being taken at Rs.4,500/- p.m in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.2. However, this Court deems it fit and proper to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m and revise the compensation amount.
7. Taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- (Rs.7,500 x 12), adding future prospects at 30% (as per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi3) on the income of the deceased as he was aged about 50 years i.e Rs.27,000/- and deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses as the dependants are (2) in number and multiplying it with 13 (as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport 1 AIR 2015 Hyd 117.
2(2011 ) 13 SCC 236 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
4 RRN, J
MACMA No.1940 of 2016
Corporation4), the loss of dependency would thus come to Rs.1,17,000 x 2/3 x 13 = Rs.10,14,000/-.
8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- to the respondents/claimants under the heads 'loss of estate', 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses' which are excessive. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), they are modified as; Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10%), Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000/- +10%) and Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000/- +10%) towards 'loss of spousal consortium', 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate' respectively.
9. In all, the petitioners are entitled to the reduced compensation of Rs.10,91,000/- (Rs.10,14,000/- + 44,000/- +16,500/- + Rs.16,500/-).
10. The Tribunal cast the liability solely on the appellant/Insurance Company despite the driver of the offending vehicle not having valid driving license. In these circumstances, this Court deems it just to extend the benefit of 'pay and recover' to the appellant/insurance company to first pay the compensation amount to the respondents/claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as per 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121.
5 RRN, J
MACMA No.1940 of 2016
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and ors.5
11. Accordingly the compensation amount awarded is liable to be reduced from Rs.15,77,000/- to Rs.10,91,000/-. The Tribunal granted interest on the compensation amount @ 9 % p.a, however, this Court is time and again consistently awarding interest @ 7.5%. As such the interest component is also liable to be reduced to 7.5%.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.15,77,000/- to Rs.10,91,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Ninety One Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the respondents/claimants in the same manner and ratio as directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount with interest and costs after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents/claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court fees 5 2004 ACJ 1.
6 RRN, J
MACMA No.1940 of 2016
on the modified compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Further, the appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the said amount from the 3rd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 14th day of March, 2023 BDR