Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Co Limited vs J.Anjaneyulu , Anjaiah And 6 Ors on 4 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A Nos.1081 of 2011 and 1171 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 31.01.2011 in O.P.No.887 of 2007 passed by the XXI Addl. Chief Judge-cum-VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the claimants have filed MACMA No.1081 of 2011 for enhancement of the compensation and Insurance Company has filed MACMA No.1171 of 2016 questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the very same finding in O.P.No.887 of 2007, both the appeals are disposed of by way of common judgment.
3. Heard Sri P. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri Narsaiah Golla, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the entire material on record.
4. The deceased was second year Engineering student, who died on account of the accident on 31.10.2006. The deceased was travelling on a motor cycle. He over took a car and hit the lorry KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201 2 which was coming in opposite direction. The deceased was tossed in air and fell down in front of the car. The manner in which the accident had taken place is not disputed. The Tribunal finding that both the vehicles which are car and lorry being responsible is also not disputed by either of the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is meager when his qualification is taken into consideration. In case of Engineering student, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Vasanthi and another v. M/s. Adhiparasakthi Engg. College and another 1 found that the compensation that would be rightly awarded to a Engineering student was by assessing his monthly income as Rs.30,000/-.
6. Similarly, in the case of Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad X Roads, Hyderabad and another v. C. Rangaswamy and another 2, though the monthly income was claimed as Rs.5,000/- for the Engineering student, this Court 1 2022 (6) ALT 14 (SC) 2 2012 (4) ALD 609 KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201 3 considered the income as Rs.12,000/- per month. Accordingly, counsel prayed the Court to consider the income of the Engineering student in the present case at Rs.15,000/- per month and grant compensation.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal having found that claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 were responsible for the accident, failed to apportion the compensation. When, it is found that both the drivers of the vehicles are negligent, the Tribunal ought to have undertaken apportionment of compensation. Further, learned counsel submits that contributory negligence percentage ought to have been decided by the trial Court and accordingly, the compensation apportioned in between the two vehicles.
8. The three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others 3, held that when there was a composite negligence, and the claimant is 3 2015 ACJ 1441 KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201 4 entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation, as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two joint tortfeasors is not permissible and it is left open to the claimant to recover at his option, the whole damages from any of them.
9. In view of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khenyei case (supra 3), the argument of the counsel for the Insurance Company is rejected.
10. In view of the Judgment discussed above and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Vasanthi's case (supra 1), this Court deems it appropriate to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 4 has held that while considering the compensation in cases of death, the future prospects of the self 4 2017 (6) 170 (SC) KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201 5 employed shall also be considered. Having regard to the age of deceased i.e. 20 years as on the date of accident and occupation as self-employed, if 40 percent of the income is included towards future prospects, the monthly income would come to Rs.14,000/- (Rs.10,000+4,000). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation 5, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.7000X12). The relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '17'. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,28,000/-/- (Rs.84,000/-X 17).
12. As regards the consortium to be paid, each claimant is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Pranay Sethi (4 Supra). With regard to the funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs.33,000/-.
5
2009(6) SCC 121 KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201 6
13. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.14,28,000
(2) Funeral expenses and Rs.33,000
Loss of Estate
(3) Loss of consortium Rs.1,76,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.16,37,000/-
14. In the result, the MACMA No.1171 of 2016 of the Insurance Company is dismissed. However, the MACMA No.1081 of 2011 of the claimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,00,000/-/- to Rs.16,37,000/- as hereunder:
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The claimants shall pay the court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation.
(c) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201 7 copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.
(d) Amounts shall be apportioned to claimants in terms of the ratio decided by the Tribunal in the Award.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE K. SURENDER 04.04.2024 mmr