Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Cheerla Swarupa And 6 Others on 8 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.995 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/ insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (for short, 'Tribunal") in O.P.No.243 of 2012, dated 14.12.2015 and thereby seeking to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
2. The appellants herein are the respondents 1 and 2- insurance company and the respondent nos.1 to 5 herein are the petitioners, respondent no.6 is the driver and respondent no.7 is the owner of the crime vehicle before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
3.1. On 17.01.2011, at about 5.30 p.m., Mallesh @ Mallareddy (hereinafter referred to as deceased) left from his house at Kondampet village on his motor cycle bearing registration LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 2 No.AP-36-Q-5946 to meet his paternal uncle by name Potu Bapu Reddy at Bhupalapally and when he reached the outskirts of Maddulapalli village, one Gipsy TATA motor vehicle bearing registration No.AP-15-TA-5638 , driven by its driver, in rash and negligent manner with high speed in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, he fell down on the road and died on the spot. Police, Kataram P.S. registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2011 against the respondent no.1 and filed charge sheet.
3.2. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 i.e., wife, children and parents of the deceased, respectively, have filed claim petition against respondent no.1-driver of the crime vehicle, respondent no.2-
owner of the crime vehicle and the respondent nos.3 and 4- insurance company under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3.3. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was aged about 32 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and used to raise vegetables along with paddy in his agricultural lands and LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 3 used to do business also i.e, purchase and sale of vegetables and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month; that due to death of the deceased, petitioners lost their earning member of the family.
4. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte.
5. The respondent Nos.3 & 4-insurance company filed counter before the Tribunal denying all the allegations in the claim petition as regards the accident to the deceased, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that deceased was not having driving license at the time of accident and that the interest claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:
1. Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle i.e. (Gipsy) TATA motors-207 D1 Ex bearing No.AP-15-TA-5638 driven by its driver ?
LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 4
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?
3. To what relief ?
7. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to Ex.A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and awarded total compensation of Rs.17,65,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
9. Heard learned counsel Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy for the appellants-insurance company and Sri. P.Shravan Kumar Goud, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 2-insurance company.
10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellants-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation; that Tribunal ought to have taken contributory negligence into consideration as the case on LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 5 hand is head on collision between the crime vehicle and the motor cycle of the deceased; that Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased without there being any evidence, so also the compensation towards conventional heads. He further submitted that Tribunal erred in granting interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation awarded, which is highly excessive and contrary to law and finally, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/ petitioners submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation and no grounds are made out to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
Consideration:
12. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants insofar as disputing the occurrence of accident is concerned, before the Tribunal, P.W.2-K.Madhusudhan Reddy, who is cited as eye LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 6 witness to the accident, was examined and he deposed that he witnessed the accident and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. Further, on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4, the driver of the crime vehicle was examined as RW.2, who deposed that he did not try to avoid the accident and he did not give report to the police. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-inquest report, Ex.A3-postmortem examination report and Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, which clearly show that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellants needs no interference with regard to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
13. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased, without there being any evidence, the Tribunal considering the profession of the deceased as vegetable vendor, had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners filed documentary LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 7 evidence to substantiate their claim that the deceased was doing agriculture and selling vegetables, i.e., Ex.A7 is the pattadar pass books, as per which, the father of the deceased owns total extent of Acs.3.16 guntas of agricultural lands and Ex.A9-bunch of bills for sale of vegetables in the name of the deceased. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, period of accident, the inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of living etc., and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the monthly income of the deceased.
14. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal erred in following the decision of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others 1 decided on 12.04.2013, in granting compensation towards conventional heads totaling Rs.3,25,000/-. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and 1 (2013 ) 9 SCC 54 LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 8 others v. National Insurance Company and others 2, decided on 23.04.2014, subsequent to the decision of Rajesh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- under conventional head and awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum.
15. As per the decision of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3, decided on 31.10.2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely 2 (2015) 15 SCC 722 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 9 to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."
16. In view of the above legal position, in considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate under conventional heads. Therefore, the amount awarded under conventional heads by the Tribunal needs to modified to the above extent.
17. As per the decision of Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar (supra) and taking into consideration the rate of interest as prescribed by the Banks as on the date of accident, in considered opinion of this Court, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and the same required to be modified and accordingly, the rate of interest is reduced from 9%, as awarded by the Tribunal, to 7.5% per annum.
LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 10 Conclusion:
18. In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Total Income Rs.1,20,000/- per annum (Rs.10,000/-
per month)
2 Deduction towards personal Rs.30,000/- (i.e., one-fourth of the
expenses total income )
3 Net Income Rs.90,000/- (i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- (-)
Rs.30,000/-)
4 Multiplier 16
5 Loss of dependency Rs.14,40,000/- (i.e., Rs.90,000/- x 16)
(Sl.No.1 to 4)
6 Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 5) Rs. 2,00,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
8 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be paid: Rs.16,70,000/-
19. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount from Rs.17,65,000/- to Rs.16,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The appellants and the respondent Nos.6 & 7 herein are directed to pay the said compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are LNA,J MACMA No.995 of 2017 11 entitled to the apportionment and withdrawal of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 08.04.2024 kkm