Telangana High Court
Liberty Videcon General Insurance Co., ... vs Battu Mangamma And 6 Others on 16 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2073 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants- Insurance Company aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.911 of 2014 passed by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Warangal (for short, 'Tribunal') and thereby, seeking to set aside the order of the Tribunal.
2. The appellants herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3- Insurance Company and the respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are the claimants 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 that on 28.12.2013, at about 1.30 p.m., Battu Narsimha (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') after completing the official works at Hanamkonda, along with one Sooraiah, was returning on his Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing registration 2 No.AP-36-UD-2910 towards Narsampet and when the deceased reached Rathiram Thanda Village of Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District, one DCM TATA Cargo vehicle bearing registration No.AP-36-TB-3270 (hereinafter referred to offending vehicle), being driven by its driver, in rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from behind and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Based on the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.418 of 2013 before the Geesugonda Police.
4. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 38 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in Housekeeping Wing in L& T Company, Nellore. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their only breadwinner besides love and affection. Hence, they filed claim petition claiming Rs.35,00,000/- towards compensation.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter 3 denying all the allegations in the claim petition as regards the accident to the deceased, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It was further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:
1. Whether on 28.12.2013 at 1.30 p.m., at Rathiram Thanda Village of Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District, the driver of DCM Tata Cargo bearing No.AP-36-TB-3270, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident, resulting in death of Battu Narsimha?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, what rate ?
3. To what relief ?
7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3-insurance company, none was examined, however, insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. 4
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and awarded total compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
9. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellants-Insurance company and Sri Aitha Prem Sai, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6/claimants. Perused the record.
10. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned standing counsel for appellants-Insurance company submitted that Tribunal ought to have taken contributory negligence into consideration as the case on hand is head on collision between the offending vehicle and the motor cycle of the deceased. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased without there being any evidence. He also submitted that Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was not a permanent employee at the time of accident and ought not to have added 50% of the income 5 towards future prospects on the compensation awarded, which is highly excessive and as such, prayed the Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6/ claimants 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 prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
12. With regard to the manner of accident, P.W.2-B.Sooraiah, who is cited as eye 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 offending vehicle by its driver. 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.A6- Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, which clearly show that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 6 driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
13. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended by the learned standing counsel for the appellants- Insurance company that without there being any evidence, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-. However, it is pertinent to mention that the claimants filed documentary evidence to substantiate their claim that the deceased was working as Supervisor in House Keeping Wing in L & T Company, Nellore at the time of accident. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and the same needs no interference by this Court.
14. The other contention raised by the learned standing counsel for appellants with regard to the future prospects is concerned, in National Insurance Company Limited vs. 7 Pranay Sethi and others 1, decided on 31.10.2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.4 held as under:
"59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
15. In view of the above legal position, in considered opinion of this Court, since the deceased was about 38 years as on the date of the accident and was a private employee, 40% of the monthly income can be added as future prospects. However, the Tribunal erred in adding 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects and same needs to be modified to the extent of 40%.
16. Insofar as the quantum of compensation under conventional heads, perusal of the record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and further 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 8 Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and care and guidance. In Pranay Sethi (supra), 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 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.
9Xxx 59.8. 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 aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
17. In view of the above, the award of the amount under the conventional heads by the Tribunal is not in tune with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), and the same needs to be modified to the extent of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- each claimant towards consortium.
18. In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income Rs.1,20,000/- per annum
(Rs.10,000/- per month)
2 Future prospects Rs.48,000/-
(40% of income)
3 Total income Rs.1,68,000/- (i.e., Rs.1,20,000/-
+ Rs.48,000/-)
4 Deduction towards personal Rs.42,000/- (one-fourth of total
and living expenses income)
5 Net Income Rs.1,26,000/-
(i.e., Rs.1,68,000/- (-) Rs.42,000/-)
6 Multiplier 15
10
7 Loss of dependency Rs.18,90,000/-
(Sl.No.1 to 6) (i.e., Rs.1,26,000/- x 15)
8 Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 6) Rs. 2,40,000/-
9 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
10 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be paid: Rs.21,60,000/-
19. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount from Rs.22,50,000/- to Rs.21,60,000/- with interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The appellants-insurance company 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, duly deducting the amount, if any, already deposited. The respondent Nos.1 to 6/claimants are entitled to the apportionment and withdrawal of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
_________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 16.04.2024 Dsu/kkm