Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Madem Kondamma And 2 Others on 24 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
MACMA NO.216 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel the appellant- insurance company and learned counsel Ms.K.Rajitha, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 /petitioners.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/insurance company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court) at Nalgonda (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.1025 of 2008, dated 07.10.2016, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the insurance company.
3. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners and respondent no.3 herein is the 1st respondent/owner of the crime vehicle before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
LNA,J MACMA No.216 of 2017 2
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
4.1. On 27.10.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., while the deceased i.e., Madem Mallamma was proceedings along with others on the tank-bund of Jethya Thanda, the driver of tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP-24-M-1271 and 1272 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle) drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the crime vehicle and hit the deceased and others from their behind and the crime vehicle also turned turtle, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Devarakonda P.S., registered a case in Crime No.370/2008 under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. 4.2. The petitioners i.e., the parents of the deceased, have filed claim petition against the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 4.3. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 20 years, and was hale and healthy and was working as labourer and was LNA,J MACMA No.216 of 2017 3 earning Rs.3,000/- per month; that due to sudden death, the petitioners lost their future hope, love and affection of the deceased.
5. The respondent No.1, who is the owner of crime vehicle remained ex-parte.
6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation, income of the deceased and further contending that the driver of the tractor and trailer was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and prayed to dismiss the petition against the insurance company.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the deceased by name M.Mallamma died due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-24-M-1271 and AP-24-M-1272 ?
ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation ?
If so, to what amount and from whom ?
iii) To what relief?
LNA,J MACMA No.216 of 2017 4
8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner no.1 herself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurance company, no witness was examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the deceased died due to the accident arising out of use of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.3,94,000/- directing the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation, which is excessive, exorbitant; that since the deceased girl was unmarried daughter of the petitioners, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, instead of 1/3rd; that Tribunal erroneously adopted the multiplier '16' while computing the compensation; that the Tribunal erred in assessing LNA,J MACMA No.216 of 2017 5 the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- without there being any evidence and finally, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants submitted that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, had rightly awarded the compensation and the appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the appeal. Consideration:
12. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased in a fatal accident. Since the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, 1988, which is a special provision as to payment of compensation on a structural formula basis, the petitioners need not establish that the death was due to any wrongful act or negligent or fault of the driver of crime vehicle. Further, the Tribunal, on due consideration of the oral evidence and documentary evidence i.e., Ex.4-inquest report and Ex.A5- MVI report, had rightly held that accident had occurred due to LNA,J MACMA No.216 of 2017 6 rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation.
13. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- is concerned, perusal of record would show that the Tribunal considering the avocation of the deceased as labourer, had assessed her income at Rs.3,000/- per month relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Latha Wadwa vs. State of Bihar 1. In considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, relevant date 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 of learned counsel for appellant with regard to the adoption of multiplier and the deduction of income towards personal and living expenses are concerned, as per the table annexed to Second Schedule-II of the M.V.Act, 1988, the 1 2001 ACJ 1735 LNA,J MACMA No.216 of 2017 7 multiplier is '16', where the age of the deceased is above 15 years and not exceeding 20 years; that since the age of the deceased in the case on hand was taken as 20 years as per Ex.A4-inquest report and Ex.A5-MVI report, the Tribunal had rightly adopted the multiplier of '16'. Insofar as the deduction of personal expenses is concerned, as per the Second Schedule, deduction should be 1/3rd. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly adopted the multiplier and deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
15. In view of the above discussion, evidence and material placed on record, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal on elaborate discussion of the facts and legal position, had rightly awarded the compensation amount and there are no grounds to interfere with the said award by this Court.
16. From the above factual background and discussion, in considered opinion of this Court, the appellant failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court with the well reasoned award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, Appeal fails and LNA,J MACMA No.216 of 2017 8 is accordingly dismissed. The appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by duly adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by the appellant-insurance company to the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 24.04.2024 kkm