Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. K. Usha , Pallavi And 4 Others on 6 August, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No. 3596 OF 2012
And
CROSS-OBJECTION (SR) No.45568 of 2009
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. The insurance company preferred Appeal No.3596 of 2012 questioning grant of compensation of Rs.16,70,000/- to the respondents/claimants, who are wife and daughter of the deceased vide judgment in O.P.No.188 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar. Cross-objections are filed by claimants seeking enhancement.
2. Briefly, the case of the claimants is that while the deceased was going in a car along with respondents/claimants, the offending vehicle, which is lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the accident. Learned Tribunal Judge, having decided on facts of the case, held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the insurance company 2 intends to withdraw the appeal, as such, appeal is liable to be dismissed and also the cross-objections filed by the respondents/claimants vide No.45568 of 2009 in the appeal, may consequently be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Cross-objectors/claimants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Badru (since deceased) through L.R.Hari Ram etc., v. NTPC Limited (formerly National Thermal Power Corporation Limited) & others, (2019) 0 AIR (SC) 3385) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"19. Order 41 Rule 22(4) of the Code, provides that where, in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the Court thinks fit.
20. In our considered opinion, merely because the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents herein though on merits, yet that by itself would not result in dismissal of the landowners' cross objection also. In our view, the cross objection had to be disposed of on its merits notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals as provided by in Order 41 Rule 22(4) of the Code by assigning reasons."
5. Since the insurance company/appellant had withdrawn the appeal, the findings of the Tribunal regarding manner in which 3 accident has taken place and the consequent liability of the insurance company are upheld.
6. Cross-objections were filed on 14.12.2009 before this Court. However, the cross-objection petition was not numbered, since there was a delay of 882 days in filing the Cross objections in the appeal. There is also delay of 5286 days in resubmitting the cross- objections SR No.45568 of 2009. However, this Court, has today, condoned the delay in filing the Cross-objection and resubmitting cross-objection.
7. On facts, the deceased was working as Additional Public Prosecutor II and his monthly income was claimed at Rs.15,900/-. Accordingly, on the basis of income as claimed, compensation can be granted. Loss of future prospectus, as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi (2017 ACJ 2700) is at the rate of 30% of income for the persons of the age below 50 years i.e., 30% of Rs.1,90,800/- comes to Rs.57,240/-. Then total income of the deceased per annum is Rs.2,48,040/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.2,48,000/-. If 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards his 4 personal and living expenses as per the Judgment of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, it comes to Rs.82,666/- per annum rounded off to Rs.82,670/-. Then the total annual income after deduction towards personal expenses comes to Rs.1,65,330/-. The appropriate multiplier applied for the persons of the age of the deceased is 13 as per the judgment of Praynay Sethi's case. If the same is applied, it comes to Rs.21,49,290/- (Rs.1,65,330/- x 13) towards loss of dependency.
8. The respondents/claimants are entitled for consortium of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) to respondents 1 and 2 who are wife and daughter. In addition to the above, the claimants also entitled for loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- i.e., Rs.30,000/- plus 10% increase for every three years, which comes to Rs.6,000/-. Totally it comes to Rs.36,000/-.
9. Therefore, in all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as follows:
1. Loss of dependency : Rs.21,49,290/-
2. Loss of consortium : Rs. 80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each)
3. Loss of estate + funeral expenses : Rs. 36,000/-.5
____________________ Total: : Rs.22,65,290/-
_____________________
10. The compensation granted by Tribunal @ Rs.16,70,000/- is enhanced to Rs.22,65,290/-.
11. In view of above, the appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount before the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. However, the interest on the enhanced amount shall be calculated from the date of this order at 7.5% per annum. The claimants are directed to deposit the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to the compensation in equal shares on the enhanced amount.
12. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and Cross- objection is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 06.08.2024 kvs