Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs G Jalaja And 3 Others on 21 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3245 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao) The present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd., aggrieved by the order and decree dated 26.02.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.591 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Sessions Judge for the trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for short, "the Tribunal").
2. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri L.N.R. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioners, who are parents of the deceased G. Shiva Sai Praveen, filed M.V.O.P. No.591 of 2011 claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of the death of their son Praveen in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2 02.06.2011 stating that on 02.06.2011 at about 11.10 a.m., while the deceased was walking on footpath along with his two friends from Indira Nagar to IIIT junction, on the way, when they reached opposite H.P. Petrol Pump, one motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000, driven by its rider at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased from behind.
As a result, the deceased received bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital for treatment, and while undergoing treatment, he died on 03.06.2011 at 2.10 a.m. On receipt of the complaint, Police Raidurgam registered a case in Crime No.190 of 2011 under Section 304-A and 337 IPC against the rider of the said motorcycle. Respondents No.1 and 2 are the owners, and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the bike.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed a counter stating that the petitioners have to prove that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident and the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000. He further submitted that the crime vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 Company, and the policy was in force by the time of the accident. He further submitted that he sold the vehicle to respondent No.2 in March 2011, therefore, he is no way 3 concerned with the alleged accident. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Respondent No.2 filed a counter stating that the petitioners have to prove that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident and the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000.
7. Though respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter, the same has not been reflected in the order of the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-denying the allegations made in the petition. They specifically contended that vehicle No.AP-23J-7000 was not involved in the above said alleged accident, the deceased Shiva Said Praveen did not die in that accident, and the said vehicle was not insured with them. They denied the age and income of the deceased. They further contended that the accident occurred only due to gross negligence on the part of the deceased G. Shiva Sai Praveen. The petitioners are not entitled to any compensation since the accident was only due to gross negligence on the part of the deceased. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A14 and Ex.X-1. No oral or 4 documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On behalf of respondent No.3, RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B1 as a copy of insurance policy.
9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000 and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.46,47,088/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. Challenging the same, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal had relied on the salary for the month of March 2011 instead of May 2011, which is lesser, and that the Tribunal erred in not following the amount paid towards Bonus, ex-gratia advance payment.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company further contended that the Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards IT and professional tax, which was deducted by the employer, and the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses instead of 50% of the income.
5
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased instead of taking the age of the deceased's mother, and if the age of the mother is taken into consideration, the proper multiplier would be "11". The Tribunal applied the wrong multiplier and granted excess compensation.
13. With regard to the accident, a perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal, having framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000 by its rider and having considered the evidence of PW.2, an eye witness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A- 1/FIR and Ex.A-4/charge-sheet, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000 and has answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000. In proof of death of the deceased, the Tribunal observed that the petitioners got filed Ex.A3/Inquest Report and Ex.A5/PME report, and the doctor who conducted 6 the PME opined that the deceased died due to head injury associated with other injuries. On considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, Inquest and PME report, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident.
14. Insofar as the deceased's income is concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was working as a Software Engineer in Infosys and was earning Rs.47,196/- per month. In support of their contention, the petitioners examined PW.3, Associate Manager (Facilities), INFOSYS Ltd., and he deposed that Shiva Sai Praveen was a permanent employee as Technology Analyst in their INFOSYS Ltd., and was drawing a salary of Rs.47,196/- per month. Ex.A7/Salary Pay slip was issued by the INFOSYS Ltd., which shows that the deceased was drawing Rs.44,240/-. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that there is no income tax deduction. The Tribunal observed that Ex.A7 clearly shows that they paid salary only for 3 days, and the remaining amount is towards ex-gratia. Ex.A7 also shows that the salary was withheld and it will be paid along with the final settlement. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is incorrect. Petitioners also filed Ex.A13/salary slip for the month of April 2011 and 7 Ex.A14/salary slip for the month of March 2011. It shows that after deduction, the deceased used to draw Rs.40,484/-. Out of which, Rs.4,284/- is the differential CPI which has to be deducted. Similarly, a leave travel allowance of Rs.3,998/- is also deducted from the salary. After deducting those two heads, the deceased's salary was Rs.32,202/-. After deducting 1/3rd of his expenditure, his family's contribution is Rs.21,468/-. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has considered all the aspects, such as, age of the deceased, the multiplier, rate of interest etc., the Tribunal relied upon the decision reported in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others; 1 wherein it was observed that the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependant. The Tribunal observed that PW.1 stated that the deceased was aged about 25 years, and the same was shown in the Inquest and PME report, as such, it applied the multiplier "18". Therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.46,37,088/- (Rs.21,468/-x12x18) towards loss of dependency and also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards cremation charges. In all, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.46,47,088/-, which requires no interference from this Court. Accordingly, the MACMA is liable to be dismissed.
1 2012 ACJ 2002 8
15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the order and decree, dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.591 of 2011. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
________________ SUJOY PAUL, J _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 21st day of August 2024 BDR