Telangana High Court
The Reliance General Insurance ... vs Binta Devi, R.R.Dist And 7 Others on 6 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.872 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Appeal is against the order dated 21.01.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, the Tribunal) wherein, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,08,000/- payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners, who are the wife and children of the deceased-Manoj Kumar @ Raju had filed claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- payable by respondents 1 & 2 on account of the death of her deceased husband and father to petitioner nos.2 to 7, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.01.2011. It is stated by the petitioners that on 01.01.2011 at about 8.30 AM, when petitioner No.1 along with her deceased husband were going to Monda Market in an Auto bearing No.AP 10W 1756 for purchasing grocery and when they reached Narayana Concept School X Road, one Spark Car bearing No.AP 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.872 of 2017 29BE 8249 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto due to which, the husband of petitioner No.1 sustained bleeding injuries on his head. Immediately, he was taken to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment, he died on the same day at 12.40PM. Based on a complaint the P.S.Marredpally, Secunderabad, registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2011 under Section 304 IPC. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was working as owner-cum-driver of the said Auto and was earning Rs.16,000/- per month. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and financial assistance and finding it very difficult to eke out their livelihood and hence, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- which is payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
4. Respondent No.1 filed her counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including the occurrence of accident, age, income of the deceased and also denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Spark Car and contended that the petitioners had not filed any driving license to show that the deceased is a driver by profession and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 3
MGP,J MACMA.No.872 of 2017
5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. It also stated that the insurance company never issued any type of policy to the crime vehicle and that the claim made is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against them.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A8 were got marked through her. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined. However, Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance Policy was marked with the consent of other party.
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence adduced on both sides and perusing the documents available on record, allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.15,08,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.
8. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed the present Appeal.
9. Heard the submission of the learned Standing counsel for Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material available on record.
4
MGP,J MACMA.No.872 of 2017
10. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant- Insurance Company are that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-, erred in awarding interest @ 9% per annum, erred in awarding Rs.1,25,000/- under non-pecuniary heads and had also erred in not apportioning the negligence on part of driver of auto.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, awarded reasonable compensation for which this Court needs no interference.
12. Now, the point that arise for determination is, Whether the order of the learned Tribunal suffers from any irregularity?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire record and also the evidence adduced on both sides. Respondent No.1 herein, who is the wife of the deceased and also an eye witness to the accident, got examined as PW1. She reiterated the contents made in the claim petition and also deposed the manner of accident. In support of her contention, she also got marked Ex.A1- Certified Copy of FIR, Ex.A2-Certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3- Certified copy of crime details form, Ex.A4- Certified Copy of inquest report, 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.872 of 2017 Ex.A5-Certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A6- Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination Report, Ex.A8- Copy of Registration Certificate, Ex.A9- Copy of permit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant except stating that the respondents/claim petitioners are not entitled for any compensation, did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf. Further, nothing worthy is elicited during the cross-examination of PW1 to disbelieve her evidence.
14. It is also pertinent to mention that PW1 in her evidence stated that her husband was working as an auto driver and was earning Rs.16,000/- per month. But she has not filed any documents evidencing the same. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, by taking into account the cost of living in the year 2011 and by estimating the earning capacity for an auto driver as Rs.300/- per day, had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month which this Court considers desirable. The other contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company is that even though there is contributory negligence on part of the driver of the Auto, but the leaned Tribunal, without considering the same, had attributed negligence only against the driver of the Spark Car. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that Police after thorough investigation, laid charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver of the Car. Hence, under these circumstances, apportioning 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.872 of 2017 contributory negligence on part of the driver of the Auto is unwarranted. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence to prove the same and have not taken any steps to give complaint to the police concerned for proper investigation of the case.
15. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW1, who is an eye witness to the accident, coupled with Exs.A1 to A6, has rightly came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Spark Car bearing No.AP 29BE 8249 which resulted in the death of the deceased and also taking into account the age and income of the deceased and by applying relevant multiplier, has awarded reasonable compensation which needs no interference by this Court.
16. Insofar as the interest aspect is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest to the petitioners @ 9% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. But as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1, the said interest granted by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is reduced to 7.5% per annum on the awarded amount from the date 1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.872 of 2017 of petition till the date of realization. Except the said modification in the interest awarded, the findings of the Tribunal in all other aspects, shall remain the same.
17. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the interest from 9% to 7.5% on the compensation amount of Rs.15,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.06.02.2024 ysk 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.872 of 2017 HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.872 OF 2017 Dt.06.02.2024 ysk