Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Comp Ltd., Hyd vs M. Subbamma, Hyd And 5 Others on 9 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 OF 2017
AND
M.A.C.M.A.No.1556 OF 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 of 2017, filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.1556 of 2017 filed by Insurance Company challenging the compensation awarded, are directed against the very same award and decree, dated 29.12.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.947 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal").
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 claim petitioners, who are wife and children of one Sri M.Bala Guruvaiah, (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death the deceased who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.12.2013 at about 06.00 AM on NH-44, within the limits of Jadcherla Village. As per the version of the petitioners, on 27.12.2013, while the 2 MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017 deceased was returning along with their relatives in a Scorpio bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 from Brahmanpalli to Hyderabad and when they reached the limits of Jadcherla Village, the driver of the vehicle, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and applied sudden brakes, due to which the deceased's head got hit the top/roof of the vehicle and sustained grievous internal head injury. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and had underwent operation on 31.12.2013 on account of head injury. But unfortunately, the deceased was succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on 03.01.2014 at about 11.00 P.M. Based on a complaint, the Jadcherla Police registered a case in Crime No.05 of 2014 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the Scorpio bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424. According to the claim petitioners, the deceased was aged about 55 years and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month as a labourer. On account of the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their bread winner and were put to mental shock and love and affection. Therefore, they laid the claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., Scorpio bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 which is involved in the accident, for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum along with necessary costs.
3
MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1, owner of Scorpio bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, involvement of vehicle and negligence of driver of crime vehicle and further stated that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and also got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on her behalf. On behalf of Respondent No.2, RW1, who is an Administrative Officer of Insurance company, was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B3 on their behalf.
6. After considering the claim petition, counter filed by the Respondent No.2 and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Scorpio bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 and has awarded an amount of Rs.6,37,325/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants respectively. 4
MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
7. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.
8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 of 2017 is that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered minimum wages for the deceased while calculating compensation and ought to have granted compensation under non-pecuniary damages, loss of love and affection and transportation and hence prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 of 2017 also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Karamjit Kaur and others Vs.Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins.Co.Ltd. and others 1 in support of their contention.
10. On the other hand, the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation along with interest as the claim petitioners are not entitled for the same.
11. Now the points that emerges for determination are,
1. Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any irregularity?
1 2023 ACJ 1835 5 MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
2. Whether the appellants/claim petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation?
POINTS:-
12. It is pertinent to mention that the wife of the deceased was examined as PW1, reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident and marked Exs.A1 to A6 on her behalf. Ex.A1-Copy of FIR shows that the Jadcherla Police, Mahabubnagar District, registered a case in Crime No.05 of 2014 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the Mahindra Scorpio bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 and conducted investigation and laid Ex.A4-Charge sheet against the driver of the said Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 for his rash and negligent driving which resulted in an accident and thereby death of the deceased. Further, Ex.A5-MVI report also shows that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. The evidence of PW2, who is an eye-witness to the accident and who travelled along with the deceased in the said vehicle , deposed that the deceased sustained grievous internal head injury in the said accident. Nothing worthy was elicited from PWs 1 & 2, whey they were put to cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 shows that the deceased-Bala Guruvaah was died due to surgical spine injury in a road traffic accident.6
MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
13. Coming to the evidence of RW1, who is working as an Administrative Officer in the Insurance Company, admitted in his evidence that the crime vehicle was insured with their company and Ex.B2 is the Copy of Insurance Policy, which is valid as on the date of accident. Ex.B1 is the Certified copy of Registration Certificate of the said Scorpio Vehicle bearing No. AP 09 BN 8424 and Ex.B3 are the terms and conditions of the said Insurance Policy. RW1 also stated that Respondent No.1 has paid total premium for third party policy and the seating capacity of the said crime vehicle is seven in all. Therefore, from the evidence of RW1 coupled with Exs.B1 to B3, clearly establish that Respondent No.1 was the registered owner of the said Scorpio vehicle which was duly insured with Respondent No.2 under Ex.B2-Insurance Policy which is valid as on the date of accident. Moreover, clause-1 of the terms and conditions of Insurance policy made it clear that the Insurance company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by using the motor vehicle anywhere in India against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to any person. Since the deceased died while travelling in the said vehicle, the Respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the Respondent No.1.
7
MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017
14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the case of the claimants is that deceased was aged 55 years and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. Surprisingly, the occupation of the deceased was not mentioned. Therefore, the Tribunal, by considering the minimum wages applicable to a labourer, has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month which is very meager. Considering the rates of minimum wages and the year of accident, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the deceased was 55 years old at the time of the death, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2, if 10% is added towards future prospects to the established income of the deceased, then the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,600/-. If 1/4th of the income is deducted towards his personal expenses as the number of dependants are 5, then the net monthly income comes to Rs.4,950/-. As the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier is '11' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 3. Thus, by applying the multiplier '11', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,53,400/-. However, the learned 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2009 (6) SCC 121 8 MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1121 and 1556 of 2017 Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The same is modified by this Court by awarding Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon) as prescribed in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (referred supra). Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,30,400/- .
15. Accordingly, this Court, while dismissing M.A.C.M.A.No.1556 of 2017, allowed M.A.C.M.A.No.1121 of 2017 in-part enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.6,37,325/- to Rs.7,30,400/- which is payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.09.02.2024 ysk