Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs K. Manjula on 19 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.260 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the judgment, dated 17.01.2012 in O.P.No.150 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, at L.B. Nagar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of accident while the deceased-Sri Yadi Reddy along with one Sri Madhava Reddy were proceeding in car bearing No.AP29Q4689, the Tractor bearing No.AP16X5346 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car from its behind, due to which the car was crushed between the Tractor and the Lorry bearing No.AP16TW2788 which was stationed at the place of accident i.e. near Sripathi Labs on National Highway, Grundrampally Village. At the time of accident, the deceased sitting beside the driver's seat. In fact, the Tractor had hit the car and the car was dragged towards the stationed lorry. The dependants of 2 KS,J MACMA.No. 260 of 2013 deceased Sri Yadi Reddy, filed O.P.No.150 of 2009 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal allowed same as prayed for granting compensation amount of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that since the lorry was stationed on the road and the car was crushed between the Lorry and the Tractor, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Archit Saini Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 1, the fault would lie with the lorry and the company insuring the lorry has to pay the compensation and not the company which insured the Tractor as is found by the Tribunal.
4. The manner in which the accident had taken place, it is apparent that the tractor hit the car from behind and the car was dragged towards the lorry. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the stationary lorry had anything to do with the accident when it is the tractor which hit the car from behind without stopping and it 1 2018 (3) SCC 365 3 KS,J MACMA.No. 260 of 2013 dragged the said car towards stationed lorry. Therefore, the fault lies with the tractor as is correctly held by the Tribunal and the said finding cannot be interfered with in the present case.
5. However, insofar as the compensation granted, the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects in accordance with the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others 3 in the three Bench Judgment, held that though there was no cross-appeal made, if the High Court comes to a conclusion that just compensation would be to a certain extent may be granted, such extent can be granted in the said case. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to grant future prospects and consortium to the dependants of the deceased.
2 (2017 AACJ 2700 (SC)) 3 MANU/SC/0803/2020 4 KS,J MACMA.No. 260 of 2013
6. In view of the above, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,82,000/- per annum and as the age of the deceased is 37 years 40% of future prospects are to be added as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (2 supra). Therefore, the future annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,54,800/- (Rs.1,82,000/- + Rs.72,800/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4, since there are only three dependents. After deducting 1/4th therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of income by the deceased to the family comes to Rs.1,91,100/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased was 37 years as held by the Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (4 supra). Adopting multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,91,100/- x 16 = Rs.30,57,600/- That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- under the head of 4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 KS,J MACMA.No. 260 of 2013 loss of estate and funeral expenses and claimant No.1 is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (2 supra). Further, since the claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the children and claimant Nos.4 and 5 being the parents of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental and filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram 5. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.32,87,600/-.
7. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.32,87,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to deposit the entire compensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 5 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 6 KS,J MACMA.No. 260 of 2013 judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closed.
____________________ K. SURENDER,J February 19, 2024.
BMS