Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Jangam Lavanya And 5 Ots on 19 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.3141 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2012 in O.P.No.137 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-Madhava Reddy along with one Sri Yadi 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 was driving the car and Yadi Reddy was sitting by the side of the driver. In fact, the Tractor had hit the car and the car was dragged towards 2 KS,J MACMA.Nos.3141 of 2012 the stationed lorry. The dependants of deceased driver-Sri Madhava Reddy filed O.P.No.137 of 2009 claiming a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- and the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P.No.137 of 2009 granting compensation amount of Rs.9,00,000/-.
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/pushed 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 1 2018 (3) SCC 365 3 KS,J MACMA.Nos.3141 of 2012 which hit the car from behind without stopping and it 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.Nos.3141 of 2012
6. In view of the above, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and as the age of the deceased is 45 years 25% 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.1,25,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/-). From this, 1/3rd 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 1/3rd therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of income by the deceased to the family comes to Rs.83,333/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased was 45 years as held by the Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (4 supra). Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.83,333/- x 13 = Rs.10,83,329/- That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- under the head of 4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 KS,J MACMA.Nos.3141 of 2012 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 No.2 being the son and claimant No.3 being the mother of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.2 and 3 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.12,33,329/- which is rounded off to Rs.12,33,500/-.
7. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.12,33,500/-. 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.Nos.3141 of 2012 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