Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Guntoji Prakruthamma And 3 Others on 19 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A No.2168 OF 2019
JUDGMENT :
The 3rd respondent in O.P.No.592 of 2010 i.e., Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2014, whereunder the petition filed by the respondents/claimants for compensation on account of road traffic accident was partly allowed, granting a sum of Rs.13,00,400/-, filed this appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act and sought for setting aside the impugned order on the following grounds:
The Tribunal committed an error by fixing liability against the appellant herein. The Tribunal was wrong in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.7,800/- per annum in spite of the fact that he was a student without any income. The Tribunal was wrong in accepting the payment under the alleged salary certificate though it was not proved by any acceptable evidence. The multiplier 2 SSRN, J MACMA No.2168 of 2019 adopted by the Court below was incorrect and the Tribunal committed an error in awarding lump sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as future prospects, thereby sought for setting aside the award.
2. As could be seen from the impugned order, the respondent/claimants have filed O.P.No.592 of 2010 seeking compensation on account of death of one G.Srinivas (hereinafter be referred as deceased) in a road traffic accident.
3. As per the petition filed by the respondent, the deceased who is none other than their son, was a student and while he and his friends were proceeding to Hayathnagar to attend birthday function on a motorbike, there was an accident when the driver of a lorry bearing No.AP-29U7-963 by driving the same in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor bike and as he suffered grievous injuries, died on the spot.
4. The respondents have filed the petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the above said lorry and 3 SSRN, J MACMA No.2168 of 2019 sought for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner of the vehicle remained exparte. But, the insurance company i.e., present appellant disputed the claim.
5. However the Court below after conducting enquiry, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the above said lorry and awarded Rs.13,00,400/- as compensation payable by all the respondents.
6. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company on the ground that the Tribunal did not appreciate the oral evidence and documents properly, but fixed the salary of the deceased as Rs.7,800/- per month on the basis of Ex.A9 the alleged salary certificate. However, the evidence placed before the Court indicates that to prove their claim, the respondents have examined the mother of the deceased as PW1 and one Bhanu Chander as PW2. The respondents have claimed that the deceased was working as part time faculty in Wisdom High School and he was a 3rd year 4 SSRN, J MACMA No.2168 of 2019 B.Tech student and that he was earning Rs.7,800/- per month. The contention of the respondent that the deceased was B.Tech student was not denied by the insurance company which filed the present appeal.
7. According to the other material placed before the Court it was proved that the deceased was 21 years old. In view of the settled proposition of law in case of an engineering graduate or a person who is prosecuting engineering, the chances of his getting employment with a minimum salary of Rs.12,000/- per month cannot be ruled out. Taking the age of the deceased and his qualification as 3rd year B.Tech student, the Court rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.7,800/-. If a reasonable amount is added to the said figure as future prospects, the claimants are certainly entitled to the awarded amount. The impugned award clearly shows that the Court below having appreciated the fact that the deceased was a bachelor, considered 50% of the above said income as his personal expenditure and having adopted appropriate multiplier assessed the financial loss as Rs.8,42,400/-. 5
SSRN, J MACMA No.2168 of 2019 The Tribunal has considered that the claimants are entitled to 50% of the said income as future prospects of the deceased. Had the Court below appreciated the fact that the deceased was a 3rd year B.Tech student and assessed his income @ Rs.12,000/-, certainly the respondent would have earned more compensation. However, the Tribunal has appreciated the other evidence and awarded appropriate compensation. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date: 19.02.2024 PSSK