Telangana High Court
The Iffcotokio General Insurance Co. ... vs Cheerlavancha Padma on 27 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No.2916 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/R3-Insurance Company aggrieved by the award dated 09.05.2012 granted by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Kaimnagar in M.V.O.P.No.463 of 2007.
2. The 1st and 2nd respondents herein are the parents of the deceased, Respondent No.3 is the driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.5 is the owner of the offending vehicle.
3. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company is that on 11.06.2006 the deceased engaged a Tractor bearing No.AP 15 R 6015 along with Trailer bearing No.AAR-3846 and loaded material in the tractor and he also travelled in the same tractor by sitting beside the tractor driver. When the tractor reached Muskanapet cross roads, at about 1.00 p.m., the driver of the Tractor/trailor drove the tractor in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased was thrown out of his seat and the rear wheel of the tractor ran over the deceased. Due to which he sustained internal and external injuries. He was shifted to Illanthakunta for first aid and from there to Government Hospital, 2 Karimnagar. However, he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on 12.06.2006.
4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record on behalf of claimants i.e. PW.1 and documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A5 and also the evidence of on behalf of respondents i.e. RW1 and Exs.B1 to B3, granted compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization against respondents 3 and 4 therein, jointly and severally, who are appellant and respondent No.5, respectively. The Tribunal dismissed the petition against R1 & R2 therein who are R3 and R4 herein.
5. Though the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation, liability fixed, interest, income of the deceased, income towards personal expenses of the deceased and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal but the counsel for the appellant restricted his argument with regard to income towards personal expenses of the deceased and the liability of the Insurance Company.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that in case of death of an unmarried son, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the 3 deceased, but, the Tribunal deducted only 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. He also submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence and also the deceased sat beside the driver of the tractor on the mudguard of the tractor as a gratuitous passenger, thereby the owner of the Tractor and trailer violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. As such, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
7. He also relied on the Judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company limited v. Baljit Kaur and others 1and Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Geeta Devi and others 2
8. In view of the aforesaid Judgments rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount, initially, determined by the Tribunal, and recover the same from 5th respondent herein - owner of the offending vehicle. As far as the ground raised by the Insurance Company with regard to deduction of personal expenses is concerned, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income towards 1 2004(2) SCC 1 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398 4 personal expenses of the deceased. I do not find any infirmity with the said finding.
9. Accordingly, the MACMA is partly allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.27.02.2024 tk