Telangana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs Alludu Pushpa on 29 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.1000 OF 2011
&
M.A.C.M.A.No.1757 OF 2012
COMMON JUDMENT:
1. M.A.C.M.A.No.1757 of 2012 is filed by the appellant-
claimant on behalf of the deceased against the Order and Decree
dated 25.10.2010 in O.P.No.322 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-IX Additional District and Sessions
Judge, at Kamareddy, where under the Tribunal granted an
amount of Rs.1,87,000/- towards compensation along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-
on account of the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle
accident occurred on 19.06.2007. MACMA.No.1000 of 2011 is
filed by the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance Company
questioning the said compensation granted by the Tribunal
2. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the record.
3. Since both the appeals are filed on the very same findings of the Tribunal, both are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order.
2
4. The case of the claimant, who is the mother of the deceased is that on 19.06.2007 while her son was returning from college, a tractor came in a high speed and dashed against him resulting in his death.
5. The main ground urged by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that the driver of the tractor was not holding commercial license to drive the tractor, however, he has license for driving light motor vehicles which are non-commercial vehicles. The said ground cannot be taken into consideration to refused compensation. The Tribunal has given adequate reason to dispel the argument by the Insurance Company. Though Ex.B.2 license was produced, it did not have the photograph of driver and the Insurance Company had not placed any other evidence to support their contention that the driver was not holding a valid license.
6. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-p.a., though it was claimed that he was earning Rs.6,000/-p.m. Though no proof of income of the deceased was filed, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram, Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the income of the 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 3 deceased can be fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month notionally. Apart from the same, the appellant is entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects which comes to Rs.6,300/-(4,500/-+1,800/-), as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2. Accordingly, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.75,600/- per annum and after deduction of 50% towards his personal expenses, the annual income comes to Rs.37,800/- (Rs.75,600/-37,800/-). As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 3, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as the deceased was aged 21 years. Accordingly, when applied appropriate multiplier '18', it comes to Rs.6,80,400/-(37,800x18). The claimant is also entitled for Rs.84,000/- under conventional heads, which comes to Rs.7,64,400/- (6,80,400/-+84,000/-).
7. In the result, the MACMA.No.1757 of 2012 is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,87,000/- to Rs.7,64,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Except the above, the award of the Tribunal shall remain same on all other aspects.
2 2017(6) ALD 170 (SC) 3 2009(6) SCC 121 4
8. Insofar as MACMA.No.1000 of 2011 is concerned, in view of findings in MACMA.No.1757 of 2012 filed by the claimant, I do not find any valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, MACMA.No.1000 of 2011 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
9. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 29.02.2024 dv