Telangana High Court
The Bajaj Al Lianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Patloth Ram Singh Died on 22 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.313 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned standing counsel Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy for the appellant-insurance company and Sri. Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for respondents-claimants.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ insurance company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.12 of 2017, dated 25.10.2022, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the insurance company.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. The petitioner no.1/deceased i.e., Mohammad Patloth Ram Singh went to Yellareddy for milk vending and while returning to his village by walk and when he reached to Messanpally village shivar, the driver of Crane vehicle bearing registration No.AP-27-BB-8179, driven the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner LNA,J MACMA No.313 of 2023 2 no.1/deceased, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, fracture of right lower limb till the ankle joint and was in a serious condition. Immediately, he was shifted to Community Health Centre, Yellareddy and later admitted in S.V.Pooja Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment on 22.11.2016. On the same day, operation was conducted and his right leg was amputated upto knee level and was discharged from hospital on 28.11.2016. The petitioner no.1/ deceased was taking treatment due to injuries and commutation and died on 21.05.2019. The concerned Police registered a case in and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimants, i.e., the legal heirs of petitioner no.1/deceased, have filed claim petition against owner, driver of the crime vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 (1)(a) and 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
6. The deceased was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month through milk business and agriculture LNA,J MACMA No.313 of 2023 3 and was contributing his earnings to the family. On account of injuries and amputation of his right leg, the deceased was completely bedridden, being unable to attend his regular duties without assistance and subsequently died and thus, claimants lost the support of the deceased.
7. The respondent Nos.11 and 12 herein, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.
8. The appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It is contended that deceased died of natural death, but created as if he died due to impact of injuries alleged to have been sustained in the road accident and there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the alleged injuries sustained in the alleged accident. It is further contended that there is no medical evidence placed by claimants to show that death was caused due to impact of injuries sustained in the accident and in the absence of any such proof, claimants are LNA,J MACMA No.313 of 2023 4 not entitled for any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues on 06.04.2018:
i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries and amputation of right leg in the road accident on 22.11.2016 at about 8.00 a.m., near Messampally village shivar due to rash and negligent driving of Crane vehicle No.AP-27-BB-8179 by its driver ?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for ?
iii) To what relief?
The issue no.2 is re-casted as follows on 07.10.2021.
Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if any, from whom and what just amount.
On filing of the additional written statement, the following additional issues are settled on 25.02.2022.
1) Whether the injured Patloth Ramesh died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident ?
2) Whether the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for compensation. If so, from whom and what just amount?
3) To what relief ?
LNA,J MACMA No.313 of 2023 5
10. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, the first wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and also examined Danavath Narsingh, who is eye witness, as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-insurance company, RW.1 was examined and copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
11. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crane vehicle bearing registration No.AP-27-BB-8179 and awarded compensation of Rs.15,55,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The owner and driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent Nos.11 and 12 herein and appellant-insurance company are liable to pay the said compensation amount.
12. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant-insurance company submitted that Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by him as LNA,J MACMA No.313 of 2023 6 the alleged death took place after 2½ years of the accident; further, except self-serving statement of claimants, no documents such as PME report was filed and no doctor was examined to show that alleged death took place on account of injuries sustained in the accident. He submitted that Tribunal erred so far as the quantification of compensation is concerned.
13. He further submitted that Tribunal committed serious illegality in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m., without any cogent evidence and calculating the loss of dependency on that amount is excess, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants submitted that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, had rightly awarded the compensation on other counts. However, he further submitted that Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, instead of 1/5th.
LNA,J MACMA No.313 of 2023 7 Consideration:
15. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant insofar as disputing the occurrence of accident is concerned, before the Tribunal, P.W.2, who is cited as eye witness to the accident, was examined and he deposed that he was present on the spot and noticed the accident, wherein the driver of the crane vehicle dashed the petitioner no.1/deceased and deceased received grievous injuries to his left leg and immediately deceased was shifted to Community Health Centre. Further, the evidence of eye witness P.W.2 is corroborated with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-charge sheet, which clearly show that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.
16. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- considering the profession of the deceased as milk vendor and doing agriculture. Perusal of record would show that the Tribunal had erred in LNA,J MACMA No.313 of 2023 8 taking the monthly income of the deceased without there being any cogent evidence to that effect. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.10,000/- in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, period of accident, the inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of living etc., and therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be modified accordingly.
17. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant with regard to living expenses of the deceased, as the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and another 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph-30 held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-fifth (1/5th), where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
18. In view of the above decision, one-fifth (1/5th) of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal had erred 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 LNA,J MACMA No.313 of 2023 9 in deducting 1/4th instead of 1/5th of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses and the same is liable to be modified.
Conclusion:
19. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income Rs.1,20,000/- per annum
(Rs.10,000/- per month)
2 Deduction towards personal Rs.24,000/- (i.e., one-fifth (1/5th) of
expenses Rs.1,20,000/-)
3 Total Income Rs.96,000/- (i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- (-)
Rs.24,000/-)
4 Multiplier 11
5 Loss of dependency Rs.10,56,000/- (i.e., Rs.96,000/- x
11)
6 Consortium Rs. 40,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
8 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be Rs.11,26,000/-
paid:
20. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified. The above compensation amount shall LNA,J MACMA No.313 of 2023 10 carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petitions till the date of realization. The appellant is directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount already deposited by the appellant. The claimants are entitled to the apportionment of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 22.01.2024 kkm