Telangana High Court
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs B. Andalu And 3 Others on 28 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
2592 OF 2019
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded in the Order and Decree dated 26.03.2019 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.591 of 2014 by the learned Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar (for short "the learned Tribunal"), appellant-Insurance company preferred the present Appeal praying this Court to set aside the impugned Order.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the learned Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one B.Kondal (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that 2 occurred on 02.03.2014. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the mother and sister of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 02.03.2014 at evening hours, the deceased was proceeding on his Motorcycle bearing No. AP 29 BB 3925 from Rythu Bazar towards Red Tank, Vanashalipuram and when he reached near Jyothi Chicken Centre at Vanasthalipuram, a Tractor bearing No. AP 21 TT 2881 and Trolley bearing No. AP 29 TB 5318 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased who fell down and sustained injuries. The deceased was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, who succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The Police, Vanasthalipuram registered a case in Crime No.181 of 2014 for the offence under Section 304- A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') against the driver of the crime vehicle.
05. According to petitioners, the deceased was aged 28 years and he was running a Tea Stall at Vanasthalipuram and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and 3 used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, petitioners lost their bread winner and love and affection. Therefore, petitioners filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on various heads.
06. Before the learned Tribunal, while the respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte, respondent No.2-Insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the petition, manner of accident, age, avocation of the deceased and further contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased who had no driving license and that compensation claimed by petitioners is very high and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. On behalf of petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, eyewitness was examined as PW2 and servant of the deceased was examined as PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of respondent No.2- Insurance company, its Legal Officers were examined as 4 RW1 and RW2 and also examined staff of RTO as RW3 and got marked Ex.B1 and B2.
08. Considering the claim of petitioners and counter filed by respondent No.2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total compensation of Rs.19,34,136/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally.
09. Challenging the same, respondent No.2- Insurance company has filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant- Insurance company and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material available on record. 5
11. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Insurance company is that even though petitioners have not filed any document to show the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- by running a Tea Stall, the learned Tribunal without proper evidence awarded compensation of Rs.19,34,136/- which is on higher side and prayed this Court to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned Order.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
13. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned Order and Decree dated 26.03.2019 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.591 of 2014, is liable to be set aside?
P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
15. PW1 who is the mother of the deceased reiterated the contents of claim application and got marked 6 Exs.A1 to A9 as she is not an eyewitness to the accident, she got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the accident who deposed that on 02.03.2014 at evening hours, the deceased was proceeding on his Motorcycle bearing No. AP 29 BB 3925 from Rythu Bazar towards Red Tank, Vanashalipuram and when he reached near Jyothi Chicken Centre at Vanasthalipuram, the crime vehicle driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, who fell down and sustained injuries. During the course of cross-examination nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
16. RW1 and RW2 officials of insurance company reiterated the contents of the counter-affidavit and they deposed that the deceased died due to his own negligence and there is no rash and negligence on the part of the crime vehicle driver. During the course of cross- examination, they admitted that they have not witnessed the accident. They further stated that one investigator was appointed to investigate the case, however, the investigation report was not filed before the learned Tribunal. They further admitted that crime vehicle was 7 insured with their insurance company. Ex.B1-Insurance Policy was filed by RW1.
17. RW3-Staff of RTO produced Ex.B2-Driving License extract of driver and stated that the transport license is not required for the driver to drive LMV transport if its unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs., while as per Ex.7R.C. book, unladen weight of the crime vehicle is 1835 kgs and as such the driver was eligible to drive the crime vehicle.
18. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, Exs.A1-First Information Report discloses that Police, Vanasthalipuram registered a case in Crime No.181 of 2014 for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and took up investigation. During the course of the investigation, Ex.A3-Crime details form, Ex.A2-inquest and Ex.A4-postmortem examination were conducted over the dead body of the deceased vide A2-Inquest request and during the inquest, the panchayathdars have opinioned that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Ex.A4- 8 Postmortem examination report discloses that the deceased died due to head injury sustained in the road traffic accident. Ex.A9-Driving license of crime vehicle driver shows that it was valid and effective as on the date of accident. Ex.A8 and Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance policy which shows that the policy was in force, valid and effective as on the date of accident.
19. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute regarding the accident, death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. After considering the evidence of eyewitness i.e., PW2 coupled with material available on record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
20. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the 9 age and avocation of the deceased, has taken income at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is the case of petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by running a Tea Stall. Hence, considering the avocation of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to interfering with the said finding of the learned Tribunal in taking monthly income as Rs.10,000/-. The learned Tribunal awarded future prospects at the rate of 40% in view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1. However, the learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased but as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2, it should be 50% as the deceased was a bachelor, therefore, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.7,000/- X 12).
1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 10
21. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 28 years at the time of fatal accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Thus, applying the multiplier '17' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.84,000/-, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,28,000/- (Rs.84,000/- x 17). In addition to that, petitioners are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Thus, in all, petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.14,61,000/-.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.19,34,136/- is at higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.14,61,000/-. In so far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir 11 Singh and others 3 inclined to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal to 7.5 percent per annum on entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation amount along with interest shall be deposited by respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
23. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.19,34,136/- to Rs.14,61,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 28-JUN-2024 KHRM 3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35