The Oriental Insurance Company vs Mr. Laxman Rao,

Telangana High Court

The Oriental Insurance Company vs Mr. Laxman Rao, on 3 May, 2024

Author: N. Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                        AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.1128 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji) Assailing the quantum of compensation granted in the decree and order dated 07.09.2015 in M.V.O.PNo.2035 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XVIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IV additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the respondent No.2/insurer preferred this appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. R. Sheetal Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to with their rank before the Tribunal.

4. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that on 05.01.2008 while one Mr. Varun Kumar/deceased was proceeding to his College i.e. Osmania Medical College on his motorcycle, on the way a lorry bearing registration No.AP-11V 8404 of the GHMC (for short, 'the lorry') driven by its driver in rash and negligent 2 SPJ & NTRJ Macma_1128_2023 manner dashed the motorcycle and ran over his head, whereby caused his instantaneous death. The Police, Nallakunta registered crime and charge sheeted the driver. The father, mother and sister pleading that the deceased was 23 years old, meritorious student and was pursuing his IV Year of the MBBS in Osmania Medical College and was planning to pursue his Masters in United States of America. In addition, he was a sports person and also was conducting coaching classes for the students for preparing EAMCET examination. Therefore, pleading that the death has caused their loss of dependency, claimed compensation of Rs.40 lakhs. The tribunal on considering the materials on record allowed the petition by granting Rs.40 lakhs with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation.

5. In appeal, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer (for short, 'the insurer') would contend that without any convincing material the tribunal notionally assessed the monthly income at Rs.20,000/- which is excessive on any parameter. Further no proof is brought on to record either to attest the sports performance or the earnings from tuitions as stated. Moreover the tribunal failed to deduct personal expenses 3 SPJ & NTRJ Macma_1128_2023 and granted amounts under the conventional heads beyond the settled judicial pronouncements. Hence prayed for interference.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the deceased was excelling in academics and securing a seat in MBBS in Osmania Medical College itself is testimony. Further the tribunal had considered all relevant facts as to earning capacity of the deceased and reasonably fixed the notional income at Rs.20,000/- and the assessment of compensation has been done in accordance with the propositions laid down by the Courts. As such, there is no illegality in accounting the compensation. Therefore, no reasonable ground has been made out in the appeal.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the deceased was pursuing IV Year M.B.B.S. Course in Osmania Medical College and he had secured up most rank in the entrance examination. However the material placed before the tribunal are disclosing that there is nothing on file to show any income out of coaching classes. Further a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. Ramulamma and others v. Venkatesh, Bus Union 4 SPJ & NTRJ Macma_1128_2023 and others - 2009 (6) ALT 784 (D.B.) had a similar issue of B.Tech student and pointed that for final year student of B.Tech Rs.12,000/- per month would be a reasonable notional income. However considering the facts that the authority was examining a situation of 1995 in 2006, academic performance of the deceased and the probabilities of earning, fixing notional monthly income of Rs.20,000/- is found reasonable. Thus we proceed to reassess the compensation in terms of the authorities National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 and Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2.

9. The annual income of the deceased would be of Rs.2,40,000/-, which is within the taxable limit. Admittedly, the deceased was bachelor. Hence as per the directives in Pranay Sethi (supra), half of the income has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased, as such the annual contribution of the deceased would be Rs.1,20,000/-. For the age and the self employed occupation of the deceased as per the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) 40% of income has to be added towards future prospects. Thus 1 (2017) 16 SCC 860 2 2009 ACJ 1298 5 SPJ & NTRJ Macma_1128_2023 the annual income would be Rs.1,68,000/-. If this sum is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, as prescribed in the decision of Sarla Verma (supra), the total amount comes to Rs.30,24,000/-. This amount would be the compensation for loss of dependency.

10. In addition, as per the dictum in Pranay Sethi (supra), and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 3 the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for filial consortium at Rs.48,400/- each and Rs.36,300/- towards loss of estate and the funeral expenses.

11. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.31,57,100/- (Rupees thirty one lakhs fifty seven thousand and hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The ratio of apportionment among the petitioners shall remain in terms of the impugned order. The respondent No.2/insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

12. Accordingly the impugned order stands modified. 3 2021(11) SCC 780 6 SPJ & NTRJ Macma_1128_2023

13. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed.

______________ SUJOY PAUL, J _______________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date :03.05.2024 CCM