Telangana High Court
M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Chityala Jangamma on 12 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
3164 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 01.11.2017 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.1131 of 2015 (impugned Order) by the learned XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the 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 Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and Rule 475/1B of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one Chityala Erra Anjaneyulu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 2 13.05.2015. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 to
4 are children of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 13.05.2015 the deceased being labour, loaded gravels in their land and loaded into Tractor Trolley bearing No. AP 22 Y 1004 and AP 22 Y 1005 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') and was proceeding towards Jadcherla to sell the same. On the way at Bandameedipally village at about 03:00 PM., the driver of the said tractor and trolley drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner lost control and ran over granites, due to which the deceased fell down from the tractor trailer and as a result sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, on the intervening night of 13/14.05.2015 at about 01:00 AM., while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries. The Police, Jadcherla, Mahboobnagar District registered a case in Crime No.293 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle.
3
05. According to petitioners, the deceased was aged 45 years and used to attend agricultural work and also working as labour and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and 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 claim petition against respondent No.1- owner of the crime vehicle, respondent No.2-insurnace company and respondent No.3-driver of the crime vehicle, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
06. The learned Tribunal has forfeited the right to file counter of respondent Nos.1 and 3. Respondent No.2- Insurance company filed counter denying the claim of petitioners denying the manner of accident, earnings of the deceased. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the compensation claimed by petitioners is very high and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4
07. On behalf of petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondent-Insurance company, RW1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1.
08. Considering the claim of petitioners and counter filed by respondent-Insurance company and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total compensation of Rs.11,62,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondents.
09. Challenging the same, respondent-Insurance company has preferred this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant- Insurance company and Sri M.Vijay Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-claimants. Perused the material available on record. 5
11. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Insurance company is that the learned Tribunal without proper evidence on record awarded huge compensation towards compensation which is on higher side, future prospects were also taken at 30% and further awarded huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned Order.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted reasonable and just compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
13. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal, is liable to be set aside? P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
6
15. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased reiterated the contents of the claim application. As she was not eyewitness to the accident, she got examined PW2- eyewitness who deposed about the manner of the accident and stated that the accident was the result of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. During the course of cross-examination, nothing was elicited from them to discard their evidence. RW1-Official of insurance company reiterated the contents of the counter and during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that Ex.B1-policy was in force as on the date of accident.
16. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, the Tribunal after evaluating the oral evidence of PW1 as well as PW2-eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, has awarded compensation. It is pertinent to state that a perusal of Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police, Jadcherla, Mahboobnagar District registered a case in Crime No.293 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle and 7 during the course of investigation inquest and postmortem examination was conducted vide Exs.A3 and A4 and further prepared the crime details form along with rough sketch, after completion of investigation Ex.A2-charge sheet was filed against the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report disclose that there are no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, 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.
17. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 45 years and that the deceased was attending agricultural work and doing labour work, however, as there was no oral or documentary evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-, the Tribunal 8 has taken monthly income as Rs.4,500/-. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfering with the said finding of the Tribunal.
18. While calculating the compensation amount, the learned Tribunal has taken future prospects at the rate of 30%, further learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards cremation charges.
19. It is pertinent to state here that as the deceased was self-employed and aged 45 years, 25% future prospects have to be taken into consideration instead of 30% as future prospects and petitioners are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon) instead of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards cremation charges, as per the guidelines formulated by the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company 9 Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 and Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal to that effect are hereby set aside.
20. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited 1st supra), 25% (Rs.1,125/-) towards future prospects can duly be added thereto. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.67,500/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,125/- x 12 being 25% towards future prospects). Since there are four dependents, after deducting 1/4th (Rs.16,875/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma case (cited 2nd supra), the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.50,625/- (Rs.67,500/- - Rs.16,875/-). As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 45 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 '14'. Thus, applying the multiplier '14' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 10 arrived at Rs.50,625/-, the total 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.7,08,750/- (Rs.50,625 x 14). In addition to that, petitioners are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). In addition thereof, petitioners No.3 and 4 who are minor children of the deceased and petitioner No.1 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.80,000/- under the head of 'parental consortium' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3. Thus, in all, petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,65,750/-.
21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.11,62,100/- is at higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.8,65,750/-. In so far as interest is concerned, the compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount, if not deposited by respondents, 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 11 shall be deposited within a period of two (2) months 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, subject to payment of deficit Court fee. Petitioners shall pay deficit Court fee for Rs.65,750/- only. If the deficit Court fee is already deposited by petitioners for the compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal, the difference Court fee shall be refunded to petitioners, after proper calculation and under proper acknowledgement.
22. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal reduced from Rs.11,62,100/- to Rs.8,65,750/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 12-NOV-2024 KHRM