Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd., ... vs P Prabhavathi, Kurnool Dist And 4 Others on 25 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
41 of 2017
J U D G M E N T:
This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 01.11.2016 passed in Original Petition No.1926 of 2014 (impugned Order) by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), appellants- petitioners preferred the present Appeal praying this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
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:
Petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read with Amended Act, 54 of 1994 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Sri P. 2 Srinivasulu (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 10.07.2014. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased and petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased and petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 10.07.2014 at 11:00 hours, the deceased along with other members were travelling to Chandanagar from Guntur on Wagoner Car bearing No. AP 26 AA 0188 and when they reached near Chennamma Hotel at ORR, the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3695 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and without giving any signal suddenly slow down the lorry due to which the car driver lost control and dashed the said lorry, as a result of which, the inmates of the said car including the deceased sustained injuries. The deceased and one Vijaya Laxmi died on the spot. A case in Crime No.232 of 2014 was registered by Police, RGI Airport for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle. 3
05. As per petitioners, the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of accident and he was maistry and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing the same for maintenance of his family. Due to sudden death of the deceased, petitioners are put to monetary loss and also loss of love and affection. Therefore, they sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from respondents.
06. Respondent No.1-owner remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.2-Insurnce company filed counter denying averments of the claim petition, rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle and the manner of occurrence of the accident. Further, the age, avocation of the deceased, were also denied. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle has no valid and effective driving license and that there is contributory negligence on the part of the car driver and that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled:
4
i. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, causing death of the deceased?
ii. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
08. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioners got examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondent-Insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was marked.
09. Considering the claim of petitioners and counter affidavit filed by respondent-Insurance company and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Original Petition, awarding an amount of Rs.09,35,000/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondents. 5
10. Challenging the quantum of compensation, appellants-petitioners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
11. Heard Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for Insurance company. Perused the material available on record.
12. The main contention of the learned counsel for claim petitioners is that though claim petitioners proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A5, the learned Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously awarded meager amount towards compensation without granting any future prospects and also taken monthly income at lower side and prayed to enhance the compensation amount.
13. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance company contended that there was no negligence on the part of driver of crime vehicle and that the driver of the crime vehicle was not possessing valid and 6 effective driving license and without considering the said aspects the learned Tribunal awarded huge amount towards compensation by granting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and sought for dismissal of the petition.
14. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount in addition to the compensation amount granted vide impugned Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal? P O I N T:
15. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
16. Petitioner No.1 herself was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the claim application and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 and as she was not the eyewitness for the accident, hence PW1 got examined PW2 who was eyewitness to the accident deposed that she was one of the inmates of the car and explained about the manner of the accident. She further stated that she was sitting behind 7 the driver seat. During the course of cross-examination, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
17. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners had also relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A5. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR discloses that a case in Crime No.232 of 2014 was registered by Police, RGI Airport for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle and took up investigation and during the course of investigation, scene of offence panchanama and postmortem examination was conduced over the dead body of the deceased and those reports were marked as Exs.A3 and A4 respectively and after completion of investigation laid Ex.A2-Charge sheet filed against driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report which shows that there are no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.B1-copy of insurance copy discloses that policy was in force as on the date of accident.
18. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, the Tribunal after evaluating the oral and documentary 8 evidence available on record, 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.
19. The only contention raised by learned counsel for Insurance Company is that the though the driver of the crime vehicle do not have any valid driving license, the learned Tribunal fastened the liability upon insurance company and that the learned Tribunal awarded huge amount towards loss of consortium without following the guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court.
20. As seen from the entire records, the Insurance Company did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to show that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and that there are any violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy marked as Ex.B1. Except marking the copy of insurance policy there is no evidence adduced by the Insurance company to prove its contentions. Even 9 before this Court no single piece of paper has been filed by way of additional evidence to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the car driver. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance company holds no water.
21. In so far as the contention with regard to granting of compensation amount towards consortium and funeral expenses is concerned, the same will be considered while dealing with aspect of 'quantum of compensation' in the following paragraphs.
22. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased between 36-40 years, even as per petitioners the age of the deceased was claimed as 37 years. The monthly income of the deceased was calculated at Rs.6,000/-, which appears to be reasonable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding of the learned Tribunal. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 10 Pranay Sethi and others 1 40% of Rs.6,000/- towards future prospects can duly be added thereto, which comes to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-). Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.8,400x12). Since the deceased was having four dependents, after deducting 1/4th of the income (Rs.25,200/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.1,00,800/- - Rs.25,200/-). As the deceased was 37 years at the time of fatal accident. As per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma (cited supra), the appropriate multiplier is '15'. Thus, applying the multiplier '15' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.75,600/-, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.75,600/- x 15).
23. While calculating the final compensation amount, the learned Tribunal has awarded 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 11 Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and further awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is against the guidelines formulated by the Honourable Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra). Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal to that effect are hereby set aside. Hence, 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 and further awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, as per settled principle of law laid down in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra). Thus, in all, petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.12,11,000/- towards compensation.
24. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.9,35,000/- is enhanced to Rs.12,11,000/-. In so far as interest component is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. This 12 Court by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3 inclined to enhance 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 entire compensation amount along with enhanced interest shall be deposited by respondents jointly and severally, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
25. Accordingly, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.9,35,000/- to Rs.12,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum on entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 13 As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 25-NOV-2024 KHRM