Telangana High Court
Icici Lombard Motor Insurance Company ... vs Poloju Shyamala on 3 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.2353 of 2013 and 1200 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 23.01.2013 in O.P.No.2845 of 2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, the claimants have filed MACMA No.1200 of 2019 for enhancement of the compensation and Insurance Company has filed MACMA No.2353 of 2013 questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the very same finding in O.P.No.2845 of 2008, both the appeals are disposed of by way of common judgment.
3. Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.
4. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- and the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment in favour of claimant Nos.1 to 6.
KS, J MACMA_2353_2013 and 1200_2019 2
5. The manner of accident and the death of the deceased are not disputed by either of the parties.
6. The case of the claimants is that on 12.09.2008 at about 07.00 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on bicycle from Sarnenigudem village to Jai Kesaram village, meanwhile, the offending vehicle which is lorry driven by its driver at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased bicycle, due to which deceased died on the spot.
7. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,250/-. However, according to PW3, employer of the deceased stated that he was being paid around Rs.8,000/- per month towards his services as a Carpenter. Since, it is not in dispute that deceased was a Carpenter, income of Rs.6,000/- can be considered while assessing compensation.
8. Learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the driver did not have license, however, the Tribunal granted compensation which is KS, J MACMA_2353_2013 and 1200_2019 3 contributed to the policy conditions. Though it was claimed by the Insurance Company that the driver was not holding license, they failed to adduce any evidence to place reliance on the Motor Vehicle Inspector report while vehicle was inspected, that the driver did not produce license. On such endorsement made in the Motor Vehicle report that the license was not produced by the driver would not meant that the driver was not valid license. Since, the burden on the Insurance Company was not discharged to prove that driver was not holding valid license, hence, there are no grounds to interfere while awarding compensation.
9. It is not disputed that the deceased was doing Carpenter. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 1 has held that while considering the compensation in cases of death, the future 1 2017 (6) 170 (SC) KS, J MACMA_2353_2013 and 1200_2019 4 prospects of the self employed shall also be considered. Having regard to the age of deceased i.e. 39 years as on the date of accident and occupation as self-employed, if 40 percent of the income is included as future prospects, the monthly income would come to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000+2,400). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation2, since the dependants are five members, 1/5th of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure which comes to Rs.1,680/- (Rs.8,400X1/5). Thus the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be of Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000X12). As per Schedule II of the Act, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '15'. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.72,000 X 15).
11. As regards the consortium to be paid, each claimant is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Pranay Sethi (2 Supra). 2
2009(6) SCC 121 KS, J MACMA_2353_2013 and 1200_2019 5 With regard to the funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs.33,000/-.
12. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.10,80,000
(2) Funeral expenses and Rs.33,000
Loss of Estate
(3) Loss of spousal consortium Rs.44,000 for 1st
claimant
(4) Loss of parental consortium Rs.1,76,000 for
claimant Nos.2 to 5
(5) Loss of filial consortium Rs.44,000 for
claimant No.6
Total compensation awarded Rs.13,77,000/-
13. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the Insurance Company fails and the same is dismissed. However, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the claimants is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.13,77,000/- as hereunder:
KS, J MACMA_2353_2013 and 1200_2019 6
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of cross objections till the date of realization.
(b) The respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw entire amount without furnishing any security.
(c) As claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased, is entitled for major share i.e. 75% in compensation amount.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 03.09.2024 mmr