Telangana High Court
M/S. The Sbi General Insurance Company ... vs K.Therisa on 10 January, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.597 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2017 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.1874 of 2014, the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 has filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioner filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the death of her son by name "Bala Prasanna"
(hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased'). The reason assigned by the petitioner for the death of the deceased is that on 28.10.2015 at about 5.45 PM while the son of the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle from Secunderabad towards Athwelly, respondent No.1 i.e., the driver of DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TD 1289 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018 vehicle') drove the said vehicle at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased from the backside and ran over the body of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries, as such he was shifted to Balaji Hosital, Kompally and from there he was shifted to KIMS hospital, wherein the doctors declared as brought dead.
4. A case in Crime No.643/2015 was registered by Police, Medchal for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code Police against the driver of the crime vehicle.
5. According to the petitioner, the deceased was aged about 24 years, hale and healthy, working as Associate CS (Retension) in Agile, Begumpet, Hyderabad and drawing Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. The deceased used to contribute his income for maintenance of his family and due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioner lost her sole bread earner of the family. Therefore, the petitioner, claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No. DCM Van 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018 bearing No. AP 28 TD 1289 respectively, for the death of the deceased.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/driver and owner of the crime vehicle were set exparte and whereas the respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition, the manner in which the accident occurred, the age, avocation of the deceased and that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident.
7. It was further contended that there was no valid permit to the said vehicle and that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, on the above grounds the Insurance Company assailed the liability to pay any compensation amount and prayed for dismissal of the case.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death viz., K. Bala Prasanna due to the rash and negligent driving of the DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TD 1289?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
iii) To what relief?4
MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018
9. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 and 2 were examined apart from relying on documentary evidence under Exs. A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.3, RW1 was examined apart from exhibiting Exs. B1 to B4.
10. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the petitioner/claimant and making respondent Nos.1 to 3 liable to pay the compensation of Rs.15,73,280/- jointly and severally from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.
11. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company/Respondent No.3 as well as Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for respondent/petitioner and perused the entire material available on record including the grounds of Appeal.
12. It is pertinent to note that the claimant has not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as the Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of eyewitness (PW2) 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 (FIR), A2 (charge sheet), A3 (scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch), A4 (inquest report), A5 (Postmortem Examination Report) and A6 (Motor Vehicle Inspector Report) answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM Van bearing No.AP 28 TD 1289 and that the son of the petitioner succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. There is no dispute that the insurance policy (Ex.B1) was subsisting as on the date of accident. There is also no dispute with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the claimant.
13. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,73,280/- by relying on Ex.A7 pay slip, which shows the monthly salary of deceased as Rs.10,728/-.
14. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.A7 pay slip of the deceased is fake and fabricated one and created only for the purpose of claiming compensation.
15. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the respondent No.3 made some efforts in discarding Ex.A7 through 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018 correspondence under Exs.B2 to B4 to establish that the company in which the deceased alleged to have worked is not in existence. A perusal of impugned order discloses that the learned Tribunal did not even whisper about the efforts put forth by the respondent No.3 under Exs.B2 to B4 in discarding Ex.A7. When the respondent No.3 is seriously disputing the authenticity or genuineness of Ex.A7, the learned Tribunal ought to have discussed in the impugned order with regard to authenticity of Ex.A7 despite exhibiting Exs.B2 to B4 on behalf of respondent No.3.
16. In this regard, the Senior Executive (Legal) was examined as RW1, who deposed that on enquiry they found that no such office is functioning in the given address. In the cross examination, RW1 deposed that when they tried to contract the numbers shown on Ex.A7 through phone, the mobile number was informed as wrong number and whereas the land line number belongs to Shiva Balaji Academy, Dilsukhnagar. A suggestion was given to RW1 that the office was shifted from the given address. But the petitioner failed to explain as to where the said office was shifted from the given address. 7
MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018
17. A salary slip issued by an employer is presumed to be authentic unless there is credible evidence or reasonable suspicion to suggest otherwise. However, when the authenticity is challenged, additional evidence may be required to establish its genuineness. If the respondents question the authenticity of the salary slip, oral evidence from a competent authority, such as a representative of the deceased's employer, may be necessary to verify its genuineness. This testimony could clarify the nature of the employment, the salary structure, and whether the slip was indeed issued by the employer. Even without oral evidence, a salary slip can be corroborated by other documents such as bank statements reflecting salary deposits, income tax returns filed by the deceased, employment records or appointment letters from the employer etc. Courts often emphasize the need for corroborative evidence when the primary document like a pay slip or salary certificate is disputed. In such cases, the claimant may be required to produce additional evidence to support her claim. If oral evidence is unavailable or impractical as in the instant case (when the employer is unreachable) the court may consider other circumstantial evidence and the overall facts of the case. The court has discretion to weigh the evidence and decide whether the salary 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018 slip can be relied upon. In the instant case, except Ex.A7 there is no other oral evidence or documentary evidence to corroborate that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,728/-. Thus, salary slip alone may not be sufficient as conclusive proof of the deceased's income, especially when authenticity of such salary slip/salary certificate is questioned by the respondents.
18. However, there is no dispute that the deceased was doing private job as can be seen from Exs.A1 and A2. Considering the cost of living during the relevant period and taking into consideration the qualification of the deceased as tenth class as deposed by PW1, this Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month.
19. The other contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal has awarded future prospects @ 50% instead of 40%. In the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, the deceased is entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his salary, since the deceased was aged 24 years as per Exs.A1, A2, A4 and A5. Thus, monthly income would arrive to Rs.11,200/- 1 2017 ACJ 2700 9 MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018 (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-) and annual income would arrive to Rs.1,34,400/- (Rs.11,200/- x 12 months). Since the deceased is a bachelor, 50% of the same has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the income contributed by the deceased towards his family members would be Rs.67,200/- (Rs.1,34,400/- - Rs.67,200/-)
20. It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal while calculating the loss of dependency has fixed the multiplier as 15 based on the age of mother of the deceased. But the Honourable Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others 2 observed that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent; there may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. In the instant case, the age of the deceased is 24 years, thus, the appropriate multiplier would be '18' as per the principle laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3.
2 (2012) 11 SCC 738 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 10 MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018
21. When the annual salary of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.67,200/- x 18). Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is Rs. 12,09,600/-. Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is being reduced from Rs.14,48,200/- to Rs.12,09,600/-.
22. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection by relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in M. Mansoor and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited 4. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses by relying on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 5. Thus, except interfering with the finding of learned Tribunal on the point of loss of dependency, the remaining part of the impugned order is appearing to be in proper perspective in all other aspects. Thus, in all, petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.13,34,600/- (Rs.12,09,600/-+Rs. 1,00,000/-+Rs.25,000/-). 4 (2013) 12 Scale 324 5 (2013) 9 SCC 54 11 MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018
23. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of 9%, which is highly excessive. By considering the principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 6, this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.
24. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observations.
25. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is hereby reduced from Rs.15,73,280/- to Rs.13,34,600/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by respondents (driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle) jointly and severally. The respondents (driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle) are directed to deposit the amount within a period of one month from the date of 6 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 12 MGP,J MACMA.No.597 of 2018 receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Date: 10.01.2025 AS