Telangana High Court
M/S.United India Insuance Co Ltd vs Kavitha Kalirwana And 6 Ors on 3 January, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2264 OF 2006
AND
M.A.C.M.A.No.497 OF 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
I have heard Mr.K.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in MACMA No.2264 of 2006 and for respondents in MACMA No.497 of 2012; and Mr.Subbagari Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners in MACMA No.497 of 2012 and for respondents in MACMA No.2264 of 2006.
2. The M.A.C.M.A.No.2264 of 2006 has been filed by the insurer/respondent No.3 contesting the liability and quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and judgment dated 26.06.2006 in MVOP No.26 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
3. M.A.C.M.A.No.497 of 2012 has been filed by the claim petitioners aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in the self same decree and judgment.
2 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006
4. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before the tribunal.
5. The case of the petitioners in brief is that on 31.07.2003 at about 11.30 p.m. while the Balbir Singh/deceased was proceeding on scooter bearing No. AP-10H-7179 near Rekulabavi on N.H.7, one DCM bearing No.AP-9V 1667 (for short, 'DCM Van') came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the scooter, which resulted in his instantaneous death.
6. The petitioners by pleading that the deceased was aged about 30 years and as supervisor used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month and his death affected their support and dependency, prayed for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence awarded compensation of Rs.4,33,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the owners and the insurer of the DCM Van/respondents 1 to 3.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that though the specific pleading that the deceased was supervisor in Mahalakshmi Profiles at Kalakal, Medchal and used to earn 3 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006 Rs.6,000/- per month which has been substantiated by the evidence of employer/PW-2, but the tribunal erroneously restricted the salary at Rs.3,000/- per month. Further future prospects have not been accounted and the amounts granted under conventional heads are improper. He further pleaded that the insurer/respondent No.3 in the cross examination of the witness failed to make out any fact or circumstance to prove false implication of the vehicle and the evidence placed by the petitioners remained undisturbed in the cross examination. Thus prayed for reassessment and for granting just compensation.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer/respondent No.3 would submit that as per the first information report/Ex.A-1 the accident was caused by unknown vehicle. After one month the crime vehicle and the eyewitness were brought on to record to reap undue advantage. Further to prove existence of valid driving licence and the mechanical defects, if any, the petitioners should have examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal should have held that the crime vehicle has been planted for the purpose of petition. Further though there is no conclusive evidence 4 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006 proving the occupation and income, the tribunal had assessed the excessive compensation. Thus prayed for interference and to exonerate the insurer/respondent No.3.
9. I have carefully considered the rival pleadings and the materials on record.
10. In regard to liability, the insurer's contention is that the crime vehicle has been planted. Nonetheless the petitioners got examined eyewitness/PW-3 and placed the charge sheet/Ex.A-2 wherein the police after due investigation had concluded the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident. In the cross examination of eyewitness/PW-3 no material has been elicited. In such position, the preliminary burden on the part of the petitioners shall be taken as discharged and if the adversary still contests the fact, onus shifts on that party to rebut and prove the asserted fact. In the present case though the insurer/respondent No.3 participated in the trial proceedings, for the reasons best known to them maintained silence, though they got an opportunity to summon the relevant witnesses. Therefore the contention that the crime vehicle was planted remains unsubstantiated and in view of 5 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006 the positive evidence placed by the petitioners, the conclusion drawn by the tribunal is found proper.
11. The age and occupation of the deceased are not in dispute. So far as compensation, the petitioners claimed that the deceased was supervisor in Mahalakshmi Profiles, Kalakal, Medchal and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. To prove, the petitioners got examined employer/PW-2 and marked the salary certificate/Ex.A-4. The oral and documentary evidence are proving that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal simply observed that it is inclined to take Rs.3,000/- per month as salary of the deceased, without assigning any reason. As the observation of the tribunal is against the evidence on record, Rs.6,000/- shall be taken as monthly income of the deceased.
12. In regard to quantum of compensation, basing on the petitioners' claim and the entries in post mortem report/Ex.A-3 the age of the deceased can be concluded as 30 years.
13. Having regard to the age and regular occupation of the deceased as per the directives in National Insurance Company 6 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006 Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, 50% of the income has to be added towards future prospects which would make the monthly income at Rs.9,000/- and annual income at Rs.1,08,000/-. Counting the dependants if 1/4th income of the deceased is deducted towards personal expenses, his contribution to the family would be of Rs.81,000/-. This multiplicand if multiplied with the relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased, as prescribed in the judgment of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2 i.e. 17, the total comes to Rs.13,77,000/-. This amount would be the compensation for loss of dependency.
14. In addition, as per the dictum of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 3 the petitioner No. 1 is entitled for spousal, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for parental and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are entitled for filial consortium at Rs.48,400/- each and also Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses.
1 (2017) 16 SCC 860 2 2009 ACJ 1298 3 2021(11) SCC 780 7 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006
15. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for compensation as under:
Description Amount awarded
(in rupees)
Loss of dependency 13,77,000.00
Spousal consortium to petitioner No.1 48,400.00
Rs.48,400/-
Parental consortium @ Rs.48,400/- each 96,800.00
to petitioner Nos.2 and 3
Filial consortium @ Rs.48,400/- each to 96,800.00
petitioner Nos.4 and 5
Loss of estate 18,150.00
Funeral expenses 18,150.00
TOTAL Rs.16,55,300/-
16. Resultantly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,55,300/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs fifty five thousand and three hundred only). The rate of interest and ratio of apportionment among the petitioners shall remain as per the impugned order. The respondent No.3/insurer is directed to deposit the differential compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006
17. Accordingly, the Award dated 26.06.2006 in M.V.O.P.No. 26 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad stands modified.
18. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.497 of 2012 filed by the petitioners is allowed with costs and the M.A.C.M.A.No.2264 of 2006 filed by the insurer/respondent No.3 is dismissed without costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date:03.01.2024 ccm