National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Varre Subhadra And 2 Others

Telangana High Court

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Varre Subhadra And 2 Others on 3 September, 2025

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                         M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the M.V.Act, against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Additional District Judge), Mahabubabad (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.476 of 2014, dated 16.09.2019, wherein the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.14,81,200/- to the respondent No.1 herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.476 of 2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 seeking compensation for the death of the Varre Raju (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA- 0999. It is contended that on 09.05.2006, the deceased was proceeding on his motor bike bearing no.AP-36-L5200 towards Kurvai Village on Warangal-Khammam highway, when the deceased reached near Hero 2 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020 Honda showroom, a lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dash the deceased's vehicle, as a result deceased received several injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The Police registered a case, vide Crime No.96 of 2016 under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle, wherein a charge sheet was also filed against driver of the Crime Lorry and made him responsible for the accident. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the claimant before the Tribunal, the deceased was aged about 22 years and was working as Mechanic and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, as on the date of accident. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimant lost her beloved son and all the claimants lost their happiness and lost deceased's company and there is no other person to take care of the claimant and the claimant lost their dependency.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1-Driver of offending vehicle and respondent No.2-Owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 - National Insurance Company Limited, filed 3 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020 counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that there was self negligence on the part of the deceased, due to which, the said accident occurred and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

"1) Whether the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation amount, if so from whom and to what amount?

3) To what result ?"

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.14,81,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance 4 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020 Company on the ground that the claimant has claimed compensation Rs.8,00,000/- but the Tribunal erroneously passed the exorbitant award of Rs.14,81,200/- in the absence of any oral and documentary evidence and the income of the deceased and also the interest portion was taken on the higher side. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased was bachelor and the Tribunal ought to have deducted the personal expenses 50% instead of 1/3rd as per the settled principles of law while computing the compensation, hence prayed this Court to set- aside the Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal and allow the present appeal.

9. Heard, Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant - National Insurance Company Limited and None appeared for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

10. The claimants have not filed cross-appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Tribunal. As such, the claimants are satisfied with the Award and decree and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that:

"i) Whether the Tribunal had rightly consider the claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Rules 989 and awarded just compensation.

NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020

ii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in factual aspects while passing the award"

Point No.1 & 2:

11. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 09.05.2016, alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999 and the petitioner lost his son (deceased) in an unfortunate accident. The petitioner claim that the deceased was working as Mechanic and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, however there is no other documentary proof to the same, such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month as claimed by the claimant. But looking at the records available, it is evident that the deceased was aged about 23 years who was hale and healthy. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed by the Courts, considering the ground realities, hence the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.7,000/- per month looked to be reasonable and on ground realities, as the deceased would have atleast earned Rs.7,000/- per month by doing mechanic work or any odd job. In 1 2001(8) SCC 197 6 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020 view of the above observation, this Court is of the opinion that Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month which needs no interference.

12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,81,200/- against the claim petition of Rs.8,00,000/- which is illegal and arbitrary and the Tribunal cannot grant compensation more than claimant. In this regard, it is relevant to cite authority in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others 2 wherein at paragraph No.7, with respect to the provision of M.V.Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "..there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is that it should be 'Just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily 2 2002 n(8) Supreme 497 7 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020 injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be."

13. In the light of the above judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh's case (cited above), the Tribunals/Courts have the authority to award the compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimants.

14. As far as personal deductions of the deceased are concerned, the Tribunal in the Paragraph No.17 of the order has clearly stated that "deceased is a bachelor and claimant mother is widow", however the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which is against the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3, wherein it has categorically discussed the said issue at paragraph No.15 which reads as under:

3

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 8 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020

"15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." 9

NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020

15. In the present case, the deceased was bachelor and the sole claimant is depended on the deceased, accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of income towards personal and living expenses instead of deducting 50% of income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as per the directions caused by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (cited supra).

16. After considering the contentions and rival contentions and overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions. This Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to modified compensation and as recalculated as under:

17. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 4 and considering the age of the deceased as 23 years which is not disputed by both the parties, additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospect to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,800/- (Rs.7,000/- + 4 2017 ACJ 2700 10 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020 Rs.2,800/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,17,600/- (Rs.9,800/- X 12), out of which, 50% has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased was bachelor. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.58,800/- (Rs.1,17,600/- (-) Rs.58,800/-).

                         Head        Amount arrived at by   Amount arrived at by
                                        the Tribunal            this Court

            Income of the deceased
                                       Rs.14,11,200/-         Rs.10,58,400/-

                Loss of Estate           Rs.15,000/-            Rs.15,000/-

              Loss of Consortium         Rs.40,000/-            Rs.40,000/-

               Funeral Expenses          Rs.15,000/-            Rs.15,000/-

                     Total              Rs.14,81,200-         Rs.11,28,400/-

19. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 9 % per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 11 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020

20. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, by reducing the compensation from Rs.14,81,200/- to Rs. 11,28,400/- with @ 9 % p.a. inertest from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents therein are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimant in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdrawn the same without furnishing any surety. However, it is made clear, if the claimant has already drawn the excess compensation amount, the respondents are not liable to recover the same from the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs.

21. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 03.09.2025 SHA