Bajaj Allianz Gen Ins Co Ltd., ... vs Md Jaina, Kurnool Dist 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5631 AP

          HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.607 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

The appellant, who is Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Company Limited, preferred the present appeal challenging the

award dated 13.10.2014 passed in MVOP No.43 of 2012 by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional

District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, as excessive.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed in the Original Petition before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in brief, are that on 12.02.2012 at about 5-00 p.m.,

while one Majeed Saheb (hereinafter referred as deceased) along with

some other passengers boarded an auto bearing No.AP-21TW-1344

towards Banavasi village, when the auto reached near

Hanumapuram Degree College, the driver of the auto drove it in a

rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the

same when the dogs came across the road, as a result, the auto

turned turtle and passengers fell on the road. The deceased and

other passengers received dumb injuries, thereafter the deceased

was shifted to hospital for treatment, and for better treatment, while

he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, he

succumbed to injuries. The deceased was aged about 58 years as

on the date of accident and was working as Attender in Veterinary

Hospital, Amakutadu village and drawing salary of Rs.23,308/-.

Hence the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first and second respondents filed

separate counters opposed the claim by raising various pleas.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues for enquiry:

1. Whether the accident and the resultant death of the deceased Majeed Saheb was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver employed by the respondent No.1 on his Auto bearing No.AP-21TW-1344?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs-1 to 3 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.

7. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 coupled

with Ex.A1, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto.

With regard to quantum of compensation, basing on the evidence of

PW-3, the employer of deceased coupled with Ex.A7-salary

certificate, the Tribunal has accepted the salary of deceased as

Rs.23,308/- which was rounded off to Rs.23,300/- per month,

deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and arrived at

Rs.15,534/- towards monthly contribution to the family, accordingly

Rs.1,86,600/- (Rs.15,534/- x 12) per annum, applied multiplier '9'

and arrived at Rs.16,79,400/- (Rs.1,86,800/- x 9) towards loss of

dependency. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.16,79,400/- which was

rounded off to Rs.16,80,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards

compensation with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till

realization, payable by the respondent No.1.

8. Heard Sri P.B.Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company and Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned

counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has

strongly opposed the award passed by the Tribunal and contended

that the auto involved in the accident was AP-21-Y-0648 has no

insurance, hence the auto bearing No.AP-21-TW-1344, an insured

vehicle was brought into existence in collusion with police and that

the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver

of the unknown auto, as such the Tribunal ought to have dismissed

the claim petition. The Tribunal erred in taking the gross salary of

deceased into consideration and the amount awarded by it is highly

excessive and is liable to be set aside. Further, the Tribunal failed to

appreciate the law laid down in Judgment reported in Bhakra Beas

Management Board Vs. Kanta Agarwal and others1, wherein

it was held that the benefits which the claimants received on

account of death have to be deducted while computing and fixing

compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants supported the award

passed by the Tribunal as just and reasonable and it needs no

interference by this Court.

11. As seen from the record, though the appellant-Insurance

Company disputed that the crime vehicle which was involved in the

2008 ACJ 2372

accident, was not the vehicle as described in the impugned order

and as the crime vehicle was not insured, the vehicle described in

the impugned order was brought into existence in collusion with

police, the Insurance Company failed to produce any oral or

documentary evidence to prove the same. On the other hand, RW-1,

who is Senior Executive (Legal) of the Insurance Company, having

admitted the validity of the Insurance policy, cannot escape from the

liability of payment of the compensation to the claimants. The

further ground raised by the Insurance Company regarding the

salary of the deceased also cannot be accepted in view of Exs.A6 and

A7 which were corroborated by the evidence of PW-3. Since the

deceased died while working as an employee, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal basing on the salary certificate is just and

reasonable and do not call for any interference by this Court.

Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the award passed

by the Tribunal and the same is confirmed.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date: 25-08-2022 ARR

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

M.A.C.M.A.No.607 of 2015

DATED : 25-08-2022

ARR