Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Smt. Syeeda Farhatunnisa And ... on 17 December, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2599 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
The New India Assurance Company Limited, preferred the
present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short "the Act"), questioning the order and decree, dated 23.12.2005
passed in O.P.No.343 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (I-Additional District Judge) at Mahabubnagar (for
short "the Tribunal"), wherein a sum of Rs.12,89,000/- with interest
@ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, was
awarded as compensation to the claimant as against the claim of
Rs.18,00,000/-.
The facts in issue are as under:
The claimant filed a claim-petition under Section 166 of the
Act claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for the death of her
husband-Syed Nizamuddin Khadi, who died in a road accident that
took place on 14.11.2001 at 2.30 A.M. It is stated that on that day the
deceased along with the 2nd respondent herein was coming from
Koilkonda in a Jeep bearing No.AHX-3741 to go to Mahabubnagar,
and when they reached the limits of Damayapalli Village, the driver
of the jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner and lost control
over it due to failure of brakes. As a result of which, the Jeep turned
turtle towards left side of the road and the deceased and the driver
of the jeep died on the spot. The Police, Koilkonda, registered a case
in Crime No.67 of 2001 under Section 304-A of I.P.C. It is further
stated that the deceased was working as an Executive Engineer, I &
CAD Department, KLIS Division No.2, Nagarkurnool and was
earning Rs.14,521/- per month. Due to sudden death of the
deceased, the claimant lost her only source of income and suffered
lot of mental agony. Since the accident took place due to the rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep, the 2nd respondent
herein being the owner of the jeep and the appellant being the
insurer are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally to
the claimant.
In the claim petition, the appellant and the 2nd respondent
herein filed separate counters denying the allegations made in the
petition. The appellant contended in the counter that the offending
jeep is meant for personal use of it owner and hence he was not
supposed to carry passengers in the jeep and that the amount
claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and hence it is not liable
to pay any compensation to the claimant.
After considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
crime vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,89,000/-with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization under various heads viz., Rs.12,69,000/- towards loss of
dependency; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/-
towards loss of estate. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-
Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned
Counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the
Tribunal failed to see that the net income after deduction of all
allowances only has to be taken into account while computing the
loss of dependency; that the Tribunal failed to see that Schedule-II
has no application for the claims under Section 166 of M.V.Act as the
income exceeds Rs.40,000/- per annum and that the multiplier
applied by the Tribunal is on higher side and is liable to be reduced.
The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in
which the accident took place has become final as the same is not
challenged either by the Insurance Company or the owner of the
vehicle.
In view of the contentions raised on behalf of either side and
the material placed, the main question that arises for consideration is
whether for the purpose of deciding net monthly income of the
deceased, the amount of voluntary contributions he made towards
General Provident Fund etc., should be included or excluded from
his salary?
Admittedly, there is no dispute about of the salary income of
the deceased. As per salary certificate (Ex.A6), his monthly income
and deductions are as under:
Particulars Deductions
Pay 11,300.00 GPF 4,000.00
Spl. Pay 150.00 APGLI 150.00
D.A. 1,941.00 GIS 120.00
H.R.A. 1,130.00 Profn.Tax 100.00
Total 14,521.00 Total 4,370.00
So, from the above table, it is clear that except an amount of
Rs.100/- towards Professional Tax, rest of the amounts were
voluntarily contributed by the deceased for the welfare of his family.
In Mansvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others1 a
three Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed as under:
"While considering the issues of deduction of taxes,
contributions etc., for arriving at the figure of net monthly
income, held that while ascertaining the income of the
deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as
deductions towards GPF, Life Insurance premium,
repayments of loans etc. should not be excluded from the
income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone
should be considered to arrive at the net income of the
deceased."
In view of the judgment referred to above, the plea of the
learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that only net salary
income of the deceased, after deducting all the contributions, has to
be taken into consideration for calculating the loss of dependency
2014 ACJ 1416
cannot be accepted. After considering the evidence available on
record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 48 years
at the time of the accident. In view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the suitable
multiplier would be '11' as such, the Tribunal has rightly adopted
the multiplier '11'. Further, in the light of the decided case laws of
the Apex Court, under the heads of conventional charges and future
prospects, the claimant is entitled for more compensation, however,
since this is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, this Court is
not inclined to go into the other issues. Therefore, I see no reason to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal and that the appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
17.12.2021
Gsn/gkv.
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
