Telangana High Court
M/S Universal Sompo General ... vs Kapu Anuradha 6 Others on 15 February, 2021
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
MACMA.No.2658 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the
award dated 05.11.2012 in OP.No.654 of 2010 passed by the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District
Judge, Karimnagar.
2. The facts of the case are as under:
On 21.04.2010, in the afternoon hours, when the deceased,
Kapu Venkat Raghu, was proceeding from Siddipet to Hyderabad in his
Maruti 800 Car bearing No.AP 10 AL 3982, at about 14.30 hours, when
he reached the outskirts of Thurkapally near Jyothishmath
Engineering College, the respondent No.1 drove Bolero Car bearing
No.AP 10 AS 9901 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and
dashed the car of the deceased in the opposite direction, as a result of
which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot.
The Police, Shamirpet, registered a case in Cr.No.80 of 2010 under
Section 304-A IPC against the respondent No.1 and later filed charge
sheet. On the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 47 years.
He was working as an Architectural Engineer and earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month and maintaining his family. The respondent
No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle, the respondent No.2 is the
owner of the vehicle and the respondent no.3 is the insurer of the
offending vehicle.
3. A common counter was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2
denying the negligence of the respondent No.1 and attributing
negligence to the deceased. However, it is stated by them that since
the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3,
the compensation, if any, awarded should be paid by the respondent
No.3 - insurance company.
4. The respondent No.3, insurance company, in its counter denied
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
Further it is stated that since there is collision between two vehicles,
the accident might have been occurred due to the negligence of both
the drivers. The deceased or his insurance company is liable for
contributory negligence. The age of the deceased is disputed.
The deceased was not having driving license. The compensation
claimed is excessive.
5. The claimant No.1, the wife of the deceased was examined as
P.W.1 and an eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2.
Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was
examined on behalf of the respondent No.3 and Exs.B1 to B3 were
marked. The tribunal, after taking into account the oral and
documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.9,76,000/- as
against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-.
6. Sri K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted that the compensation cannot be awarded as a bonanza.
There is no proof of income of the deceased. The income of the
deceased was taken as Rs.12,000/- per month, which is on the higher
side. Even if the deceased is treated as a skilled person, his income
should not be taken more than Rs.8,000/-. Since the deceased is an
Engineering graduate, he has to be treated as a skilled labourer.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the tribunal
below erred in ignoring the negligence on the part of the deceased.
He also relied upon the decision in NEW INDIAN ASSURANCE CO.
LTD. v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KURNOOL1; ORIENTAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. D. KIRAN KUMAR2 and RAJ RANI
v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.3.
7. Per contra, Sri. Ch. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 to 3, submitted that the negligence on the part of
the offending vehicle is clearly proved through the evidence of P.W.2
and Exs.A1 and A2. The tribunal below fixed the income of the
deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month since he was an Architectural
Engineer, which is authenticated by Exs.A7 and A10.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - insurance
company and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
9. P.W.2 is the eye witness to the accident and he stated that on
21.04.2010, while he was going to Siddipet from Hyderabad at about
2.30 PM, when he reached Jyothishmathi College of Engineering,
the offending Bolero Car bearing No.AP 10 AS 9901 overtook his car in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Maruti Car of the
deceased from opposite direction as a result of which the inmate of the
car died on the spot. He stopped his vehicle and noticed that the
deceased is his friend Mahesh's brother and as such, he informed him
about the incident over phone and on his arrival, they went to the
police station and gave a report. The evidence of P.W.2 corroborates
the contents of the Ex.A1 (FIR) and Ex.A2 (Charge Sheet). It is clear
from the evidence of P.W.2 that there is no negligence on the part of
the deceased. Thus, the deceased or his insurance company is not
liable for contributory negligence. The judgments (supra) relied on by
the learned counsel fro the appellant are not applicable to the facts of
2008 (6) ALT 561
2007 (6) ALD 261
2009 ACJ 2003 SC
the case since there is no contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased in the light of the clear and unimpeachable evidence of
P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the incident.
10. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal
below pointed that the claimants have not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. However,
considering the fact that the deceased is an Engineering graduate,
the tribunal below took the minimum income and fixed the income of
the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, which cannot be found fault
with. More so, since the deceased is a qualified Architectural Engineer,
considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PRANAY SETHI4, if future prospects at
40% is added, the fixation of Rs.12,000/- per month does not appear
to be on the higher side. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant that the compensation is being given as a bonanza is
not correct.
In view of the above discussion, the civil miscellaneous appeal is
dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
February 15th, 2021
DSK
(2017) 16 SCC 680
