Telangana High Court

The New India Assurance Company ... vs Gundavaram Ranga Rao 2 Ots on 10 November, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

           M.A.C.M.A. Nos.2521 of 2012 and 530 of 2014

COMMON JUDGMENT:


      These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 2014 filed by the claimants for

enhancement of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.2521 of 2012 filed

by the Insurance Company are directed against the very same

award, dated 21.03.2012, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1324 of 2006 on the

file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I-

Additional District Judge, Warangal.


      For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.


      The facts, in issue, are as under:


      The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased G. Kiran

Kumar, filed a petition under Section 166 (i) (c) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the

death of G.Kiran Kumar in a road accident that took place on

29.10.2005. It is stated that on 29.10.2005 at about 3.30 A.M., the

deceased left his office for home after completion of his duties in

Wipro Industries at Pune on his Karishma Hero Honda Motor Cycle

bearing No.MH-12/TC-4161 and when he reached Devlali Super

Market on Hinjwadi-Wakad Road, one Tata Indica Car bearing

No.MH-14-V-7496 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
                                   2



manner dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased while

overtaking it. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and

received multiple fracture injuries. Immediately after the accident,

the deceased was shifted to Rubi Hall Hospitals, Pune, where the

deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. On a

complaint, the Police, Hinjwadi registered a case in Crime No.109 of

2005 against the driver of the Car. It is stated that prior to the

accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning

Rs.13,377/- per month as he was working as Associate in Wipro

Industries, Pune.    On account of death of the deceased, the

petitioners lost their son. The 1st respondent being the owner of the

vehicle, 2nd respondent being insurer of the vehicle and the 3rd

respondent being the local insurer of the vehicle are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation.

The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex aparte.

The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments in the

petition including the involvement of the Car in the said accident. It

also disputed the manner in which the accident took place, the age,

income and avocation of the deceased. It was further contended that

the compensation claimed is highly excessive, exorbitant and out of

proportions and also denied that the vehicle was insured with it and

as such the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and

prayed to dismiss the petition.

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.MH- 14-V-7496 by its driver or due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself in riding his motor cycle bearing No.MH-12/TC-4161?

2) What was the age and income of the deceased by the date of his death?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

4) To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A18 and Exs.X1 to X5 were marked. On

behalf of the 3rd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but

Ex.B1 was marked.

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal

held that the driver of the 1st respondent was responsible for the

accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.14,41,200/- with

interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization to be paid by the respondents.

Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the

Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased not the age of

his mother for assessing the loss of dependency in view of the law

laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another1. He also submits that as the deceased

was having stable income and in view of his age, the Tribunal ought

to have added 50% of the income towards future prospects as held

by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others2. He further submits that the claimants,

who are the parents of the deceased, ought to have been granted

filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each in view of the judgment of the

Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. Therefore, prayed to enhance the

compensation.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance company would

submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive

and exorbitant; that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to

the claimants without any material evidence; that the Tribunal ought

to have seen that the deceased was unmarried and as the claimants

are the parents, the deduction towards personal expenditure should

be 50% as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma

case (1 supra) and not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal, as such,

the impugned award is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. He

further submits that the award of the Tribunal on loss of consortium

and loss of estate is excessive and contrary to law laid down by the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (1 supra) and prayed to set aside

the impugned award. In support of his contention, he relied upon

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2017 ACJ 2700

(2018) 18 SCC 130

the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company

Ltd. V. Somwati and others4.

The undisputed facts are that the deceased was a bachelor

aged 27 years, working as Associate in Wipro Industries, Pune, at

the time of incident. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance

Company did not dispute the manner in which the incident took

place and also the negligence of the driver of the Car in causing the

incident. He only disputes the manner in which the calculations

were made in respect of compensation awarded to the claimants.

A perusal of the impugned award would show that the

Tribunal failed to award compensation towards loss of future

prospects. As regard the income of the deceased, the case of the

claimants is that the deceased was working as an Associate in Wipro

Industries, Pune and used to earn Rs.13,377/- per month. In order

to prove the same, the claimants got examined the Senior Executive

in Wipro as P.W.3, who deposed that the deceased was a Software

Engineer and used to earn Rs.13,377/-. Ex.A9 and Ex.X3 are the pay

slips which were placed on record in support of their version. A

perusal of the same would show that the deceased would get salary

of Rs.13,377/- per month.

The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants would

contend that since the deceased was having fixed salary, he was

entitled for 40% towards loss of future prospects, in view of the

(2020) 9 SCC 644

judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranaysethi and others

(2 supra).

As per the record, the age of the deceased was 27 years on the

date of accident and as he was working as an Associate in Wipro

Industries, Pune, and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranaysethi and others (2 supra), 40%

for loss of future prospects on his personal income has to be added.

Accordingly, If 40% is calculated towards loss of future prospects,

the total amount would be Rs.13,377/- + 5,350/- = 18,727.80

rounded off to Rs.18,728/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, his

personal living expenses shall be 50% of the said amount, i.e.,

Rs.9,364/-. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal

Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others5 when the deceased was a

bachelor, the age of the deceased has to be considered while

determining the multiplier and not the age of the younger parent as

contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance

company. Since the age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of

the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the decision

reported in Sarla Verma case (1 supra). Adopting multiplier 17, his

total loss of earnings would be Rs.9,364/- x 12 x 17, which comes to

Rs.19,10,256/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the

conventional heads i.e., Rs.50,000/- appears to be reasonable and

2015 (6) SCC 347,

remains unchanged. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.19,60,256/-.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company

submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as

compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now

awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible

under law. The learned Counsel for the claimants would submit

that the claimants filed I.A.No.1 of 2014 seeking enhancement of the

claim from Rs.15.00 lakhs to Rs.21.00 lakhs and the same is pending.

In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another6, the Apex Court

while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh7 held as under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above,

the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been

claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of

legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the

benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.

Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced

from Rs.14,41,200/- to Rs.19,60,256/-. The enhanced amount will

carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the