Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Ahamed Bee And 4 Others on 7 April, 2022
Bench: M.Laxman
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1471 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order dated 29/11/2005 in
O.P.No.920 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 and 2
herein allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,82,000/-
with interest at 7.5% p.a.
None appeared for the appellant/insurer. Heard the learned
counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.
Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a claim application
seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of
their deceased son Uppari Mallaiah, who died in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 15/06/1999. According to the claimants,
the deceased was working as a cleaner and when he was repairing
the lorry along with the driver, another lorry bearing No.AP9U 2776
came from Kurnool side at high speed in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against the lorry which was being repaired by the
deceased and the driver. As a result of which, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and he died while undergoing treatment
in the hospital. A case in crime No.69 of 1999 was registered
against the driver of the crime lorry by Annasagar Police. The
claimants pleaded that the deceased was a cleaner and was the
sole breadwinner of the family.
The third respondent herein, who is the owner of the crime
lorry, remained ex parte. The appellant/insurer filed a counter
opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the
compensation.
The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the accident occurred on 15/06/1999 at about
1700 hours on N.H-7 within the limits of
Pothulamadugu sivar, due to rash and negligent
driving of Lorry bearing No.AP9U 2776 by its driver,
and whether it resulted in death of Uppari Mallaiah @
Mallesh?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount, and from whom?
3. To what relief?
During enquiry, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1
and an eye-witness was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-7
were marked on their behalf. No oral or documentary evidence
was adduced by the appellant herein. On a consideration of the
evidence available on record, the Tribunal held on issue No.1 that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
crime lorry bearing No.AP9U 2776 by its driver. On issue No.2,
the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.2,82,000/- and accordingly, an award was
passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved
by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal.
The main contention of the appellant as can be seen from
the grounds of the appeal is that the Tribunal erred in taking the
age of the deceased into consideration while estimating the loss of
income, instead of taking the age of the mother of the deceased,
as the deceased was unmarried. It is not disputed that the
deceased was aged 22 years and was unmarried. The Tribunal
has applied multiplier 17 taking the age of the deceased into
consideration and estimated the loss of income at Rs.2,72,000/-
taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. As
the deceased was stated to be working as a cleaner, the said
income notionally taken at Rs.2,000/- per month cannot be
considered to be unreasonable. The Tribunal has duly deduced
1/3 thereof towards personal expenses. However, as the
deceased is unmarried, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of
the mother into consideration instead of the age of the deceased.
It is not disputed that the mother of the deceased was aged 45
years. The appropriate multiplier for the said age as per the
decision of the Apex Court in Sarala Varma and others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation[1], is 14. Applying the said multiplier, the
amount of compensation towards loss of income works out to
Rs,2,24,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty four thousand only).
The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand
only) towards funeral expenses, transportation charges etc., and
the said amount does not call for any interference. In the
circumstances, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation
of Rs,2,34,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and thirty four thousand only)
with interest a 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The amount
awarded is modified accordingly.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in
part as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
23rd June, 2010
SKM
[1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC)
