Telangana High Court

United India Insurance Company ... vs T. Venkatesh on 1 August, 2022

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

            M.A.C.M.A.Nos.440 of 2020 & 229 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT :

        These two appeals are arising out of the same order dated

05.12.2019, in O.P.No.2962 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad. MACMA.No.440 of 2020 is filed by the Insurance

Company, to set aside the orders passed in O.P.No.2962 of 2017,

disputing the liability of the Insurance Company.        Whereas,

MACMA.No.229 of 2021 is filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation as well as enhancement of interest

granted by the Tribunal.


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

arrayed in the O.P.


3.      The O.P. is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one

T. Mahendra in the accident that occurred on 10.09.2017 at about

19.30 hours due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-09-AR-3030.
                                  2
                                                                 GAC, J
                                     MACMA.Nos.440 of 2020 & 229 of 2021




4.    Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

5.    It is pertinent to mention that initially, basing on the

complaint of the father of the deceased, the FIR was registered

against an unknown vehicle for the death of the deceased under

Section 304-A of IPC. During the course of investigation, the 1st

respondent being the owner and driver of Maruthi Car bearing

No.AP-09-AR-3030, appeared before the Police and confessed

about the accident, for which, he was arrayed as accused in the

criminal case i.e. Crime No.243 of 2017 on the file of Gandhi

Nagar Police Station. The Police, after completion of

investigation, filed a charge sheet against the 1st respondent in

C.C.No.158 of 2018 on the file of X ACMM, Secunderabad.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company

contended that the claimants colluded with the 1st respondent and

implicated the crime vehicle i.e. the Maruthi car in order to get

compensation for the death of the deceased, as the crime vehicle is

insured, and thus, disputed the liability of the Insurance Company.

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.440 of 2020 & 229 of 2021

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants

contended that the Tribunal has granted interest only @ 6% per

annum, but they are entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum as per

the decisions of the Apex Court. It is further contended that the

income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.18,000/- while

calculating the loss of dependency as the deceased was a

Postgraduate student at the time of death. In this connection, the

learned counsel for the claimants has relied on the judgment of the

Apex Court in V. Mekala v. M. Malathi & another1, wherein, the

income of an Intermediate student was taken as Rs.10,000/- per

month and contended that as the deceased in the present case was a

student of M.A. (Economics), his income should be taken as

Rs.15,000/- per month.

8. The Tribunal, after considering the entire oral and

documentary evidence on record, gave a finding that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle on 10.09.2017 and granted compensation of Rs.24,60,000/-

to the claimants i.e. the parents of the deceased.

2014 LAWSuit (SC) 371

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.440 of 2020 & 229 of 2021

9. The appreciation in these appeals would be with respect to

the liability, income of the deceased and as to the interest granted

by the Tribunal.

10. It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred on

10.09.2017 in which, the deceased died on the spot. Initially, the

father of the deceased i.e. PW-1 gave a complaint to the Police on

11.09.2017 about the death of the deceased due to dashing of an

unknown vehicle. PW-1 is not the eyewitness to the accident. The

accident occurred at 7.30 p.m. near Kattamaisamma temple,

Tankbund. The evidence of PW-2 disclose that he along with the

deceased and other friends, witnessed the accident and PW-2

himself got injured in the accident. From the evidence of PW-2, it

can be construed that a Maruthi Car was dashed against the

deceased and PW-2, due to which, they got injured and when

shifted to the hospital, the Doctors declared Mahendra as brought

dead and he took treatment for the injuries. It is relevant to

mention that FIR was not registered on the date of accident i.e.

10.09.2017, but it was registered at the instance of PW-1 on

11.09.2017. Though there is a delay in registering the FIR, it is not

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.440 of 2020 & 229 of 2021

fatal to the case of the prosecution. Ex.A-2 is the postmortem

report of the deceased dated 11.09.2017, which clearly disclose

that the deceased died due to head injury. Ex.A-3 is the charge

sheet, which clearly disclose that during the course of

investigation, the 1st respondent/M.Jaya Krishna surrendered before

the Police on 04.10.2017 and confessed about committing the

offence, and basing on the postmortem report of the deceased, a

charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent. The Tribunal,

after considering that the 1st respondent voluntarily surrendered

before the investigating officer and also considering the

cross-examination of PW-1, came to a conclusion that the accident

occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the offending

vehicle.

11. As per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, whoever

ascertains a particular fact, it is for them to prove. It is the theory

of the Insurance Company that in order to get compensation from

the Insurance Company, the vehicle was falsely implicated and the

1st respondent surrendered before the investigating officer. If the

said fact is true, it is for the Insurance Company to establish the

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.440 of 2020 & 229 of 2021

same before the Tribunal. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by

the Insurance Company before the Tribunal to prove that the crime

vehicle was planted to gain compensation and that there is nexus

between the 1st respondent and the claimants, to benefit the

claimants. In the absence of proper evidence, this Court cannot

believe such theory/contention of the Insurance Company.

Moreover, Ex.B-1 is the Insurance Policy, which was in force as on

the date of the accident in respect of the crime vehicle i.e. Maruthi

Car, and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay

compensation to the claimants and the appeal of the Insurance

Company is liable to be dismissed.

12. The learned counsel for the claimants filed a calculation

memo contending that the income of the deceased has to be taken

as Rs.18,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased is a

postgraduate student. In the decision of the Apex Court in V.

Mekala v. M.Malathi (1 supra), the income of the deceased, who

was a student of intermediate, was taken as Rs.10,000/- per month

for computation under the head of loss of income. Exs.A-7 to

A-10 are the certificates relating to the educational qualifications of

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.440 of 2020 & 229 of 2021

the deceased, which clearly disclose that the deceased was studying

II Semester M.A. (Economics) in Krishnadevaraya University,

Ananthapur.

13. The Tribunal have taken the income of the deceased as

Rs.15,000/- per month, but did not give any reasons for fixing the

said amount. Hence, it is proper to take the notional income of the

deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month as per the proposition laid down

in V. Mekala v. M.Malathi (1 supra).

14. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the

Tribunal has awarded the following amounts under different heads;

      1.   Loss of dependency -        Rs.16,20,000/-
      2.   Future prospects   -        Rs.8,10,000/-
      3.   Loss of Estate     -        Rs.15,000/-
      4.   Funeral expenses   -        Rs.15,000/-

Thus, granted an amount of Rs.24,60,000/- towards compensation.

15. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended

that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the future prospects at

50% instead of 40%, whereas, it is contended by the learned

counsel for the claimants that the parents of the deceased are also

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.440 of 2020 & 229 of 2021

entitled for consortium and prayed to grant appropriate amounts

under the conventional heads.

16. As per Ex.A-7 i.e. the Secondary School Certificate, the

deceased was born on 04.03.1996 and died on 10.09.2017,

therefore, he was aged 22 years as on the date of the accident and

the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.10,000/- per month

as per the proposition laid down in V. Mekala v. M.Malathi (1

supra). As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2, the

multiplier applicable is '18' for the age group of 21 to 25 years.

The annual income of the deceased is Rs.1,20,000/-. If 40% future

prospects is added, it would come to Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.1,20,000 +

Rs.48,000). Admittedly, the deceased was an unmarried person

and as per the judgment in Sarla Verma's case (2 supra), 50% is

to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, and thus,

the contribution of deceased to the family would come to

Rs.84,000/- (Rs.1,68,000 - Rs.84,000). If the multiplier '18' is

applied, it would come to Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.84,000 X 18).

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.440 of 2020 & 229 of 2021

17. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under the following heads;

      1.   Loss of dependency          -      Rs.15,12,000/-
      2.   Loss of Estate              -      Rs.15,000/-
      3.   Funeral expenses            -      Rs.15,000/-
      4.   Consortium (2 claimants)    -      Rs.80,000/-
           TOTAL                       -      Rs.16,22,000/-

18. Accordingly, MACMA.No.440 of 2020 is dismissed and

MACMA.No.229 of 2021 is partly allowed. The claimants are

entitled for a total compensation of Rs.16,22,000/- with costs and

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till

the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 (owner of

the Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-09-AR-3030 and its Insurance

Company) jointly and severally within two months from the date of

receipt of this order. Both the claimants are equally entitled for the

said compensation and they are permitted to withdraw their

respective shares of compensation along with interest and costs, as

the accident took place in the year 2017.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.