Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. ... vs Kodem Swaroopa And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6407 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                      M.A.C.M.A.NO.321 of 2022
JUDGMENT :

This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance

Company against the Judgment and order of the learned

I Additional District Judge, Khammam in M.V.O.P.No.633 of 2018

dated 06-12-2021. The present appeal is filed by showing the

claimants/petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.633 of 2018 as respondents

No.1 and 2. The owners of the vehicles involved in the accident

are shown as respondents No.3 and 4.

2. As could be seen from the order passed by the learned

I Additional District Judge, in M.V.O.P. No.633 of 2018, it seems

the said petition was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein under

Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.40 Lakhs for

the death of one K.Praveen Kumar on account of a road traffic

accident. Respondents No.1 and 2 are parents of said Praveen

Kumar, herein after will be referred as deceased and it was their

case before the trial Court that on 21-01-2016, the deceased along

with his family members engaged a vehicle i.e., TATA ACE Magic

bearing No.AP 36TV 1552 to visit Komaravelly Temple and after

their worshipping the God at Komaravelly, they returned at 8.00 2 SSRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.321 of 2022

p.m., on the next day i.e., 22-01-2016. When they reached

Rampoor X Roads, the driver of one DCM van bearing No.AP 28TD

7345 drove the van in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner

dashed the said TATA ACE Magic resulting the death of deceased

Praveen Kumar and two others on the spot and causing injuries to

the other passengers of the auto. A complaint was presented

before police Rajagopalpet and the same was registered as Crime

No.8/2016.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed M.V.O.P.No.633 of

2018 for compensation of Rs.40 Lakhs. Their claim was resisted

by the respondents including the present appellants. The

Respondent Insurance Company filed its counter. The Court below

framed three issues and during the trial, the respondent

No.1/petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and one Singam Vijay

Bhaskar was examined as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A17 were marked on

behalf of the petitioners. The respondents i.e., the appellant

herein and owners of the above referred vehicle did not adduce

any oral or documentary evidence.

4. The trial Court having appreciated the oral evidence

and documents marked by the respondent/petitioner allowed the

petition and awarded a sum of Rs.28,95,000/- with costs and 3 SSRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.321 of 2022

interest by fixing responsibility on all the respondents including the

present appellant.

5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, Insurance

Company i.e., present appellant filed this appeal on the following

grounds.

The Tribunal committed an error while quantification of

compensation. The Tribunal did not consider the contributory

negligence on the part of the driver of vehicle in which the

deceased was travelling. The driver of the said vehicle which is a

goods vehicle, used it as a mode of transportation and allowed

passengers to travel in the vehicle, thereby, contributed for the

cause of accident. The appellant questioned the grant of interest

@ 7.5% on the future prospects of the deceased on the ground

that they have to deposit the future prospects before the Court

and the same will be deposited in lump sum prior to the

occurrence of future events. Therefore, awarding interest on the

future prospects amounts to grant of double interest on the

compensation. The appellant while placing reliance on the

Judgment between "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay

Sethi & Others"1, further claimed that the maximum amount that

can be awarded under the head of Non-pecuniary Damages is only

2017 ACJ 2700 4 SSRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.321 of 2022

Rs.30,000/- in the case of death of a bachelor but the Court below

awarded Rs.80,000/-, thereby the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Therefore, according to the appellant, the main

grievance is against the sanction of interest on the future

prospects which is supposed to be deposited by the Insurance

Company even before the occurrence of future events and about

the grant of Rs.80,000/- as non-pecuniary damages instead of

Rs.30,000/-.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also

the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

8. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the trial Court committed an error by allowing the claim of respondents No.1 and 2/petitioners No.1 and 2 by awarding interest on the future prospects and that the Court below granted excess amount under the head of pecuniary damages, thereby the order to that extent is liable to be set aside?

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that the Court below having considered all the aspects including

the employment and future prospects of the deceased and by

following the Judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case

inclined to add 40% of the present income of the deceased as

future prospects and having applied correct multiplier awarded

interest @ 7.5% on the entire amount including the future 5 SSRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.321 of 2022

prospects. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the

event of appellant depositing the entire amount, it is nothing but

depositing the compensation amount including the future

prospects even before the actual occurrence of the future events.

Therefore, no interest can be awarded on future prospects. He has

also argued that as per the orders of Apex Court in Pranay Sethi

referred above, maximum amount of Rs.30,000/- can be awarded

under non-pecuniary damages for the Court below granted

Rs.80,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for

modification of the order. In support of his contention, the learned

counsel has relied on a Judgment between the "Oriental

Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Champabati Ray & 5

Ors.2 The learned counsel has submitted that in this Judgment,

the High Court of Gauhati was pleased to observe that no interest

can be awarded on future prospects.

10. The learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/claim

petitioners No.1 and 2 having placed reliance on Judgment

between "Sidram vs Divisional Manager United Insurance

Co., Ltd.,3 has submitted that in this Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex

Court was pleased to award interest on the medical expenditure,

MACApp.378/2017 of Gauhati HC

2022 SCC Online SC 1597 6 SSRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.321 of 2022

therefore, it is quite clear that even though the amount includes

future events or future prospects, the same shall carry interest.

11. Even though the appeal is filed on various grounds, the

main focus of the appellant is on contributory negligence by the

deceased and awarding interest against future prospects. The

appellant has claimed that a goods vehicle was used as Transport

vehicle and the driver allowed passengers, thereby it amounts to

contributory negligence. But the appellant could not place any oral

or documentary evidence in support of said claim. Therefore, the

said plea is not available to the appellant.

12. The appellant did not dispute the calculations arrived

at by the trial Court or towards adding the future prospects based

on the Judgment reported in Pranay Sethi case. The objection

raised by the appellant is about awarding Rs.80,000/- as Non-

pecuniary damages. In fact in the Judgment referred by the

petitioner in Pranay Sethi, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to

observe in Para No.60 (VIII) in the following terms :

13. A reasonable figure on conventional heads namely loss

of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be

Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The

above said amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every 3 years.

                                     7                                SSRN,J
                                                   M.A.C.M.A. No.321 of 2022

14. Therefore, in view of the above observation, the

respondents/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/-

towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenditure.

The Court below awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- which includes

consortium of both the parents. Therefore, I feel the Court below

did not award any excess amount under the head as claimed by

the appellant. The above said amount need not be modified or

varied.

15. The next objection is about the awarding interest on

the future prospects. In the latest Judgment placed by the

respondents/claimants referred above, the Hon'ble Apex Court was

pleased to arrive at a sum of Rs.21,78,600/- which includes a sum

of Rs.2,16,000/- which was awarded towards future medical

expenditure. While awarding the said amount, the Hon'ble Apex

Court granted interest @ 6% per annum on the total compensation

including the future medical expenses. Therefore, the appellant

cannot claim that interest need not be or cannot be awarded on

future events. In fact while calculating the loss of income of a

deceased, a particular multiplier will be applied to arrive the

income which the deceased likely to earn if he is alive. The said 8 SSRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.321 of 2022

amount will be awarded along with interest. The same analogy

has to be applied in case of future prospects also.

16. In the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court which is

binding on this Court, the Court below rightly awarded interest on

the compensation as well as future prospects, thereby there is no

necessity to interfere with the Judgment and the appeal is

accordingly liable to be dismissed.

17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                __________________________
                                JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date: 05.12.2022
PLV
 9                     SSRN,J
    M.A.C.M.A. No.321 of 2022