Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Telu Saroja 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6412 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 3432 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Reliance General

Insurance Company Limited, questioning the award and decree,

dated 31.10.2013 passed in O.P.No. 12 of 2011 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV

Additional District Judge, R.R. District (for short, the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are

referred to as per their array before the tribunal.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for

the death of the deceased, Telu Srinivas, who died in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 29.01.2010. According to the

claimants, in connection with his cloth merchant business, after

attending the works at Kakinada, while the deceased was

returning to Hyderabad, on 29.01.2010, at 3:00 p.m., when the

car reached Argalanu turning point on N.H. No. 5 within the

limits of P.S. Pentapadu, the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing

No. AP 37X 4788, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with

respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in a rash and

MGP, J Macma_3432_2014

negligent manner, dashed the Scarpio car. As a result, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

According to the claimants, the deceased was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month by doing cloth merchant business, aged

about 45 years, and therefore, they laid the claim for Rs.9.00

lakhs against the respondents towards compensation under

different heads.

Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No. 1, owner of

the lorry stood ex parte, the respondent No. 2 contested the

claim denying the averments of the claim petition, including the

age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that

the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the

claim petition.

After considering the claim, counter and the evidence,

both oral and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has

allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.8,62,000/-

towards compensation with interest at 7.5% thereon to be paid

by the respondents jointly and severally. Hence, the insurance

company filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of

compensation.

MGP, J Macma_3432_2014

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company contends inter alia that the tribunal did not consider

the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and

erroneously held that the accident had occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In fact, it is a

head-on collision and the accident took place due to the

contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and

therefore, the tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory

negligence on both the drivers. As regards the quantum of

compensation, it is contended that although there is no mention

of the name of the deceased as owner of the garments, the

tribunal erred in relying upon the registration certificate, Ex.A.6

for the purpose of determining the compensation. Although

there was no documentary evidence to prove the monthly

income of the deceased, the tribunal has erroneously fixed the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the claimants-respondents, has contended that the

compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal,

MGP, J Macma_3432_2014

considering the avocation and age of the deceased, is reasonable

and needs no interference by this Court. Even on the point of

contributory negligence, it is contended that the tribunal duly

considering the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A.1 & A.2 and

P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident, categorically held that

the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and therefore, the

said findings need no interference by this Court. Hence, the

learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

In this appeal, it is the main contention of the learned

Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the

accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part

of both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident and

therefore, the tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory

negligence on both the drivers. As seen from the record, Ex.A.1,

FIR, was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle basing

on the complaint given by V.R.O. of Prathipadu Village. As per

the contents of complaint, the cause of accident was the sudden

turning of the lorry by its driver. Further, after due

investigation into the crime, police laid the charge sheet against

the driver of the offending lorry stating that the accident

MGP, J Macma_3432_2014

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle and the driver was charged for the offence under

Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. That apart, P.W.2, the

eyewitness to the accident, clearly stated that the accident

occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry

by its driver. The Insurance Company did not take any steps to

summon the driver of the offending lorry to prove that there was

contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers, who is

the best person to speak in this regard. Further, no contra

evidence was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 2,

eyewitness to the accident. Therefore, considering the

evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 & A.2, FIR and charge sheet, the

tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to

the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, which

needs no interference by this Court.

As regards the quantum of compensation, although the

claimants claimed that the deceased was doing cloth merchant

business and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, as there was no

supportive evidence was adduced by the claimants, the tribunal

has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.7,500/-, based on Ex.A.6, TOT Registration Certificate, after

MGP, J Macma_3432_2014

deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses and duly

applying multiplier '14' considering the age of the deceased as

45 years, and by awarding conventional heads, the tribunal has

awarded the compensation to the claimants. In fact, the

tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal

expenses as there are four dependents. In these circumstances,

this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal cannot be said to be adequate. Therefore, I see no

reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal

is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the

award and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 05.12.2022 Tsr

MGP, J Macma_3432_2014

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 3432 of 2014

DATE:05-12-2022