Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co Ltd., ... vs A Mamatha, Hyderabad 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7019 Tel

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

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 2468 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the ICICI Lombard General

Insurance Company Limited, questioning the award and decree,

dated 24.01.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2530 of 2010 on the file

of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief

judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are

referred to as per their array before the tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 163-A of the

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for

the death of the deceased, Alimela Ravi @ Ravi, who died in a

motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.09.2010. According

to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was

attending to his work in the godown of Ragi and Ragi

Enterprises for shifting the huge drums of cable with the help of

crime vehicle i.e., Crane bearing No.AP 28 AT 1978, in the

process of lifting a cable drum, the drum slipped from its hook

and fell on the deceased, who was on the floor of the godown.

As a result, the deceased crushed under the cable drum and

MGP, J Macma_2468_2015

died on the spot. Since the accident occurred due to negligence

of the Operator of the Crane, owned by respondent No.1 and

insured with respondent No. 2, the claimants filed the claim-

petition seeking compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs towards

compensation under various heads.

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

the offending vehicle, 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.

5. After considering the claim, counter and the evidence,

both oral and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has

allowed the O.P. awarding a sum of Rs.9,16,200/- towards

compensation with interest at 7.5% thereon to be paid by the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence, the

insurance company filed the present appeal challenging the

quantum of compensation as well as its liability to pay the

compensation.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

MGP, J Macma_2468_2015

7. The contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant, insurance company are in three fold.

Firstly, inasmuch as the claim-petition was filed under

Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal ought to

have awarded the compensation basing on the structural

formula as enunciated in the II Schedule of the Act.

Secondly, the accident was occurred not in the public

place and the policy coverage to use the crime vehicle as tool ie.,

Crane is not covered under the provisions of the Act, and

therefore, the claim-petition itself is not maintainable as the

owner of the premises i.e., M/s. Ragi and Ragi Enterprises was

not made as party respondent to the O.P.

Lastly, though there are four dependents, the Tribunal

has wrongly deducted personal expenses of the deceased at

1/5th instead it ought to have deducted 1/4th. Even the

Tribunal, under the head of conventional heads has awarded

excessive amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife and

Rs.1,00,000/- to claimant Nos.2 and 3 and Rs.25,000/-

towards funeral expenses.

MGP, J Macma_2468_2015

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondents, claimants, has contended that since the

accident occurred while using the offending vehicle and due to

the negligence on the part of the Operator of the offending

vehicle, the Tribunal has rightly answered the issue No.1

holding that the accident occurred was only due to the negligent

operating of the offending vehicle and basing on the said

findings, proceeded to award compensation treating the O.P. as

has been filed under Section 166 of the M.V.Act.

9. It is to be noted that although the O.P. was filed under

Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, in view of its findings arrived on

issue No. 1 to the effect that the accident had occurred while

using the offending vehicle and on account of rash and

negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, the Tribunal

has rightly proceeded with the O.P. as has been filed under

Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

10. As regards the second contention of the learned Standing

Counsel for the appellant, although the accident occurred

within the premises of M/s. Ragi and Ragi Enterprises, under

whom the deceased was working as Labour, the insurance

MGP, J Macma_2468_2015

company cannot escape its liability on the premise that the

accident occurred in the private place but not in the public

place when the policy covered by Ex.B1 was very much in force.

Therefore, the said contention is rejected.

11. As regards the quantum of compensation, as rightly

pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, as there are four

dependents, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards

personal deducting but not 1/5th. Even under the conventional

heads, the Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation.

Even though the claimants have asserted that the deceased was

earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal has restricted to

Rs.4,500/- per month. However, considering the prevailing rate

of minimum wages at the relevant point of time, this Court is

inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per

month. Duly deducting 1/4th therefrom towards personal

expenses of the deceased, the net monthly contribution of the

deceased to the family comes to Rs.3,750/-. Since the deceased

was 32 years, the appropriate multiplier is '16'. Therefore, duly

applying the multiplier '16', the loss of dependency comes to

Rs.3,750/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.7,20,000/-. That apart, the

claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional

MGP, J Macma_2468_2015

heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1.

Further, considering the fact that the claimant Nos. 2 and 3,

who are minor children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to

award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to them under the head of

parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram

@ Chuhru Ram and others2. Thus, in all, the claimants are

entitled to only Rs.8,77,000/-. Therefore, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.9,16,200/- to

Rs.8,77,000/-.

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part as

indicated above. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is

not interfered with. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 27.12.2022 Tsr

1 2017 ACJ 2700

(2018) 18 SCC 130

MGP, J Macma_2468_2015

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

M.A.C.M.A. No. 2468 of 2015

DATE: -12-2022