Bharati Axa General Insurance ... vs Nijjani Yashoa And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 374 Tel

                THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.1340 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance

Company, questioning the order and decree, dated 16.08.2012

passed in O.P.No.80 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy (for short, the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred

to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

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

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the

death of the deceased Nijjani Madhu, who died in a motor vehicle

accident. It is stated that on 01.05.2011 while the deceased, along

with his cousin Ranjith Kumar, were going on TVS Victor bearing

No.AP 23 T 3680 from their village to Medak and when they

reached B.T. Road leading to Medak from Ramayampet, one Bolero

Vehicle bearing No.AP 23 X 3403 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed and dashed the TVS Victor, as a

result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died

on the spot. The claimants filed aforesaid O.P. against respondent

Nos.1 and 2, being owner and insurer of the aforesaid Bolero

Vehicle, respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for

the death of the deceased.

GSD, J Macma_1340_2015

Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte

and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the

claim petition. It is also contended that the accident was occurred

only due to the negligent on the part of the rider of TVS Victor and

that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the

Bolero Vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to

pay any compensation and the amount claimed is excessive and

prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the accident dated 01.05.2011 was due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero bearing No. AP 23 X 3403 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined

and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no

oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of policy was marked.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the

Bolero and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- together

with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

GSD, J Macma_1340_2015

date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-

Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

Heard both sides.

The only contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel

for the insurance company is that since the deceased was a

bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards his

personal and living expenses instead of 1/3.

A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal has framed

the Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero Vehicle, to which

the Tribunal has categorically observed that the accident has

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Bolero Vehicle and has answered in favour of the claimants and

against the respondents. With regard to Issue No.2 as to whether

the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount

and from whom, a perusal of the material available on record

would show that the deceased was aged about 21 years and the

appropriate multiplier is '18' in view of the judgment of the Apex

Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another1, but the Tribunal has applied the multiplier as '17'. In

the light of the decided cases laws of the Apex Court under the

heads of future prospects and conventional heads and if the

multiplier '18' is adopted after deducting 50% of the amount

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GSD, J Macma_1340_2015

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the

claimants are entitled for more compensation. Since this is an

appeal filed by the Insurance Companies and in the absence of no

cross appeal or cross-objections filed by the claimants, this Court

is not inclined to go into the other issues and this Court finds that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

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

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

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 01.02.2022 gkv