Telangana High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co ... vs Maloth Kalavathi, Khammam Dist 6 ... on 24 January, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3149 OF 2014
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the
order and decree dated 07.03.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.1115 of 2011
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions
Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-
Additional District Judge, Khammam.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2011 at about
10:30 p.m., the deceased Maloth Ramdas was proceeding to
Koyagudem OC on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 01-M-5033.
A tipper bearing No.AP 16-TV-5229 was parked on the centre of
the road negligently without any parking lights. The deceased failed
to notice the parked tipper vehicle and dashed from its back side, as
a result of which he received bleeding injuries. He was shifted to
S.C.Company Limited Main Hospital, Kothagudem and he
succumbed injuries while undergoing treatment. A case in Cr.No.27
of 2011 was registered for the offence punishable under Section
304-A by Police, Yellandu against the driver of the tipper.
The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of accident.
The claimants, who are dependants of the deceased, filed the claim
petition seeking compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after examining the oral and documentary
evidence on record, allowed the M.V.O.P., in part awarding a total
compensation of Rs.17,47,445/- along with costs and interest
@ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-insurance company has filed this
appeal.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that
the decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and
probabilities of the case; that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the
liability on the appellant-insurance company; that the amount awarded
is exorbitant and the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal
is also not correct; that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having
valid driving licence at the time of accident; that the Tribunal ought to
have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at
50% instead of 30%. Accordingly, the insurance company prayed for
setting aside the impugned order in the O.P.
6. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has
rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.19,000/-, which is take
home salary of the deceased and after deducting one-third towards his
personal expenses i.e., Rs.6,333/- had arrived at income of
Rs.1,52,004/- per annum (Rs.12,667/- x 12). After applying the
multiplier '16' which is appropriate to the age of the deceased
has rightly assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.24,32,064/-.
The said finding needs no interference. Coming to the aspect of
contributory negligence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
contributory negligence at 30% i.e., Rs.7,29,619/- and after the
deducting and same, had arrived at Rs.17,02,445/- (Rs.24,32,064 -
Rs.7,29,619/-) and the same also needs no interference. Though
learned standing counsel for the insurance company contended that
the Tribunal assessed the contributory negligence of the deceased at
30% instead of 50%, the insurance company has not even let in any
evidence in that regard by way of examining the driver or owner of
the crime vehicle.
7. On a perusal of the entire material on record, the order and
decree of the Tribunal, I am of the considered view that there are no
valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.
8. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
Date: 24.01.2022
Lrkm
