Telangana High Court

B. Nagamani vs P. Masthyagiri on 26 July, 2022

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

               M.A.C.M.A.Nos.245 and 478 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT :

        These two appeals are arising out of the same order dated

13.01.2020, in O.P.No.1212 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad. MACMA.No.245 of 2021 is filed by the claimants

seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.13,11,768/- to

Rs.30,00,000/-. Whereas, MACMA No.478 of 2021 is filed by the

Insurance Company, to set aside the orders passed in O.P.No.1212

of 2016 disputing the liability of the insurance Company.


2.      For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

arrayed in the O.P.


3.      The O.P. is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one

B.Prakash in the accident that occurred on 10.02.2016 at about

11.48 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Auto bearing No.AP-23-X-4135.
                                   2
                                                                 GAC, J
                                             MACMA.Nos.245 & 478 of 2021



4.    Heard both sides and perused the material on record.


5.    The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company

contended that the Driver of the 1st respondent-Auto was not

holding valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, and

therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation

in view of the violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B-1/Policy.

It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Insurance

Company that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier '18' instead

of '17' and as all the medical bills are filed by the claimants, there

is no scope of further enhancement in this case. It is further

contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that

inspite of issuing Ex.B-2/legal notice dated 01.10.2016, the 1st

respondent did not furnish valid driving licence or valid permit and

fitness of the Auto bearing No.AP-23-X-4135 and hence, the

Tribunal ought to have given a finding that the 1st respondent was

not holding valid driving licence and ought to have exonerated the

Insurance Company from the liability.

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.245 & 478 of 2021

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants

contended that the claimants are entitled for a higher compensation

and the Tribunal erred in not granting amount towards pain and

suffering and other expenses as the deceased underwent treatment

in the hospital for a period of 40 days and therefore, prayed to

grant appropriate compensation under the other conventional

heads.

7. There is no dispute as to the manner of accident. Ex.A-4 is

the salary certificate of the deceased issued by Blue Birds

Enterprises, Bhongir, dated 05.06.2016, which clearly disclose the

income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month. Admittedly, the

author of Ex.A-4 was not examined before the Court for the

reasons best known to the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal have

rightly fixed the Notional salary of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per

month in the absence of proper evidence. It is the further

contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the

Tribunal has not granted any amount towards pain and suffering,

transportation, extra-nourishment and attendant charges except for

the medical bills. Even the record reveals that no amount was paid

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.245 & 478 of 2021

under the above said heads. In a case of injuries alone, the

amounts will be granted under the above said heads, but the O.P. is

filed claiming compensation for the death of the deceased and not

for the injuries.

8. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & others1 and in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others2, if any violations

are made by the owners or drivers of the crime vehicles, the

insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the victims

and recover the same from the concerned owners, if the policy is in

force. Ex.B-1 is the insurance policy issued to the crime vehicle

bearing No.AP-23-X-4135, which clearly disclose that the policy is

in existence from 19.10.2015 to 18.10.2016 and premium was paid

for the 3rd parties, by the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, the

date of accident is 10.02.2016, therefore, the Insurance Company is

liable to pay compensation to the claimants and recover the said

amount from the owner i.e. the 1st respondent.

(2004) 3 SCC 297

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.245 & 478 of 2021

9. It is relevant to mention that claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the

parents of the deceased and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the unmarried

sisters of the deceased. The father of the deceased was examined

as PW-1. His evidence clearly disclose that the deceased used to

draw a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and the deceased was

unmarried. The claimants further claimed an amount of Rs.3,000/-

towards damage of clothes, Rs.10,000/- towards damage of

motorcycle, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. But, there is

no documentary evidence on record to prove the damage of

motorcycle, damage of clothes or for transportation charges of the

dead body. In the case of death, while calculating the

compensation, the conventional heads are, loss of dependency, loss

of estate, funeral expenses and consortium, which also include the

future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, the question of

granting compensation under the other heads as pleaded by the

counsel for the claimants, would not arise in case of death though

the death was subsequent to the treatment undergone by the

deceased, that too, in the absence of proper oral or documentary

evidence before the Tribunal.

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.245 & 478 of 2021

10. Admittedly, Exs.A-5 to A-8 disclose that the deceased

underwent treatment in Aditya hospitals, Uppal and incurred a sum

of Rs.3,74,568/- towards medical expenses, for which,

compensation was already granted by the Tribunal under the head

of 'medical expenses'. PW-3 is the Billing Executive of Aditya

Hospital and his evidence disclose that the deceased underwent

treatment for head injury in their hospital from 10.02.2016 to

25.02.2016 i.e. for a period of 15 days for which, they have issued

bills. It is pertinent to mention that the Doctor who treated the

deceased, was not examined before the Tribunal and inspite of it,

the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,74,568/- towards medical expenses.

In the absence of either the documentary evidence or oral evidence

as to the treatment undergone by the deceased, granting of amounts

under the conventional heads would not arise, except for pain and

suffering.

11. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an amount of

Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering as the deceased underwent

treatment in the hospital for a period of 15 days.

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.245 & 478 of 2021

12. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the

Tribunal has awarded the following amounts under different heads;

         1.   Loss of dependency -        Rs.6,48,000/-
         2.   Future prospects   -        Rs.2,59,200/-
         3.   Loss of Estate     -        Rs.15,000/-
         4.   Funeral expenses   -        Rs.15,000/-
         5.   Medical expenses   -        Rs.3,74,568/-

Thus, granted an amount of Rs.13,11,768/- towards compensation.

13. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 28 years as on the

date of the accident and the income of the deceased can be taken as

Rs.6,000/- per month. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation &

another3, the multiplier applicable is '17' for the age group of 26

to 30 years. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.72,000/-. If

40% future prospects is added, it would come to Rs.1,00,800/-

(Rs.72,000 + Rs.28,800). Admittedly, the deceased is an

unmarried person and as per judgment in Sarla Verma's case (3

supra), 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses of

deceased, and thus, the contribution of deceased to the family

would come to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.1,00,800 - Rs.50,400). If the

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.245 & 478 of 2021

multiplier '17' is applied, it would come to Rs.8,56,800/-

(Rs.50,400 X 17).

14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under

the following heads;

      1.   Loss of dependency          -     Rs.8,56,800/-
      2.   Loss of Estate              -     Rs.15,000/-
      3.   Funeral expenses            -     Rs.15,000/-
      4.   Medical expenses            -     Rs.3,74,568/-
      5.   Pain and Suffering          -     Rs.15,000/-
      6.   Consortium (4 claimants)    -     Rs.1,60,000/-
           TOTAL                       -     Rs.14,36,368/-

15. Accordingly, MACMA.No.478 of 2021 is dismissed and

MACMA.No.245 of 2021 is partly allowed. The claimants are

entitled for a total compensation of Rs.14,36,368/- with costs and

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till

the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 (owner of

the Auto bearing No.AP-23-X-4135 and its Insurance Company)

jointly and severally within two months from the date of receipt of

this order. The 2nd respondent shall pay the above said

compensation and shall recover the same from the 1st respondent.

All the claimants are equally entitled for the said amount and they

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.245 & 478 of 2021

are permitted to withdraw their shares of compensation, as the