Reliance General Insurance Co ... vs Bilkuis Sultana
2022 Latest Caselaw 2464 Tel

       THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                          and
      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3112 of 2016
JUDGMENT:     (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)



      This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, is filed by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance

Company Limited, challenging the order, dated 19.10.2015,

passed in MVOP No.570 of 2010 by the XIII Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.


2.    Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1

to 11/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP and perused the record.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company would contend that as on the date of the subject

death, the deceased was 51 years old and the appropriate

multiplier applicable is '11'. But the Court below erroneously

took the multiplier '13'. Further, the Court below deducted 1/6th

of the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses.

The deceased had 12 dependants. Hence, the Court below

ought to have deducted 1/5th of the earnings of the deceased

towards his personal expenses. Further, the Court below Dr.SA, J & JS, J MACMA No.3112 of 2016

granted an exorbitant amount of Rs.2,71,710/- under the

conventional heads, i.e., loss of consortium, loss of love and

affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. As per the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the

respondent Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 are entitled for

Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads and ultimately prayed

to reduce the compensation awarded by the Court below by

taking the above submissions into consideration.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP contended that the

Court below is justified in taking the age of the deceased as 50

years as on the date of the subject accident and applying

multiplier '13' to the age of the deceased. There is documentary

evidence to that effect. Furthermore, the Court below is

justified in granting an amount of Rs.2,71,710/- under the

conventional heads following the authoritative decisions

prevalent at that point of time. The Court below rightly granted

a compensation of Rs.46,00,000/- with interest @ 7% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of recovery to the

respondent Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP, by Dr.SA, J & JS, J MACMA No.3112 of 2016

taking all the relevant factors into consideration. There are no

circumstances to interfere with the impugned order and

ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order

under challenge.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased-Mohd. Moulana died

in the subject accident that occurred on 09.09.2009, due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto bearing

registration No.AP-28-Y-8033. Further, both the learned

counsel did not dispute with regard to the Court below adding

30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

6. In view of the above submissions, the only point that

arises for determination in this appeal is whether the

compensation of Rs.46,00,000/- granted by the Court below to

the respondent Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP, is

liable to be reduced as prayed for?

POINT:

7. To substantiate their claim, the respondent Nos.1 to

11/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP got examined PWs.1 to 3 and

got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Dr.SA, J & JS, J MACMA No.3112 of 2016

Company, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were

marked. Ex.X1 was marked on behalf of the Court.

8. The Court below, basing on the oral and documentary

evidence on record, took the age of the deceased as 50 years as

on the date of the subject accident, took the net salary of the

deceased as Rs.25,564/-, added 30% of the income towards

future prospects, deducted 1/6th of the amount towards personal

expenses and calculated the annual income of deceased as

Rs.3,32,300/-, applied multiplier '13' and calculated the total

loss of dependency as Rs.43,20,290/-. The Court below further

added an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses,

Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/-

towards loss of love and affection, Rs.46,710/- towards loss of

estate, Rs.3,000/- towards clothing and accordingly awarded the

compensation at Rs.46,00,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of recovery.

9. As seen from the material placed on record, the date of

birth of the deceased is 10.06.1959 and the date of occurrence

of the subject accident is 09.09.2009. Thus, the deceased was

aged 50 years 3 months as on the date of the subject accident.

Therefore the Court below correctly took the age of the Dr.SA, J & JS, J MACMA No.3112 of 2016

deceased as 50 years as on the date of the subject accident.

The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased

(50 years) as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 is '13'. Therefore,

applying multiplier '13' to the age of the deceased as on the

date of subject accident by the Court below, cannot be faulted.

Further, there is no dispute that the deceased was a

Government servant as on the date of his death in the subject

accident. Therefore, the Court below righty added 30% of

actual income towards future prospects. Further, there is no

dispute with regard to the Court below taking the salary of the

deceased as Rs.33,233/- per month as on the date of his death.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company contended that since the deceased had 12

dependants, the Court below ought to have deducted 1/5th of

the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses

instead of 1/6th. Admittedly, the deceased had 12 dependants.

As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's

case (1 supra), where the number of dependant family members

exceeds six (6), one-fifth (1/5th) of amount is required to

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. However,

AIR 2009 SC 3104 Dr.SA, J & JS, J MACMA No.3112 of 2016

the Court below deducted 1/6th of amount towards personal

expenses of the deceased, which is erroneous.

11. Further, the Court below granted an amount of

Rs.2,71,710/- under the convention heads, i.e., loss of

consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc., which is on

higher side. In a recent decision in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the Hon'ble

Apex Court granted an amount of Rs.70,000/- under the

conventional heads, i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate,

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/-

towards funeral expenses. Hence, the Court below granting an

amount of Rs.2,71,710/- under the conventional heads requires

variation.

12. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on

record, this Court deems it appropriate to take the monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.33,233/-. As observed supra,

1/5th of the amount is deducted towards personal expenses of

the deceased. Thus the monthly earnings of the deceased

comes to (Rs.33,233/- minus Rs.6,647/-) Rs.26,586/- and the

annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs.26,586/- x 12)

(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 Dr.SA, J & JS, J MACMA No.3112 of 2016

Rs.3,19,032/-. As observed supra, the appropriate multiplier

applicable to the age of the deceased is '13'. Thus, the total

loss of earnings would come to (Rs.3,19,032/- x 13)

Rs.41,47,416/-. Following the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Pranay Sethi's case (2 supra), we grant an amount of

Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads, i.e., Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium

and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the

respondent Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP are

entitled for a compensation of Rs.42,17,416/- rounded off to

Rs.42,20,000/- (Fourty Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand only). The

Court below granted interest @ 7% per annum on the amount

awarded as compensation from the date of petition till the date

of recovery, which is just and reasonable.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the

order, dated 19.10.2015, passed in MVOP No.570 of 2010 by

the Court below, reducing the compensation from

Rs.46,00,000/- to Rs.42,20,000/-. The said amount of

compensation carries interest at the rate of 7% per annum from

the date of petition till realisation, besides costs. On deposit of

the compensation, the respondent Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.1 Dr.SA, J & JS, J MACMA No.3112 of 2016

to 11 in MVOP are permitted to withdraw the entire amount

along with the accrued interest. The other terms of the order

under challenge remain unaltered. The apportionment of

compensation shall be as under:

Rs.17,00,000/-

Respondent No.1 (first wife) : (including loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/-) Respondent No.8 (second wife) : Rs.9,00,000/-

Respondent Nos.2 to 7 and 9 to 11 : Rs.1,80,000/- each (sons and daughters)(9 in all) TOTAL : Rs.42,20,000/-

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 09th June, 2022 Bvv