M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs K.Balamani,Sec And 039 Bad And 5 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6228 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.2386 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in

M.V.O.P.No.21 of 2013 dated 23.01.2015, the appellant/Insurance

Company has filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners, on 23.11.2012 at about 10-

00 a.m. while the deceased was proceeding from ECIL towards

Thurkapally on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 09 N 7600 and

when he reached the outskirts of Kajipet village on Thurkapally

ECIL, BT Road, one paddy harvester bearing No. AP 24 N 8171

being driven by its driver came from extreme right side in rash

and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the

motorcycle, due to which the petitioner sustained grievous

injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to

Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment but he died while

undergoing treatment on the same day at about 1-40 p.m.

According to the petitioners, the deceased was running dry

cleaners and laundry shop and was earning Rs.15,000/- per

month. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are

owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of

the petition.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is

further contended that the compensation claimed by the

petitioners is excessive.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in the death of the deceased due to any rash or negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., paddy harvester bearing registration No. AP 24 N 8171 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. Heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellant-

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and the learned

Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5-appellants. Perused the

material available on record.

8. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.15,21,200/- towards compensation to the

appellants-claimants against the respondents herein who are

owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally,

along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of petition till realization, as against the claim of Rs.10 lakhs.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company has submitted that though the petitioners failed to

produce any evidence to show the income of the deceased, the

Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-

per month and awarded Rs.15,21,000/- which is very

excessive.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5

submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, and Exs.A.1 to A.5, established the fact that the

death of the deceased-K.Venkatesh @ Venkat was caused in a

motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

11. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner

of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e.,

paddy harvester bearing No. AP 24 N 8171. However, the

Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled

with the documentary evidence available on record, rightly held

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the paddy harvester. Now the only dispute is

enhancement of compensation.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was

running laundry shop and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

However, as there is no income proof, the Tribunal has rightly

taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month.

But the Tribunal added 50% of his income towards future

prospectus instead of 40%. Hence, in light of the principles laid

down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are

entitled to the future prospects @ 40% since the deceased was

aged about 32 years at the time of accident. Then it comes to

Rs.8,400/- (6,000 + 2,400 = 8,400). Since the deceased left as

many as five persons as the dependants, 1/4th of his income is

2017 ACJ 2700

to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then

the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.6,300/- (8,400 -

2,100 = 6,300) per month. Since the deceased was aged about

32 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of

the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation2 would be "16". Then the loss of

dependency would be Rs.6,300/- x 12 x 16 =Rs.12,09,600/-.

In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the

claimants are granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the

Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further the petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 who are minor children of the deceased are also

entitled to filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per the

Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram

Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled

for Rs.13,66,600/-.

13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by reducing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.15,21,000/- to Rs.13,66,600/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be

payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The amount

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

of compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants-

claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The amount

shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall pay the

deficit court fee. On such deposit of compensation amount by

the respondents, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the

same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 29.11.2022 pgp