Telangana High Court
New India Assurance Company ... vs A Brahmanandam Another on 19 October, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
MACMA. No. 1959 of 2016
and
Cross Objections (SR) 33312 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company and the cross
objection is filed by the Claimants against the award of the Court of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum IX Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad in OP.No.2142 of 2011 dated 09.02.2016.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that in the
motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.05.2011 at about 8.00 p.m,
opposite R.T.A Office, Tirumalgherry, Kharkana Main road, Hyderabad,
the petitioner along with his wife i.e., deceased A.Rani as his pillion rider
was proceeding from Tirumalgherry side towards Musheerabad on his
Kinetic Honda Bearing No. AP-10-J-1205 when the private bus Bearing
No.KA-14-A-4786 came from behind and dashed against the Kinetic
Honda of the petitioner and due to the sudden impact, both the petitioner
and his wife fell down from the Kinetic Honda and the bus ran over the
wife of the petitioner, who died on the spot. A case in Crime No.84 of
MACMA.No.1959 of 2016
2
2011 under Section 304-A of IPC was booked against the driver of the
crime vehicle. The petitioner therefore, filed claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of his
wife in the motor vehicle accident. The owner of the vehicle was made as
opposite party respondent No.1 and the Insurance Company was made as
respondent No.2.
3. It was stated that the deceased was running a school in the name
and style of St. Francis Educational Society, Opposite IDPL Colony,
Sumithranagar Colony, Balangar, Hyderabad and she was the sole
correspondent of the said school and she used to get net profit of
Rs.25,000/- per month and used to contribute her total earnings for the
maintenance of the petitioner and his family.
4. It is submitted that the deceased was very intelligent, hard working
and sincere to her duties and the school was very famous in the area and it
was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001
before the Registrar of Societies, Ranga Reddy District vide Registration
No.1046 of 2005 dated 23.06.2005 and due to her death, there is no other
person to look after the school which would have otherwise continued
MACMA.No.1959 of 2016
running for at least another 15 to 20 years. It was submitted that the
deceased was the only earning member in the family and due to her death,
the entire family is suffering. The respondent Insurance Company
however denied the allegations about the age and income of the deceased,
the reason for injuries sustained by the petitioner as alleged in the petition.
However, the insurance coverage of the bus was admitted. The Tribunal
held that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, i.e., the bus and therefore, the
death of the deceased is due to the said accident. The Tribunal adopted the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- and also awarded
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11 by taking the age of
the deceased as 55 years. However, it did not allow any compensation
towards loss of future prospects.
5. The Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income towards personal
expenses and accordingly granted a compensation of Rs.17,75,000/-.
Against the said award, both the Insurance Company as well as the
claimant have filed appeal and cross objection respectively before this
Court.
MACMA.No.1959 of 2016
6. The Insurance Company has taken the ground that the Tribunal has
erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- without
any basis and further that there was no proof that school was closed due to
the death of the deceased. Therefore, according to the Insurance
Company, the Tribunal ought to have taken only notional income. It is
further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to see that the husband of the
deceased was not dependant on the deceased and therefore there was no
dependency of the husband on the income of the deceased. The company
is also challenging the multiplier of 11 adopted for the person aged 55
years.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted that
the Tribunal ought to have granted higher compensation for the death of
the deceased. It is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50%
towards personal expenses of the deceased and wrongly taken
contribution to the Cross Objector on the lower side and thus granted less
compensation. It is also prayed that compensation towards loss of future
prospects also ought to have been granted by the Tribunal and further that
the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased on the higher side and
multiplier on the lower side and thus resulted in lesser compensation
MACMA.No.1959 of 2016
being awarded to the claimant. Therefore, it is prayed that the
compensation has to be enhanced suitably.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it
is noticed that there is no dispute about the age of the deceased being 55
years at the time of the accident. There is also no dispute about her
establishing and running a school and earning a monthly income of
Rs.25,000/- which has been accepted by the Tribunal. Therefore, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal in
adopting the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/-. As regards
the necessity of the dependency of the husband on the income of the
deceased for grant of compensation for her death is concerned, this Court
is not in agreement with this argument of the Insurance Company. The
compensation is being awarded for the loss of life and not to provide
support to the dependant. Therefore, this argument of the Insurance
Company is rejected. Further, as regards the spousal consortium, it is
noticed the tribunal has granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium
as against 40,000+10% enhancement thereon as has been directed by the
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pramay
MACMA.No.1959 of 2016
Sethi and others1 towards spousal consortium. Therefore, the loss of
consortium awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced accordingly. The
other conventional expenses which have been granted by the Tribunal are
also suitably increased as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pramay Sethi and others2
(1 supra). The petitioner is also eligible for compensation towards loss of
future prospects @10%. However, the 1/3rd of the income of the deceased
shall be reduced towards her personal expenditure. Therefore, the
compensation by the Tribunal is modified as under.
9. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the claimant is
entitled to the following amounts:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Income (25,000 x 12) Rs.3,00,000 per annum
(2) Future prospects @ 10% Rs.30,000 per annum
(3) Deduction towards Rs.1,10,000 i.e. 1/3rd of 3,30,000
Personal expenses
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2017) 16 SCC 680
MACMA.No.1959 of 2016
(4) Total income Rs.2,20,000 i.e. 2/3rd of 3,30,000
(6) Loss of future income Rs.24,20,000
(7) Funeral expenses Rs.16,500(Rs.15,000+10% thereof)
(8) Loss of estate Rs.16,500(Rs.15,000+10% thereof)
(9) Loss of spousal consortium Rs.44,000(40,000+10% thereof)
Total compensation awarded Rs.24,97,000/- along with interest
@7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till
payment.
10. In the result, the award dated 09.02.2016 in O.P.No.2142 of 2011
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is modified by awarding a total
compensation of Rs.24,97,000/- (Rupees twenty four lakhs and ninety
seven thousand only) with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon
from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation against the
respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. As the compensation payable to
the claimant as per law was found to be higher than the original claim of
Rs.15,00,000/-, the enhanced compensation of Rs.9,97,000/- is granted
subject to payment of Court fee thereon by the claimant. The respondents
MACMA.No.1959 of 2016
(owner and insurance company) are directed to deposit the compensation
amount awarded within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, after giving credit to the deposit of amount, if any, already
made. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same
without furnishing any security.
11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed without costs.
12. The Cross Objection is allowed accordingly without costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the MACMA and the
Cross Objection stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 19.10.2022
pss
