Telangana High Court

R.Gobriya Gopal Naik And Anothr vs M/S. Reliance General Insurance ... on 29 October, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.2754 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil

Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No. 9 of 2011 dated 14.05.2013,

the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation.

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

as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners, on 27.04.2010 at about 2-00

p.m. while the deceased R.Ramesh was proceeding in Tata Ace

bearing No. AP.28.TV.1006 from Bachapally side to Reddy labs

side and when he reached near to Reddy labs, at the same time,

lorry bearing No.HR 38 P 9142 being driven by its driver came

in rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the Tata

Ace from opposite direction, as a result, he received grievous

injuries and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment and

while undergoing treatment, the deceased died. Hence the

claimants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2

filed counter disputing the manner of accident pleaded by the

claimants and also the age, avocation and income of the

deceased. It is further contended that the claim is exorbitant

and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the

following issues:

1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 27.04.2010 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. HR 38 P 9142 and whether the deceased R.Ramesh died due to the said accident?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what quantum and whether crime vehicle was owned by first respondent and insured with second respondent and what is the liability of respondents 1 and 2?

3) To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 and 2 were examined

and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of respondents, no

witnesses were examined, however, copy of insurance policy

was marked as Ex.B1.

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,47,000/-

towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of deposit.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-

Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has

submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6, established the fact that the

death of the deceased-R.Ramesh was caused in a motor

accident, the Tribunal awarded meagre amount.

10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1-Insurance Company sought to sustain the

impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering

the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation

and the same needs no interference by this Court.

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

of accident. However, on considering the evidence of PWs.1 and

2 coupled with documentary evidence available on record, the

Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to the

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

12. Here it is pertinent to state that originally the claim

petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1989.

But the tribunal without assigning any reason framed issue

under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and decided the issue

in favour of the petitioners. However, based on the evidence on

record, the Court can consider Section 166 instead of Section

163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In Bhupati Prameela and others

vs. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and others1, the

Division Bench of this Court held as under:

" Thus it appears that it is the duty of the Courts to do justice to the parties and while doing justice, if the technicalities come in the way, much importance need not be given to these technicalities because, ultimately, justice has to be done to the parties. Moreover, when sub-section(4) of Section 166 of the Act envisages that the Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act as an application for compensation under the Act, there is nothing wrong in treating an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act as an

(2011) 10 SCC 756

application under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the above and considering the object of the Act, we are of the view that the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Act."

In view of the above Judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court, the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor

Vehicles Act can be treated as an application under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act.

13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the

petitioners, the deceased was a labourer and was getting

Rs.4,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to his

family. The tribunal erred in considering the deceased as a

labourer and has treated the deceased as a student and taken

his notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. A perusal of

the entire record clearly shows that the deceased was a

labourer. Hence the income of the deceased can be taken as

Rs.4,000/- per month. Further, in light of the principles laid

down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the claimants are

entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his income, since the

deceased was aged above 20 years. Then it comes to Rs.5,600/-

. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income is to be

2017 ACJ 2700

deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then the

contribution of the deceased would be Rs.2,800/- per month.

Since the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of

accident, the appropriate multiplier in the light of the judgment

of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation3 would be "18". Then the loss of dependency

would be Rs.2,800/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.6,04,800/-. In addition

thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are

granted Rs.33,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the compensation is

awarded as follows:

Sl.No.               Description of the item       Amount awarded
1.            Loss of dependency (Rs.2,800/- x           6,04,800-00
              12 x 18 = Rs.6,04,800/-)
2.            Conventional heads                           33,000-00
                             Total:                  Rs.6,37,800-00

14. With regard to the liability, the tribunal rightly held that

by the time of accident, the insurance policy of the crime

vehicle was in force and as such, respondent Nos.1 and 2 being

owner and insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.1,47,000/- to Rs.6,37,800-00. The enhanced amount shall

carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of this order till the

date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2

jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be