Telangana High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd., ... vs Bade Swaroopa, Medak Dist 5 Others on 10 April, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NOS.1477 OF 2015 & 2945 OF 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A No.1477 OF 2015
&
M.A.C.M.A No.2945 OF 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals
are being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both
these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 17.01.2014
in O.P No.188 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Siddipet
(Hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
2. In M.A.C.M.A No.2945 of 2019 the
Appellants/Claimants had challenged the judgment with regard to
the quantum of compensation and prayed to enhance the same and
in M.A.C.M.A No.1477 OF 2015 the Respondent No.2/Insurance
Company had challenged the judgment by contending that the
Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence leading to
the accident; and prayed to the set-aside the same.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in M.A.C.M.A
No.2945 of 2019 are discussed hereunder and the parties are
hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
2 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NOS.1477 OF 2015 & 2945 OF 2019
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.07.2011 at about
9.00 p.m. one Bade Yadagiri (the deceased), after completing his
duty, was returning to Marpadaga Village on his bike bearing
No.AP23-A-9948 and when he reached in front of Maithri Vanam
near Sabitha Petrol bunk, the Crime Vehicle lorry bearing No.AP16-
TU-394 was parked on the road without any indicators i.e. parking
lights or radium stickers and due to the focus and strong lights
from opposite coming vehicles, unable to see the crime vehicle, the
deceased dashed the parked lorry from behind and due to that he
received a severe head injury and died on the spot. The accident
occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the crime
vehicle as he failed to take precautions like indicators, parking
lights etc. Hence, the petitioners filed the claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of the death of the
deceased.
5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd
respondent filed counter denying the petition allegations and
contested the matter.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined
and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1
was examined and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.
3 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NOS.1477 OF 2015 & 2945 OF 2019
7. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal
allowed the claim petition in part granting a sum of Rs.8,22,000/-
towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals
are filed as stated supra.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount as
compensation and also erred in considering the wrong age group of
the deceased and prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the
compensation under various heads as per the present law.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 had contended that the Tribunal failed to consider
that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased,
and the income of the deceased was taken on the higher side and
inter alia contended that the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be
sustained and is liable to be set aside.
11. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal
elaborately discussed the aspect of negligence and has rightly come
to the conclusion that the driver of the crime vehicle acted in a
negligent manner and was solely responsible for the death of the
deceased and as such, invoking the principle of vicarious liability,
4 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NOS.1477 OF 2015 & 2945 OF 2019
the owner of the crime vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the
claimants and the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, being the
insurer of the crime vehicle is also liable to pay the same. The
contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the
Tribunal did not consider the rough sketch of the scene of offence
which shows that the vehicle was parked towards left side, is not
acceptable as it is clearly seen from the sketch that the crime
vehicle was not parked towards the extreme left and it is observed
from the evidence that the driver of the crime vehicle did not take
any measures for safe parking. Thus, no interference is required
with the issue of negligence.
12. Coming to the grievance of the petitioners that the
compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal was meager, it is
noticed that the Tribunal did not calculate the loss of dependency
correctly. Exs.A3 and A6 reveal that the age of the deceased was 28
years at the time of the accident and the same is to be considered.
Further, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under
conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and
others 1and Magma Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
5 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NOS.1477 OF 2015 & 2945 OF 2019
Chuhru Ram 2. However, this court is not inclined to interfere or
alter the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning
Rs.5,500/- per month as the Tribunal was considerate enough to
assess the income of the deceased as stated above despite there
being no material placed before it by the petitioners that the
deceased was working as a driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month. However, future prospects are to be added to the income of
the deceased.
13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,22,000/- towards
compensation to the petitioners under various heads and the same
is interfered with in the manner as hereunder:
Head Amount
Loss of dependency Rs. 12,56,640/-
(Rs.5,500/- + 40% - 1/5thx 12 x 17)
Loss of Spousal Consortium Rs.44,000/-(Rs.40,000/- + 10%)
Loss of Estate Rs.16,500 (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)
Funeral expenses Rs.16,500 (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)
Loss of Parental Consortium Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each
to petitioners No.2 and 4)
Loss of Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/-
Total Rs. 13,45,640/-
22018 Law Suit (SC) 904
6 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NOS.1477 OF 2015 & 2945 OF 2019
14. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs. 13,45,640/- as against the awarded amount
of Rs.8,22,000/-. Though the claim of the petitioners is
Rs.9,00,000/- only, invoking the principle of just compensation,
and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh 3, and in a catena of decisions, this Court
is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
However, the petitioners shall pay the deficit Court fees on the
enhanced compensation.
15. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A No. 2945 of 2019 is allowed,
enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,22,000/-to Rs.13,45,640/-
(Rupees Thirteen Lakh, Forty Five Thousand, Six Hundred and
Forty only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit
the same after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if
any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. Likewise, the petitioners are directed to pay
the deficit Court fee within a period of (01) month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall
MANU/SC/0480/2013.
7 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NOS.1477 OF 2015 & 2945 OF 2019
be apportioned among the petitioners in the same manner and ratio
as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
M.A.C.M.A NO. 1477 OF 2015
In view of the findings in M.A.C.M.A No. 2945 of 2019, the
M.A.C.M.A No. 1477 of 2015 filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No. 1477 of 2015 is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
10th day of April, 2023.
PNS/BDR
