Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs M. Venkateswarulu And 3 Others on 25 April, 2023
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MA CMA No.46 of 2009
and
MA CMA No.2649 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since both these appeals arise out of the same award, they are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. MA CMA No.46 of 2009 is preferred by the Insurance Company
aggrieved by the award and decree dated 10-07-2008 in O.P.No.1231
of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief
Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. MA CMA No.2649 of 2012 is filed
by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. Kota
Subba Rao and learned counsel for the claimants Mr. S.
Subrahmanyam and perused the record.
4. The brief facts are that on 24-02-2006 at 11-30 AM, while the
deceased M.L.A.Nageswar Rao was returning home after discharging
his duty on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 28A 4151 and when he
reached near Bairamalguda Cross Roads, a lorry bearing No.AEE
6045 came from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed in wrong direction, hit the motorcycle of
the deceased, due to which, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the
spot. The claimants being parents and wife of the deceased have filed
2 LK, J
MA CMA.No.46 of 2009 & 2649 of 2012
OP., claiming compensation of Rs. 28,38,628/- for the death of the
deceased in the accident.
5. Respondent No.1-owner filed counter denying the manner of
accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle
and the death of the deceased, his age, avocation and income. It is
stated the claim is highly excessive.
6. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter stating that
the deceased himself without observing the traffic rules drove the
motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and
contributed for the cause of the accident. It is stated that the claim is
highly excessive.
7. The Tribunal, on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence,
has granted compensation of Rs.20,14,000/- with interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
driver of lorry, as on the date of accident, was not having valid driving
licence and on behalf of the Insurance Company, R.W.1, the Manager,
was examined. He submits that as per the Motor Vehicle Inspector's
report, the driving licence of the driver expired on 28-01-2006 and the
accident occurred on 24-02-2006 and as such, the Insurance Company
is not liable to pay compensation. He further submits that the Tribunal
has failed to take that aspect into consideration. He further submits that
the Tribunal has observed that it is also not clear from the record that
the insured has knowledge about the non-renewal of licence by the
3 LK, J
MA CMA.No.46 of 2009 & 2649 of 2012
driver of lorry and there is no evidence on this aspect and hence, the
liability of the insurance company cannot be totally exonerated and if
the owner of the vehicle is found to be guilty of negligence or he had
entrusted the vehicle to a person, who is not having valid driving
licence, it is open to the Insurance Company to file appropriate
proceedings against the owner of the vehicle and recover the amount
paid by it to the claimants in separate proceedings. Learned counsel
further submits that the Insurance Company has proved that on the
date of accident, the driver of lorry was not having valid driving licence.
However, it was observed that the Insurance Company has not
examined the owner of the vehicle whether he has knowledge of the
same or not. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal ought
to have directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover the
compensation from the owner of the vehicle. He also submits that the
compensation that was granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
9. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that though the gross
salary of the deceased was at Rs.16,667/-, the Tribunal took only a
sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. He submits that instead of applying the
multiplier '17', the Tribunal has applied '16.51' and granted meager
compensation. He further submits that the compensation that was
granted by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable.
10. In this factual backdrop, the point that arises for determination is
whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is
just and proper.
4 LK, J
MA CMA.No.46 of 2009 & 2649 of 2012
11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, as per the salary
certificate of the deceased that was marked, his salary was at
Rs.16,667/- per month at the time of accident. As there are no
statutory deductions, this Court is inclined to take the said income. As
the age of the deceased was 29 years, 40% future prospects i.e.,
Rs.6,666/- can be added and it would come to Rs.23,333/-. As the
claimants are three in number, 1/3rd amount i.e., Rs.7,777/- should be
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then it would
come to Rs.15,556/-. As the multiplier that is applicable to the age of
the deceased is '17', loss of dependency would come to
Rs.15,556/-x12x17=31,73,424/-. Apart from that a sum of Rs.44,000/-
each i.e., Rs.1,32,000/- is granted to the claimants being parents and
the wife of the deceased towards consortium and Rs.33,000/- towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate is granted. Thus, in total, the
claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.33,38,424 /- for the
death of the deceased in the accident.
12. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied on the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Mekala v. M.
Malathi and another1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, taking
into consideration the date of the accident and till the appeal
reached to the Apex Court, has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards cost of litigation. Hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is
awarded towards cost of litigation.
2014 (5) ALD 42 (SC)
5 LK, J
MA CMA.No.46 of 2009 & 2649 of 2012
13. In the light of the above discussion, the claimants are entitled for
compensation under the following heads;
1. Loss of dependency -- Rs.31,73,424/-
2. Consortium -- Rs. 1,32,000/-
3. Funeral expenses -- Rs. 33,000/-
4. Legal expenses -- Rs. 10,000/-
____________
Total: Rs.33,48,424 /-
__________
14. In the result, MA CMA No.2649 of 2012 is allowed enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs. 20,14,000/- to Rs.33,48,424 /-.
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The claimants shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amount.
(c) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. On such deposit and on payment of Court fee,
the claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation as
apportioned by the Tribunal without furnishing any security.
15. M.A.C.M.A.No.46 of 2009 filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
6 LK, J
MA CMA.No.46 of 2009 & 2649 of 2012
16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in both the appeals, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
25th April, 2023.
sj
