Telangana High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. ... vs Ausala Sachin on 27 December, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1242 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy for the
appellant-insurance company and Sri. N.Srushman Reddy
learned counsel for respondents-claimants.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/
insurance company challenging the award passed by the
Chairman, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in
M.V.O.P.No.380 of 2020, dated 30.11.2022, thereby seeking to
set-aside the award against the insurance company.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 06.07.2020 at 10.30 a.m., while the Smt. Ausala
Dhanalaxmi (hereinafter referred to 'deceased'), was proceeding
from Aryanagar to Subashnagar to attend her office on her
Scooty bearing registration No.TS-16-EK-4093 and when she
reached Court chowrastha, one Ashok Leyland mini goods
vehicle bearing registration No.TS-16-UB-3527 came from
LNA,J
behind in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooty of
the deceased. Due to which, deceased fell down on the road and
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to
Medicover Hospital, Nizamabad, where she succumbed to
injuries on 08.07.2020 while undergoing treatment. The Police, I
Town P.S., Nizamabad registered a case in Crime No.239/2020
under Section 337 IPC and later altered to 304-A IPC against
the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimants, i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein , who
are children of the deceased, have filed claim petition against
owner, driver of the vehicle and insurance company under
Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest
from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
6. The deceased was aged about 41 years as on the date of
accident and was Government employee and earning
Rs.50,000/- per month and the deceased used to contribute
her earnings to the claimants for their maintenance and due to
the accident, the lives of claimants became miserable and father
LNA,J
of the claimants died long back and the claimants lost their
mother at the tender age.
7. The respondent No.3 herein, who is the owner of the
offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.
8. The appellant-Insurance Company written statement
denying all the allegations in respect of the accident and as to
the age of deceased, avocation, earning capacity, health
condition and the dependency of the claimants. It is further
contended that appellant did not receive any report in form-54
as per Section 158(6) from the concerned Police Station within
30 days from the date of the accident and prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
i) Whether the deceased in this case by name Smt.
Ausala Dhanalaxmi died due to injuries sustained in the
accident which took place on 06.07.2020 at about 10.30
hours at Court chowrastha, Nizamabad ?
ii) Whether the accident in this case took place due to
rash and negligent driving of driver of Ashok Leyland
Mini goods vehicle vide TS-16-UB-3527?
LNA,J
iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from which
respondents ?
iv) To what relief ?
10. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the
claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were
marked. On behalf of the appellant-insurance company, no oral
evidence was adduced, but the copy of the insurance policy was
marked as Ex.B1 with consent.
11. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of Ashok Leyland
Mini goods vehicle bearing registration No.TS-16-UB-3527 and
awarded compensation of Rs.45,05,472/- along with interest @
8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. The owner of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.3
herein and appellant are jointly and severally liable to pay the
same compensation amount.
12. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned
counsel for appellant-insurance company submitted that the
LNA,J
Tribunal ought to have seen that even though the age of the
deceased, as per the crime documents, was 41 years at the time
of accident, as per Ex.A11-service register of the deceased, the
date of birth of the deceased was shown as 24.04.1975. As
such, as on the date of the accident, the deceased has already
crossed 45 years and her age to be treated as 46 years and
correct multiplier as per Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another 1 case, is 13. The Tribunal
ought to have applied '13' as multiplier instead of '14'. The
Tribunal erred in taking the gross salary instead of considering
the net salary of the deceased and calculated the loss of
dependency on that amount. The Tribunal erred in awarding
interest at 8% per annum, which is on very high side. The
Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest on future prospects
for the reason that the amount towards future prospects have
already been awarded to the claimants and finally, prayed to set
aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 -
claimants submitted that the Tribunal on considering the
(2009) 6 SCC 121
LNA,J
evidence and material placed on record, had rightly awarded the
compensation and there is no need to interfere with the award
passed by the Tribunal.
Consideration:
14. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for
appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the gross salary of the
deceased at Rs.31,324/-, the Tribunal considering the fact that
16 years of service was still left with the deceased as on the date
of the accident and that she would have gone upto the rank of
Senior Assistant, had taken the income of the deceased at
Rs.31,324/- per month as per Ex.A5, as per which, she was
working as Junior Assistant in Prohibition and Excise
Department, Government of Telangana.
15. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for
appellant with regard to date of birth of the deceased is
concerned, as per Ex.A11-service register, the date of birth of
the deceased was shown as 24.04.1975 and the date of accident
was 06.07.2020. Considering the date of birth as per Ex.A11
LNA,J
and date of accident as 06.07.2020, the age of the deceased was
45 years, 2 months, 12 days.
16. Considering the age of the deceased as 46 years, the
multiplier, as per Sarla Verma's case, is 13 (for the age groups
of 46 to 50 years). The Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier
'14' instead of '13' and the same has to be modified.
17. Insofar as the addition of future prospects is concerned,
as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2 at paragraph-
59.3, the addition of 30% of the income of the deceased should
be made towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was between the age of 40 to 50 years.
Therefore, the Tribunal erred in adding 25% of the income of the
deceased towards future prospects, instead of 30% and the
same has to be modified.
18. With regard to the quantum of interest awarded, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and
(2017) 16 SCC 680
LNA,J
others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 3 decided on
06.12.2022, had granted interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore,
this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the interest
awarded by the Tribunal.
Conclusion:
19. In view of the above discussion, the material and evidence
placed on record, the compensation amount is re-calculated as
under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income Rs.3,75,888/- per annum
(Rs.31,324/- per month)
2 Future prospects Rs.1,12,766/- (i.e., 30% of the
income)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.1,62,885/- (i.e., 1/3rd of
expenses Rs.3,75,888/- + Rs.1,12,766/-)
4 Total Income Rs.3,25,769/- ( i.e., Rs.3,75,888/- +
Rs.1,12,766/- (-) Rs.1,62,885/-)
6 Loss of dependency Rs.42,34,997/- (i.e., Rs.3,25,769/- x
13)
7 Transportation charges Rs. 10,000/-
8 Consortium (2 x Rs.40,000/- Rs. 80,000/-
9 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
10 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be paid: Rs.43,54,997/-
2023(1) ALD 107(SC)
LNA,J
20. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount
is concerned, is modified. The above compensation amount shall
carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim
petition till the date of realization. The appellant is directed to
deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly
adjusting the amount already deposited by the appellant. The
claimants are entitled to the apportionment of the amount as
directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 27.12.2023
kkm
LNA,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1242 OF 2023
Date: 27.12.2023
kkm
