Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Gadari Renuka
2023 Latest Caselaw 562 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI


                        M.A.C.M.A.No.114 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree, dated 25.06.2019

passed in M.V.O.P.No.686 of 2015 on the file of the V Additional

District Judge (II Fast Track Court), Warangal at Jangaon (for short

"the Tribunal"), the appellants/respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred the

present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166(1) A of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-

for the death of one Gadari Srinivas, husband of claimant No. 1, father

of claimant Nos. 2 & 3 and son of claimant Nos.4 and 5 (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident

that occurred on 10.04.2015. It is stated that on 10-04-2015 at about

7-30 p.m. at Pagidipally village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District,

while the deceased Gadari Srinivas and one Vorsu Krishna were

MGP, J Macma_114_2020

crossing the road to purchase kiranam articles, in the meantime, one

unknown car which was proceeding from Hyderabad side towards

Warangal in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased,

due to which he sustained injuries on his right leg and head and died

on the spot. Immediately he was shifted to Bhongir. According to the

claimants, the deceased was aged 36 years, working as operator of

JCB and earning Rs.18,000/- and odd per month. As the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Car by its driver, the

claimants filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 to 4, being

the driver, owner and insurer of the said vehicle seeking compensation

under various heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 filed counter denying the

manner in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation

and income of the deceased. It is further submitted that the crime

vehicle was insured with the respondent Nos.3 and 4 covering the date

of accident and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent Nos.3 and 4-ICICI Lombard General insurance

Company Limited filed counter disputing the manner of accident,

involvement of the car in the accident, age, avocation and income of

MGP, J Macma_114_2020

the deceased. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation

claimed is excessive. It is further contended that in the complaint

itself, it was mentioned as unknown vehicle and in such

circumstances, it is a hit and run case and therefore, prayed to dismiss

the petition.

6. Considering claim, counter and the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the car and

accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.14,30,000/- with proportionate

costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and

severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed

by the claimants seeking enhancement.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4-

Insurance Company, has contended that there was no negligence on

the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal has

erred in fastening the liability on the appellants-Insurance Company

and the amount awarded by the tribunal is exorbitant. Furthermore,

MGP, J Macma_114_2020

the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is also very high.

Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order in the O.P.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

claimants is that the Tribunal after considering the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, has awarded reasonable

compensation, in fact, the compensation is to be enhanced by

considering the age and avocation of the deceased.

9. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned

counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company contended that there

was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle,

the tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with

the documentary evidence on record came to the right conclusion and

held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the car.

10. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimants claimed

that the deceased was aged 36 years, Operator of JCB owned by one

Pallapu Yellaiah and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Ex.A.5, salary

certificate was filed by the claimants to that effect. However, the

claimants failed to examine the authorized person who has issued

MGP, J Macma_114_2020

Ex.A5. Therefore, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased

at Rs.10,000/- per month, deducted 1/4th of the same towards personal

expenses of the deceased and by applying multiplier of '15', awarded

an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further the

tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards funeral

expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.40,000/-

towards loss of consortium. Thus in all the claimants are awarded an

amount of Rs.14,30,000/-, which is just and reasonable. Therefore,

there are no grounds to interfere with this aspect.

11. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the

tribunal awarded rate of interest at 12% per annum, which is very

high. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.

Rajbir Singh and others1, the claimants are entitled to interest @

7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from

the date of petition till realization but not 12% as was awarded by the

Tribunal.

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent of

modifying the rate of interest from 12% to 7.5% per annum. In all

1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_114_2020

other aspects, the order of the Tribunal stands confirmed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

___________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 03.02.2023 pgp

MGP, J Macma_114_2020

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.4096 of 2014

DATE: 10-11-2022

MGP, J Macma_114_2020