The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Nandyala Alivelu 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 778 Tel

                               1                          RRN, J
                                                 MACMA No.2974 of 2014

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                    MACMA No. 2974 OF 2014


JUDGMENT:

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company and learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners.

2. Aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.10.03.2014 in

M.V.O.P No.322 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, (District

Judge), Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy

District (for short "the Tribunal"), the Insurance Company

preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the above

order and decree.

3. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed in the original petition.

4. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded

an amount of Rs.13,40,000/- under various heads as against

the claim of petitioners for Rs.15,00,000/- with costs and

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

realization which is depicted hereunder.

                                  2                         RRN, J
                                                  MACMA No.2974 of 2014

                   Head              Amount awarded by
                                          Tribunal
            Loss of dependency         Rs.12,80,000/-
            Loss of consortium          Rs.25,000/-
           Loss of love, affection      Rs.25,000/-
                and estate
             Funeral expenses           Rs.10,000/-
                   Total               Rs.13,40,000/-

5. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company are that the Tribunal failed to

see that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the

deceased also, as such, there was contributory negligence. He

further contended that as per the charge sheet and other

documents, the deceased was only a coolie even then the

Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased on the

higher side at Rs.10,000/- per month based on inadequate

documentary evidence. He further contended that the

Tribunal awarded interest @12% p.a. on the higher side, as

such, the compensation is highly excessive and prayed to set

aside the Award.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

respondents/petitioners contended that the Tribunal has

rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-

                                              3                               RRN, J
                                                                    MACMA No.2974 of 2014

per month considering the evidence of PW.3, employer of the

deceased, and also Ex.A6/salary certificate and he also relied

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder

Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,1 wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the income of the victim

therein based on the affidavit produced by the employer of the

victim. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to grant

future prospects on the income of the deceased and also

prayed to modify the amounts granted under conventional

heads as per law.

7. On weighing the arguments extended by both

parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal

has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-

per month. However, the Tribunal failed to grant future

prospects and just compensation under conventional heads.

Hence, this Court is inclined to award the amounts as per the

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as below:

        Sl.No. Head                               Compensation awarded
        1.        Income                          Rs.10,000/- per month
        2         Future Prospects                Rs.4,000/- per month @ 40% on the

(as per Pranay Sethi reported original income

(2019) 7 SCC 217 4 RRN, J MACMA No.2974 of 2014

in 2017 (16) SCC 680) Total : Rs.10,000 + 4,000/- = Rs.14,000/-

     3.    Annual income                      Rs.1,68,000/-
                                              (Rs.14,000x12)
     4.    Deductions towards personal        Rs.1,12,000/-
           expenses                          (Rs.1,68,800/- minus 1/3rd as the
                                             dependants are three in number.
     5.    Loss of dependency                 Rs.17,92,000/-
                                              (Rs.1,12,000/- x 16)
     6.    Multiplier

     7.    Loss of Spousal consortium -
           (as per Pranay Sethi reported      Rs.44,000/-
           in 2017 (16) SCC 680)              (Rs.40,000/-      +      10%      thereof)
                                              (modified)
     8.    Loss of parental and minor
           children consortium - Magma        Rs.40,000/-
           General      Insurance   Co.Ltd    (substituted under the head love and
           Vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru           affection)
           Ram - 2018 Law Suit (SC)

     9.    Funeral expenses                   Rs.16,500/-
                                              (Rs.15,000/-      +      10%      thereof)
                                              (modified)
     10.   Loss of Estate                     Rs.16,500/-
                                              (Rs.15,000/- + 10% thereof )
                                              (modified)
           Total
                                              Rs.19,09,000/-

8. Accordingly, the compensation amount deserves to

be enhanced from Rs.13,40,000/- to Rs.19,09,000/- (Rupees

Nineteen Lakh and nine thousand only). However, the interest

@ 12% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the same

is liable to be reduced to 7.5% p.a. 5 RRN, J MACMA No.2974 of 2014

9. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company at the time of hearing contended that the present

appeal is filed by the Insurance Company and at worst, the

same ought to be dismissed, but enhancement of compensation

cannot be done in the absence of cross-objections or a separate

appeal by the claimants. Both learned Counsel relied upon the

same decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjana

Prakash Vs Divisional Manager2. A careful reading of the

said judgment would finally reveal that an Appellate Court is

enabled/empowered to pass any order which ought to have

been passed by the trial Court even if the respondent had not

filed any appeal or cross-objection and the Appellate Court is

vested with the duty to do complete justice to the parties. As

such, no irregularity would arise in the event the awarded

compensation is enhanced.

10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. filed by the Insurance

Company is hereby dismissed. However, the total

compensation calculated and directed to be paid by the

Insurance Company to the respondents is hereby increased to

Rs.19,09,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh and nine thousand only)

Civil Appeal No.6110 of 2011 decided on 29.07.2011 6 RRN, J MACMA No.2974 of 2014

from Rs.13,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from

the date of petition till the date of realization. The

compensation amount shall be apportioned among the

respondents/claimants in the same proportion as directed to be

apportioned by the Tribunal. The appellant is directed to

deposit the above said amount with interest and costs after

deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one

month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment. The respondents/claimants are directed to pay the

deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount within

two months from the date of copy of the receipt of the judgment.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

14th day of February, 2023 BDR