M/S United India Insurance ... vs Smt Premalatha
2023 Latest Caselaw 831 Tel

     THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1409 of 2019

JUDGMENT: (per Smt. Justice M.G.Piryadarsini)

       This appeal is preferred by the appellant-United India

Insurance Company, questioning the order and decree, dated

28.12.2018 made in M.V.O.P.No.137 of 2014 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District

Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, the Tribunal).


2.     For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.


3.     The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-

against   the   respondents   for   the   death   of   one   Gouni

Satyanandam (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") who

died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.12.2013.

According to the claimants, on 08.12.2013, while the deceased,

along with one Puli Swamy, was proceeding towards Narsapur

on Hero Honda Pro Motorcycle bearing No.AP 23 AC 1438 and

at about 4:30 p.m., when they reached near the outskirts of

Chandapur village near bus stop, one Tata Sumo bearing No.AP

28 AA 1718 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from

opposite direction. As a result, the deceased sustained head

injury and died on the spot. On a complaint, the Police,

Hathnoora, registered a case in Crime No.118 of 2013 under

Sections 304-A and 307 of I.P.C. against the driver of the Tata

Sumo. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was

working with Gayatri Buio Organics Limited, Nandikandi and

drawing a salary of Rs.18,000/- per month and due to the

sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their source

of income, love and affection. Therefore, the claimants, being

dependents of the deceased, laid a claim against the

respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the registered

owners of the offending vehicle, respondent No.3 is the insurer

and respondent No.4 is the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the

Insurance Company, appellant herein, and on evaluation of the

evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has

allowed the O.P. in part awarding compensation of

Rs.30,89,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5%

per annum to be paid by respondent Nos.1 to 4, jointly and

severally. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company filed

the present appeal.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant

has submitted that as per F.I.R., an unknown vehicle dashed

the deceased and after a gap of 35 days of the occurrence,

respondent No.4, driver of the TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 23 AC

1438, had surrendered before the Police and R.W.2, pillion

rider, in his statement has stated that an unknown vehicle hit

the deceased. Therefore, the offending vehicle is implicated in

the accident in order to gain compensation. It is further

contended that the Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier

'17' instead of '16' as the deceased was aged about 30 years as

per the service records of the employer. It is further contended

that the Tribunal erroneously awarded excessive amount of

Rs.3,38,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, loss of love

and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses instead it

should be restricted to Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, the learned

Standing Counsel prayed to allow the appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

claimants has submitted that as per the law laid down by the

Apex Court, as the age of the deceased was 30 years, the

appropriate multiplier is '17' and the Tribunal has rightly

applied the same and has rightly awarded just compensation,

which needs no interference.

8. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the

Tribunal having framed issue No.1 as to whether the deceased

namely Gouni Satyanandam died in the motor accident

occurred on 08.12.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of

Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 28 AA 1718 by its driver, and having

considered the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary

evidence such as Ex.A1, F.I.R. along with complaint, Ex.A3,

scene of offence panchanama and Ex.A5, inquest panchanama,

has categorically observed that the deceased died in the motor

accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the crime vehicle and has answered the issue in

favour of the claimants and against the respondents.

Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the

Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.12, salary

certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the

deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. As the deceased was a

fixed salaried person and as P.W.2 categorically deposed that

the employment of the deceased was permanent, and as he was

aged about below 40 years, the Tribunal has rightly added

future prospects at 50%. As per the service records the date of

birth of the deceased was 21.05.1983 and the accident took

place on 08.12.2013. From the above, it is clear that the

deceased was aged about 29 years six months and seventeen

days and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the appropriate

multiplier is '17' and the Tribunal has rightly applied the same,

as such, there is no force in the argument of the learned

Standing Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has

applied multiplier '17' instead of '16'. Hence, the amount of

Rs.27,54,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal under the head of

loss of dependency is just and reasonable.

10. As regard the amount awarded under conventional heads

is concerned, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others2, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/-. That apart,

claimant Nos.2 and 3, who are the minor children of the

deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of

parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram

@ Chuhru Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are

entitled to only Rs.29,11,000/-.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

2017 ACJ 2700

(2018) 18 SCC 130

11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced from

Rs.30,89,000/- to Rs.29,51,000/- together with interest at 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by

the Tribunal.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

.02.2023 tsr

HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No.1409 of 2019

DATE: -02-2023