The National Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Smt. Ch. Mani Mohini, Hyd 2Ots
2023 Latest Caselaw 832 Tel

     THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                       AND
     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

     M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1687 OF 2010 AND 2212 OF 2013

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Justice M.G.Priyadarsini)

      These two appeals are being disposed of by this

common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1687 of 2010, filed

by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.2212 of

2013 filed by claimants challenging the quantum of

compensation, are directed against the very same award

and decree, dated 08.06.2010 made in O.P.No.2202 of

2006 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").


2.    For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties

will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.


3.    The facts, in brief, are that the claimants laid a claim

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/- for the death of

one Ch.Venkata Krishna Rao (hereinafter referred to as

"the deceased"), who died in the accident that occurred on

08.03.2006. According to the claimants, on the fateful day,
                              2



while the deceased was proceeding in a Tata Indica Car

bearing No.WB 02 T 7410 towards Haldia from Kolkata side

and when he reached the village limits of Raksachok, one

Truck bearing No.WP 29 1038 came in opposite direction in

a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the

Tata Indica Car. As a result, the deceased and the driver of

the Car sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died

while undergoing treatment in Popular Nursing Home at

Mechada. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.24 of 2006

was registered against the driver of the Truck. According

to the claimants, the deceased was working as Vice

President at G.M.R. Energy Limited, Bangalore and used to

get salary of Rs.35,00,000/- per annum apart from house

rent allowance, transport allowance, special pay, children

educational allowance, leave travel concession and medical

reimbursement etc. On account of the sudden death of the

deceased, the claimants, who are wife and son of the

deceased, lost their source of income and earnings of the

deceased.   Therefore, they laid the claim against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of

the crime vehicle i.e., Truck bearing No.WB 29 1038.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained

ex parte. Respondent No.2, insurance company filed

counter and additional counter denying all the averments

made in the claim-petition, including the manner in which

the accident took place, age, avocation and earnings of the

deceased. It is specifically contended that the accident

occurred only due to the negligent driving by the driver of

the Car in which the deceased was traveling and therefore,

the claim-petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties i.e., owner and insurer of the Car. It is further

contended that the deceased was not appointed as Vice

President at G.M.R. Energy Limited and he was not

drawing Rs.35,00,000/- per annum as the name of the

deceased and his occupation and the payment of salary

were not shown in the balance sheet of the company for the

financial year 2005-2006. It is further contended that

since there is no mention about the payment of

Rs.6,56,763/- for 72 days as mentioned in the payment

slip of the deceased, it cannot be considered under law.

5. After considering claim and counter filed by the

respondent No.2 and the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle

i.e., Truck and has awarded an amount of

Rs.1,76,96,656/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging the

same, the present appeals came to be filed by the

Insurance Company and the claimants respectively.

6. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the

material available on record.

7. The main contention raised by the learned Standing

Counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in

M.A.C.M.A.No.1687 of 2010) is that although the claimants

failed to prove the income of the deceased by producing

cogent documentary evidence, the Tribunal erred in taking

the income of the deceased at Rs.35,00,000/- per annum.

Therefore, the Tribunal has granted excessive and

exorbitant compensation, which needs to be reduced. It is

further contended that the Tribunal erred in not deducting

income tax from the salary of the deceased.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants

(appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.2212 of 2013), has submitted

that the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier '8'

instead of '13' as the deceased was aged about 50 years at

the time of the accident. It is further submitted that as per

the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others1, considering the age of the deceased as 50 years,

future prospects at 15% to the established income of the

deceased needs to be added. It is lastly contended that as

per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case

(supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under

conventional heads. Learned counsel appearing for the

claimants relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in

Shashikala and others v. Gangalakshmamma and

2017 ACJ 2700

another 2 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V.

Farida Sarosh Poonawala and others3.

9. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the

Tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the

accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the Truck by its driver and having considered the evidence

of P.W.2, eyewitness to the accident, who was also co-

traveller in the Car, coupled with the documentary

evidence, has categorically observed that the accident has

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the

driver of the Truck bearing No.WB 29 1038 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 Truck.

10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, a perusal of

the material available on record discloses that the deceased

was a practicing Chartered Accountant and he joined

2015 ACJ 1239

2022 ACJ 1181

G.M.R. Vasavi Industries Limited as Director and he

worked as such from 1992 to September, 1999 and then he

moved to one of the G.M.R. group companies i.e., Sri

Varalakshmi Jute and Wine Mills Private Limited and

worked there as Managing Director from September, 1999

to July, 2003 and then he was promoted to Joint Managing

Director in Administration and Finance with G.M.R.

Industries Limited. Ex.A25-appointment letter, dated

10.12.2005 discloses that the deceased was appointed as

Vice President, Finance and Accounts at G.M.R. Energy

Limited, head office at Bangalore, which was supported by

the evidence of P.W.3, the Chief H.R. Officer of G.M.R.

group of companies. P.W.4, the Associate Manager, H.R. in

G.M.R. Energy Limited, Bangalore, has categorically

deposed before the Court that the deceased was working as

Vice President from December, 2005 till his death which

was occurred on 08.03.2006 and as per Ex.A41, salary

slip, the deceased was being paid Rs.6,56,763/- for 72

days and out of said salary, after deducting an amount of

Rs.1,14,393/- towards income tax TDS, net amount of

Rs.5,42,370/- was credited to the bank account of the

deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing the

income of the deceased at Rs.35,00,000/- per annum and

applied the multiplier without deducting income tax.

However, considering the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 coupled

with Ex.A25, appointment order and Ex.A41, salary slip,

this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at

Rs.2,25,987/- per month after deducting T.D.S. as

deducted by the employer of the deceased. Further, as

rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants,

the claimants are entitled to addition of 15% towards

future prospects to the established income, as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) as the

deceased was aged about 50 years and the deceased was

having fixed permanent salary. Therefore, future monthly

income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,50,885/-

(Rs.2,25,987/- + Rs.33,898/- being 15% thereof). From

this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses of

the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation4 as the dependents are two in number. After

deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal and living

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

expenses of the deceased, the net contribution of the

deceased to the family comes to Rs.1,73,256/- per month.

Since the deceased was 50 years by the time of the

accident, the appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the

decision in Sarla Verma (supra) but not '8' as adopted by

the Tribunal. Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of

dependency comes to Rs.1,73,256/- x 12 x 13 =

Rs.2,70,27,936/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are

entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as

per the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the

claimants are entitled to Rs.2,71,03,936/-, but as per

Ex.B5, since claimant No.1 had already received

Rs.10,00,000/- under mediclaim policy, as observed by the

Tribunal, after deducting the same, they are entitled to

Rs.2,61,03,936/-.

11. In the result, while dismissing M.A.C.M.A.No.1687 of

2010 filed by the Insurance Company, M.A.C.M.A.No.2212

of 2013 filed by the claimants stand allowed by enhancing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs. 1,76,96,656/- to Rs.2,61,03,936/-. The enhanced

amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of the order passed by the Tribunal till the date of

realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in

the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to deposit

the compensation is two months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants

are permitted to withdraw half of their respective share

amounts without furnishing any security and the

remaining amount shall be kept in F.D.R. in any

Nationalised Bank for a period of three years. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________ DR. C. SUMALATHA, J

_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 20.02.2023 Tsr