Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Amrit Patel 3 Others on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.3566 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3566 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Insurance company/2nd respondent
aggrieved by the order and decree dated 09.01.2014 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.228 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for the trial of SCs & STs
(PoA) Act-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District
at L.B. Nagar (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.2012 at about
00.30 hours while the deceased and her family members were
returning to Hyderabad from Gujarat in a car bearing No.AP-28DC-
1316 and when it reached the outskirts of Mangalgiri village, a
Tempo bearing No.MH-46-F-5935 came in opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed the car. As a result, the
deceased sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a claim petition against the
Appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the crime vehicle
seeking compensation of Rs.30 lakhs.
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.3566 of 2014
3. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and the Insurance
Company/2nd respondent filed counter denying the petition
allegations.
4. The petitioners Nos.1 to 3 to prove their case, got
examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. No oral
evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company/2nd
respondent, however, they got marked Ex.B1/Policy copy.
5. On consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal allowed
the claim petition in part by awarding compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the
Insurance company/2nd respondent.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
company contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the
accident occurred due to the collision of the car bearing No.AP-
28DC-1316 in which the deceased was travelling and the tempo
bearing No.MH-46F-5935 and that there was contributory
negligence on the part of both drivers. He relied upon the decision
in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu V. Mohammed Afzal Miyan1 He further
2006 ACJ 855
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.3566 of 2014
contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the
deceased at Rs.16,537/- relying upon the income tax returns
Ex.A11 and A12 as the same were not proved by examining the
concerned income tax officials. He also further contended that the
Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 taking the age of the
deceased as 40 years as per the Inquest and PME reports Ex.A5
and A6 and the Tribunal failed to see that in the case of the death
of wife, the age of the husband has to be taken into consideration
for determining the multiplier and relied upon the decision in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Swami Naidu2
8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 contended that the Tribunal was justified in
passing the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
9. This Court having considered the rival submissions of
both parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified
in passing the impugned order as the appellant/Insurance
Company failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence to
disprove the claim of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3. As regard
contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers, the
appellant/Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to that
effect and the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2,
2005(4) ALT 214
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.3566 of 2014
and Ex.A2 and A4 and rightly came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the tempo bearing No.MH-46F-5935. As a general rule, it can
safely be accepted that the production of the police chargesheet is
prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a
claim under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. As regards the taking the income of the deceased at
Rs.16,537/- relying upon the income tax returns Ex.A11 and A12,
the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the deceased's Income Tax
Return can be considered for computation of his annual income in
Motor Accident Compensation. To arrive at this conclusion, this
Court is also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9014 of 2022 dt.06.12.2022
wherein at para No.10 it was observed as follows:
"10. ...We are in agreement with the High Court that the
determination must proceed on the basis of the income
tax return, where available. The income tax return is a
statutory document on which reliance may be placed to
determine the annual income of the deceased."
As such, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant
does not hold water.
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.3566 of 2014
10. As regards the multiplier, the Tribunal has taken the
multiplier in view of ratio laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation3. Therefore, this Court is not inclined
to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit
and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming
the order and decree dated 09.01.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.228 of
2013 by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
21st day of February, 2023
BDR
(2009) 6 SCC 121
