The Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Com. ... vs G Savithri, Nizamabad Dist 2 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1199 Tel

                                       1                           RRN, J
                                                          MACMA No.1940 of 2016

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                     MACMA No. 1940 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance

Company and learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners.

2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dt.04.03.2016 in

M.V.O.P No. 516 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the

Insurance Company preferred the present appeal praying to

set aside the above order and decree.

3. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded

an amount of Rs.15,77,000/- against the claim amount of Rs.

5,00,000/- as claimed by the respondents/petitioners, on the

account of the death of one Gopishetty Ramchander

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), with costs and

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date

of deposit.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company had contended that the Tribunal erred in granting 2 RRN, J MACMA No.1940 of 2016

excessive compensation i.e. compensation more than that of

the claim. He further contended that the Tribunal ought not to

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

annum in the absence of any evidence. He further contended

that the deceased did not possess a valid driving license, which

is a violation of the insurance policy and as such, the

appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay

compensation to the respondents/claimants. He also

contended that the compensation under certain heads is

excessive and the interest portion at 9% is also liable to be

reduced. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal by setting

aside the impugned order.

5. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents/petitioners contended that the

Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order and no

interference is required. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. This Court having considered the rival submissions

of both parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal

made no error in awarding excessive compensation than that

of the claimed amount relying upon the decision of a Full 3 RRN, J MACMA No.1940 of 2016

Bench of this Court in Adam Indur Muttemma Vs. Rathod

Reddia Nizamabad & Ors.1 It is observed that though the

respondents/petitioners claimed that the income of the

deceased was Rs.20,000/- p.m, the Tribunal considered the

same as Rs.10,000/- p.m and the appellant/Insurance

Company is challenging the said observation in the absence of

any income proof and in such absence, the notional income of

a person (more particularly - coolie) is being taken at

Rs.4,500/- p.m in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Ramchandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.2. However, this Court deems it

fit and proper to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-

p.m and revise the compensation amount.

7. Taking the annual income of the deceased at

Rs.90,000/- (Rs.7,500 x 12), adding future prospects at 30% (as

per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi3) on the

income of the deceased as he was aged about 50 years i.e

Rs.27,000/- and deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal

expenses as the dependants are (2) in number and multiplying it

with 13 (as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport

AIR 2015 Hyd 117.

(2011 ) 13 SCC 236

(2017) 16 SCC 680.

                                        4                              RRN, J
                                                             MACMA No.1940 of 2016

Corporation4), the loss of dependency would thus come to

Rs.1,17,000 x 2/3 x 13 = Rs.10,14,000/-.

8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and

Rs.25,000/- to the respondents/claimants under the heads 'loss of

estate', 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses' which are

excessive. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), they are modified as;

Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10%), Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000/- +10%)

and Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000/- +10%) towards 'loss of spousal

consortium', 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate' respectively.

9. In all, the petitioners are entitled to the reduced

compensation of Rs.10,91,000/- (Rs.10,14,000/- + 44,000/-

+16,500/- + Rs.16,500/-).

10. The Tribunal cast the liability solely on the

appellant/Insurance Company despite the driver of the

offending vehicle not having valid driving license. In these

circumstances, this Court deems it just to extend the benefit of

'pay and recover' to the appellant/insurance company to first

pay the compensation amount to the respondents/claimants

and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as per

(2009) 6 SCC 121.

                                        5                          RRN, J
                                                         MACMA No.1940 of 2016

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and ors.5

11. Accordingly the compensation amount awarded is

liable to be reduced from Rs.15,77,000/- to Rs.10,91,000/-.

The Tribunal granted interest on the compensation amount @

9 % p.a, however, this Court is time and again consistently

awarding interest @ 7.5%. As such the interest component is

also liable to be reduced to 7.5%.

12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by

reducing the compensation amount from Rs.15,77,000/- to

Rs.10,91,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Ninety One Thousand Only)

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

manner and ratio as directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal.

The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

said amount with interest and costs after deducting the

amount, if any, deposited earlier within two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The

respondents/claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court fees

2004 ACJ 1.

                                 6                        RRN, J
                                                MACMA No.1940 of 2016

on the modified compensation amount within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Further,

the appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the

said amount from the 3rd respondent/owner of the offending

vehicle. 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 March, 2023

BDR