Shriram Gen. Ins. Com. Ltd., ... vs R Sunitha, Karimnagar 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1277 Tel

                                             1                                   RRN,J
                                                                 MACMA No.3213 of 2016


     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                       M.A.C.M.A.No.3213 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is preferred by the appellant/Insurance

Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by

the order and decree dt.02.06.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.365 of 2014 by

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional

District Judge, Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal").

2. Heard Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for appearing

for the appellant/Insurance Company and Sri A. Jagan, learned counsel

appearing for respondents/petitioners No.1 to 5.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.2014 while one

Ramagiri Mallesham (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") was

proceeding from Peddapally to Karimnagar on his motorcycle bearing

No.AP-15B-4268, when he reached Suglampally village, on lorry bearing

No.MH-27X-2509 was parked on the road negligently by the 1st

respondent without switching on the parking lights and without taking 2 RRN,J MACMA No.3213 of 2016

any precautionary measures, due to which, the deceased could not

observe the same and dashed the lorry. As a result of which, the

deceased suffered injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the

petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against

Respondent No.1 due to non-payment of process, and the 2nd

respondent remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 filed a counter

before the Tribunal denying the averments of the petition.

6. To prove their case, the petitioners examined PW.1 to

PW.3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. On behalf of respondent No.3,

RW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1.

7. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal

allowed the claim in part by granting compensation of

Rs.9,61,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. to the petitioners.

Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent

No.3 contended that the reason for the accident occurred due to the

sole rash and negligent driving of the deceased and the Tribunal 3 RRN,J MACMA No.3213 of 2016

failed to consider the same as the deceased himself dashed the

lorry which was at stationery, from behind. He further contended

that the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/- without any basis and also inter alia contended that the

compensation under various heads is on the higher side, which are

liable to be reduced. Accordingly, prayed to enhance the

compensation amount.

9. Opposing the same, the learned Counsel appearing for

petitioners No.1 to 5 contended that the Tribunal was justified in

awarding the compensation amount under various heads and

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Upon careful perusal of the record and in light of the

submissions made by both counsel, this Court is of the considered

view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver of the

lorry had negligently parked the lorry on the road without taking

precautionary measures such as switching on hazard lights or any

other indication so as to prevent any such unwarranted events. As

such, this Court has no hesitation to confirm the findings of the

Tribunal in fastening the liability upon all the respondents.

                                               4                              RRN,J
                                                             MACMA No.3213 of 2016

11. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/- per month in the absence of any proof of income. As

such, this Court is inclined to accept the contention of the

appellant/Insurance Company that without any proof, the

Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the higher

side. Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly earnings of

the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- in view of the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.1. To this, 25% future prospects are added

as the deceased was aged 42 years. Thus, the monthly income of the

deceased is Rs.4,500/- + 25% = Rs.5,625/- and annually it comes to

Rs.67,500/- (Rs.5,625/- x 12). As the dependants are 5 in number,

1/4th amount from the annual income is to be deducted and the same

is to be multiplied with '14' as per National Insurance Company Ltd.

Vs. Pranay Sethi2 and Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport

Corporation3. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to

Rs.67,500 x ¾ x 14 = Rs.7,08,750/-. The petitioners are further entitled

to Rs.77,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 15,000 + Rs.15,000/- + 10%) towards

loss of spousal consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as per

1( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680.

(2009) 6 SCC 121 5 RRN,J MACMA No.3213 of 2016

Pranay Sethi (supra) in place of Rs.1,00,000/-, 25,000/- and 25,000/-

respectively as awarded by the Tribunal.

12. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and

affection and the same is substituted with Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss

of parental consortium to petitioners No.2 to 4, and Rs.40,000/- is also

awarded to petitioner No.5 towards loss of filial consortium as per

Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. V. Nanuram @ Churu

Ram4. However, the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards mental

agony and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charge of the dead body

of the deceased are deducted.

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

compensation of Rs.9,45,750/-.

14. Resultantly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part by reducing

the compensation amount from Rs.9,61,000/- to Rs.9,45,750/-

(Rupees Nine Lakh, Forty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty

only) with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

realization. Respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the

compensation amount with interest and costs, after deducting the

amount, if any already deposited, within two months from the date of

2018) 18 SCC 130 6 RRN,J MACMA No.3213 of 2016

receipt of a copy of this order. The compensation amount shall be

apportioned among the petitioners in the same manner and ratio as

ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

16th day of March, 2023 BDR