Telangana High Court

Reliance General Insurance ... vs Marri Ganapathi Reddy And 2 Others on 31 October, 2023

Bench: K.Lakshman, K. Sujana

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
                            AND
             THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

             M.A.C.M.A.Nos.814 AND 1514 OF 2015

COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Smt Justice K.Sujana)

      Feeling      aggrieved        by    the   order   and   decree    dated

13.01.2015 in O.P.No.299 of 2011 passed by the VIII Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,

the   Reliance      General         Insurance      Company      Ltd.,     filed

M.A.C.M.A.No.814 of 2015, challenging the liability and also the

quantum      of     compensation.            The   appellants/petitioners/

claimants in the said O.P., filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1514 of 2015

seeking enhancement of the compensation.


2.    For    the     sake      of        convenience,   the   appellant     in

M.A.C.M.A.No.814 of 2015 is referred to as 'Insurance Company

and the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1514 of 2015 are referred

to as 'Claimants'.


3.    M.A.C.M.A.No.814 of 2015 is filed by the Reliance General

Insurance Company, contending that the court below grossly

erred in taking the notional income of the deceased-Rithesh

Reddy as Rs.30,000/- p.a., and failed to see that in case of

death of a boy aged 13 years the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
                                                              KL,J &SKS,J
                                                          Macmas_814 & 1514_2015



                                      2

Manju Devi & another Vs Musafir Paswan and another 1

assessed the notional income for non earning person at

Rs.15,000/-,        The court below grossly erred in awarding

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, is excessive.                  Further

awarding an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate is

also excessive and interest @ 7.5% p.a., is also excessive. As

such prayed the Court to set aside the order of the court below.


4.        The appellants/claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1514 of

2015        contending   that   the       court   below    awarded        only

Rs.2,60,000/- against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- which is

erroneous.        The court below deducted 50% of the amount

towards personal expenses of the deceased, though he is aged

about 13years and grossly erred in arriving the net income @

Rs.30,000/- and awarding an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards

loss of love and affection.           Therefore, prayed the Court to

enhance the compensation.


5.        Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel appearing for

the Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., and Sri Putta Krishna

Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants.




1
    2005 ACJ 99
                                                      KL,J &SKS,J
                                                  Macmas_814 & 1514_2015



                                  3

6.   The facts of the case in the petition are that on

07.11.2010 at about 1100 hours, while the deceased-Rithesh

Reddy was proceeding from Penimella Village to Hyderabad

along with his family members in Innova car bearing No.AP 09

BX 324, when they reached Debbaguda gate, Kandukur near a

culvert, one Mini Bus bearing No.AP 9V 9670 while proceeding

towards Srisailam came in opposite direction at high speed in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the Innova Car.

Consequently, the deceased died on the spot and immediately,

the dead body was shifted to Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad      and   the   duty   doctor   conducted   postmortem

examination.    It is further contended that the deceased was

aged about 13 years at the time of accident; he was a student,

hale and healthy at the time of accident. Due to the death of

the deceased, the appellants became destitute and suffered

mental agony


7.   The petitioner No.1 is father and petitioner No. 2 is

mother of the deceased.


8.   The respondent No.1 in the O.P., remained ex parte. The

respondent No.2 filed counter denying the manner in which the

accident occurred and involvement of the Mini bus and that the

alleged accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_814 & 1514_2015

the driver of Innova car, as such, the claim is not maintainable

and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e.,

owner and insurer of the Innova car. It was further contended

that the Mini bus was not insured with it and the policy was not

in existence on the date of alleged accident. The driver of the

Mini bus was not having valid driving licence, though the owner

of the Mini bus had full knowledge about the said fact, he

handed over his bus to such a person in violation of the

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore,

prayed the Court to dismiss the petition against the Insurance

Company.

9. With regard to the accident, a case in Cr.No.184 of 2010

was registered under Section 304-A of the IPC in Kandukur

Police Station against the driver of the Mini bus.

10. To prove the claim, petitioner No.2, therein got examined

herself as Pw.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 are marked. On behalf of the

Insurance Company, one Syed Rehmathullah, Senior Executive

of the Insurance Company was examined as Rw.1 and Ex.B.1-

Policy was marked.

11. Basing on the evidence on record, the court below opined

that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_814 & 1514_2015

driver of the Mini bus. Against the said decision, the Insurance

Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.814 of 2015 contending that there

is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of Innova Car

but no witness was examined on their behalf to prove the same

except examining the employee of Insurance Company.

12. Now, the points for consideration are :

1. Whether the accident occurred on 07.11.2010 due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the Mini bus and driver of the Innova car ?

2. Whether, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for ?

POINT NO.1 :

13. On going through the documents filed by the claimants,

Ex.A.1 FIR is issued immediately after the accident and Ex.A.2

charge sheet, which was filed after due investigation, it is

evident that the driver of the Mini bus is responsible for the

accident. Ex.A.3 scene of offence panchanama also shows that

accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Mini

bus. Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of inquest, Ex.A.5 is the post

mortem examination report and Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of

the MVI report. Though summons were served on the driver of

the Mini bus, he has not contested the claim and not denied the

manner in which the accident occurred. There is no dispute KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_814 & 1514_2015

with regard to occurrence of accident and the death of the

deceased, whereas, the Insurance Company disputed the

liability and claim contending that there is contributory

negligence, whereas, the evidence on record clearly shows that

the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the

Mini bus. The Insurance Company relied on the judgment in

Agnuru Jaya Ramulu Vs Mohammed Afzal Miyan and

another 2, wherein the date of accident itself is in dispute

though the accident occurred on the intervening night of

12/13.7.1997, the medical officer evidence would show that the

accident occurred on the intervening night of 11/12.7.1997.

Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the documents

filed by the claimants are not reliable. As such, the appeal was

decided stating that there is contributory negligence on the part

of claimant also. Whereas, in the present case, the documents

filed by the claimants clearly proves that the accident occurred

due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Mini bus, as

such, the observations made in the above judgment are not

applicable to this case. Apart from that the Insurance Company

failed to examine any eye witness on its behalf to prove the

negligence of driver of Innova Car whereas, Pw.1 is the mother

2006 ACJ 855 KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_814 & 1514_2015

of the deceased and one of the injured eye witness deposed the

manner in which the accident occurred. Therefore, there is no

force in the contention of the Insurance Company that accident

occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of both

the drivers. As such, this issue is decided in favour of the

claimants and against the Insurance Company. Accordingly,

this point is answered.

POINT NO.2 :

14. According to the claimants, the age of the deceased is 13

years as on the date of accident. The court below relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal and

another Vs Lala and others 3 and took the notional income at

Rs.30,000/- p.a., and awarded an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-

towards compensation for loss of love and affection of the

deceased, which is a meagre amount. Per contra, learned

counsel for the Insurance Company relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi's case. According to

the said judgment, notional income for non-earning person is

Rs.15,000/- only and compensation awarded is excessive.

Whereas learned counsel for the claimants relied on the

3 2014 (1) Supreme Court Cases 244 KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_814 & 1514_2015

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi Vs

Munu Chand Mahto alias Nemchan Mahto and others 4,

which is latest judgment, wherein the claimants therein have

claimed Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the minor. In paragraph

No.16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :

"16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs 30,000 including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , the loss of dependency comes to Rs 4,50,000 and if we add Rs 50,000 in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs 5,00,000. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs 1,50,000 has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs 2,00,000 up to the value of the claim petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs 5,00,000 and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs 2,00,000, the enhanced amount comes to Rs 3,00,000."

(2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 204 KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_814 & 1514_2015

15. In the said judgment for the age group of 12 years, the

notional income of Rs.30,000/- is taken including future

prospects and multiplier 15 is taken as per the judgment in

Sarla Verma and Others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and

another 5 and awarded Rs.50,000/- towards conventional

heads.

16. Taking note of the said judgment, it is appropriate to take

the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- including

future prospects for the purpose of loss of dependency. As the

deceased is a minor, the age of the mother of the deceased i.e.,

45 years is taken into consideration. For the age group of 45,

the appropriate multiplier applicable is '14' as rightly taken by

the court below and if the same is applied, the loss of

dependency comes to Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs.30,000/- X 14).

Further, Rs.50,000/- is granted under conventional heads.

Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,70,000/-.

17. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,70,000/-

as compensation under the following heads :

Loss of dependency                           :      Rs.4,20,000/-

Conventional heads                           :      Rs. 50,000/-
                                                    _______________
                   Total                     :      Rs.4,70,000/-



    (2009) 6 SCC 121
                                                                    KL,J &SKS,J
                                                                Macmas_814 & 1514_2015

18. As far as the issue of rate of interest is concerned, the

Insurance Company submitted that 7.5% per annum interest is

high, but 6% p.a, is reasonable interest. Whereas, the Apex

Court in Sonal Gupta and another Vs United India Insurance

Co., Ltd. and another 6, in paragraph No.31 it was observed as

under :

"31. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5 per cent in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., V Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

"(13) The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5 per cent per annum and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."