Reliance General Ins Comp Ltd, ... vs Smt.S.Vishali, Hyd., And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2384 Tel

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

M.A.C.M.A.NO.2001 OF 2015

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

This appeal is filed assailing the award dated 26.06.2015 in

M.V.O.P.No.1370 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal'). By the impugned award, the

Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.29,55,000/-.

2. The present appeal by the insurance company challenging

the quantum of compensation awarded, so also on the monthly

income of the deceased.

3. Perusal of the record would show that P.W.1, the claimant,

before the Tribunal has deposed that the deceased was the owner

of the Car bearing registration No.AP-9-AM-7493. P.W.1 further

stated that said Car was attached with the firm i.e., Louis Berger

Group Inc., and that the said firm was paying monthly rent of

Rs.25,000/- to the deceased against attachment/engagement of

the vehicle with the said firm. In support of the said averment and

contention, P.W.2 the representative of the Louis Berger Group Inc PSK,J & LNA,J MACMA No.2001 of 2015

was examined and who has accepted that the vehicle was attached

with the said group and also payment of Rs.25,000/- per month.

The said payment of the amount to the deceased was also reflected

in the bank statement Ex.A9 of the said Louis Berger Group Inc.

The claimants also have produced Ex.A8 with regard to the details

of the payment of Car bearing registration No.AP-9-AM-7493 for

the period from March 2010 to October 2010, which shows that

the deceased has engaged his Car with the firm i.e., Louis Berger

Group Inc.

4. In addition to the aforesaid evidence, there was also the

evidence of eye witness P.W.3, who has also deposed before the

Court, has accepted the fact that the deceased--Eeshwaranna was

also the owner of the vehicle.

5. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, which has come on

record, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income to be

Rs.20,000/- and made calculation of compensation. Except for the

contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company on

the aspect of monthly income, there was no further challenge to

quantification done by the Tribunal so far as the other heads are

concerned, including that of the multiplier. The ground of the PSK,J & LNA,J MACMA No.2001 of 2015

challenge primarily by the learned counsel for insurance company

was that there was no material produced by the claimants to

establish that the deceased was in fact the owner of the Car

involved in the accident and that he had engaged the same with

Louis Berger Group Inc. on monthly rent basis.

6. On the contrary, we find that the insurance company has

also not led any evidence from the transport authorities to show

that the said Car bearing registration No.AP-9-AM-7493 was not,

in fact, registered in the name of the deceased or it was registered

in the name of any other person so as to substantiate that

contention, so also does not seems to be any evidence as such led

by the insurance company to disprove the claim of the claimants or

to establish that the deceased was not in fact the owner of the said

vehicle. In the absence of any cogent, plausible evidence to

substantiate their contention so far as the monthly income of the

deceased is concerned and more particularly, taking note of the

evidence that has been led by P.W.2, the representative of the said

group, where the vehicle was attached and also P.W.3, the eye

witness, we do not find any strong case made out by the appellant-

insurance company calling for interference with the quantum of PSK,J & LNA,J MACMA No.2001 of 2015

compensation awarded. Moreover, the income assessed by the

Tribunal is of Rs.20,000/- per month, which per day comes to

roughly around Rs.666/-, which for the year 2010, cannot be said

to be exorbitant in any manner.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal deserves to be and is

accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

____________________________________ P.SAM KOSHY,J

[[

____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHEETTY,J Date: 14.09.2023 Kkm/ktm PSK,J & LNA,J MACMA No.2001 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

M.A.C.M.A.NO.2001 OF 2015

Date: 14.09.2023

Kkm/ktm