Telangana High Court

P Narsubai, Nizamabad Dist And 3 Others vs The Manager, Vijayawada And 1 Other on 2 April, 2024

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.1148 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/

petitioners dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,

Nizamabad (for short, 'Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.479 of 2010, dated

27.09.2016 and thereby seeking for enhancement of

compensation.

2. The appellants herein are the petitioners and the respondent

no.1 herein is the insurance company and respondent no.2 herein

is the owner of the crime vehicle before the Tribunal. For

convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:

3.1. On 12.01.2010, while the deceased-Linga Reddy along with

Gangareddy and Bhaskar Reddy were travelling in his car bearing

registration No.AP-25-AA-4343 from Hyderabad to Ankapur village

and when they reached near Kucharam village of Toopran Mandal,

one DCM van bearing registration No.AP-20-W-8889, came in LNA,J

wrong side from opposite direction in high speed and dashed to the

car, due to which the deceased, who drove the car, and Bhasker

Reddy died on the spot and another Gangareddy died while

undergoing treatment. The Police, Toopran P.S. registered a case in

Crime No.10 of 2010 under Section 304-A of IPC.

3.2. The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 i.e., wife and sons and mother of

the deceased respectively, have filed claim petition against

respondent no.1-insurance company and the respondent no.2-

owner of the crime vehicle under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1989 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/-.

3.3. The claimants claimed that the deceased was aged about 40

years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was an

agriculturist and also working as an LIC agent and used to earn

Rs.10 lakhs per annum through agriculture and Rs.3 lakhs per

annum as an LIC Agent and used to contribute the same to his

family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, petitioners lost their

dependency and love and affection of the deceased.

4. The respondent No.1-insurance company filed counter

denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and LNA,J

contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of

DCM van and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the

car driver and they are not made parties to the claim and

therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed; that the

driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at

the time of the accident, which is clear violation of the conditions

of the policy and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The respondent no.2 filed his counter denying all the

material allegations made in the claim petition and inter alia,

contended that there is no negligence on the part of driver of DCM

van and that accident occurred due to the negligence of the car

driver and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed for trial:

1. Whether the vehicle bearing No.AP-20-W-8889, involved in the accident? If so, the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of same vehicle?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what extent, against whom?

3. To what relief?

LNA,J

7. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.Al to Ex.A14 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no

oral evidence is adduced and no document is marked.

8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of evidence and material

placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place

due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver

and awarded total compensation of Rs.8,47,000/- along with

interest @ 7.5% per annum.

9. Heard learned counsel Sri T.Sujan Kumar Reddy the

appellants/petitioners and Sri. Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel

for respondent no.1-insurance company.

10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned

counsel for appellants submitted that the Tribunal failed to

award just compensation and the Tribunal has not properly

assessed the income of the deceased; that deceased was earning

Rs.10.00 lakhs per annum by doing agriculture and was also

earning Rs.3.00 lakhs per annum as a LIC Agent. He submitted

that even though the claimants proved the income of the deceased

before the Tribunal by marking Exs.P7 & P8-LIC premium

receipts; Exs.P9 to 11-statements of account; Exs.13 and 14- LNA,J

pattadar pass books, the Tribunal considered the income of the

deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month only, which is contrary to law.

He further submitted that Tribunal failed to award just, equitable,

fair and reasonable compensation and finally, prayed to award just

compensation, even as claimed by the claimants.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1-insurance

company, while reiterating the averments in the counter,

submitted that the Tribunal awarded proper, just compensation

basing on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record

and prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

Consideration:

12. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for

the appellants is that the Tribunal failed to award just

compensation and not properly assessed the income of the

deceased.

13. Perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal would show

that the Tribunal held that though the petitioners claimed that the

deceased was earning Rs.13 lakhs per annum, the documents filed

by them did not support, substantiate the claim of income of LNA,J

deceased; and that though deceased worked as LIC agent, it is not

a salary based job.

14. On perusal of award passed by the Tribunal and the

evidence let-in and documents filed on behalf of the petitioners,

this Court is of considered view that petitioners have placed

adequate evidence and documents in the form of Exs.P13 and A14-

pattadar pass books, which show that the deceased owned

agricultural lands earning certain amounts from the agricultural

lands besides earning as LIC agent and therefore, Tribunal should

have taken more pragmatic view while assessing the income of the

deceased.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently held that Motor

Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at

providing succour to the dependents of the deceased and also held

that compensation cannot be computed in mathematical precision

and should adopt reasonable flexibility while determining just and

fair compensation to the claimants.

16. In the light of above discussion, documents placed on record

by the claimants, the avocation of the deceased, age and year of

the accident, in considered opinion of this Court, notional income LNA,J

of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month, which

is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be

modified accordingly.

17. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for

appellants with regard to award of compensation towards future

prospects is concerned, in the decision of National Insurance

Co.Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court at

paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased was self-employed

or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of established income

should be warrant, where the deceased was between the age of 40

to 50 years. Since, the deceased was self-employed and the age of

the deceased was taken as 42 years, as per Exs.A1 to A4, as on the

date of the accident, an addition of 25% of the income of the

deceased needs to be awarded towards future prospects.

18. Since the dependents of the deceased are four, one-fourth of

the income needs to be deducted towards personal and living

expenses as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla

Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

(2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J

another 2 , at paragraph-30. However, the Tribunal erred in

deducting one-third of the income towards personal and living

expenses of the deceased and the same needs to be modified as

indicated above.

19. With regard to the award of consortium, as per the decision

of Pranay Sethi (supra), all the petitioners are entitled to

Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium.

Conclusion:

20. In view of the above, the compensation amount is

recalculated as under:

    Sl.No.                    Head                      Compensation awarded

    1        Income                             Rs.1,20,000/-        per    annum
                                                (Rs.10,000/- per month)
    2        Future prospects                   Rs.30,000/- (25% of income)

    3        Total income                       Rs.1,50,000/-

    4        Deduction towards personal         Rs.37,500/- (i.e., one-fourth of total
             expenses                           income )
    5        Net Income                         Rs.1,12,500/- (i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- (-)
                                                Rs.37,500/-)


    7        Loss of dependency                 Rs.15,75,000/- (i.e., Rs.1,12,500/-
             (Sl.No.1 to 6)                     x 14)
    8        Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4)       Rs. 1,60,000/-




    (2009) 6 SCC 121
                                                                                    LNA,J





9          Funeral expenses                    Rs.    15,000/-

10         Loss of estate                      Rs.    15,000/-

           Total compensation to be            Rs.17,65,000/-
           paid:


21.   In     the    result,       Appeal       is    allowed     enhancing         the

compensation amount from Rs.8,47,000/- to Rs.17,65,000/-

with interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of the

claim petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of

deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The

respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay the said

compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date

of receipt of copy of this order. The claimants are entitled to the

apportionment and withdrawal of the amount as directed by the

Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand

closed.

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 02.04.2024 kkm LNA,J