The New India Assurance Co Limited vs J.Anjaneyulu , Anjaiah And 6 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 1428 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1428 Tel
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2024

Telangana High Court

The New India Assurance Co Limited vs J.Anjaneyulu , Anjaiah And 6 Ors on 4 April, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         M.A.C.M.A Nos.1081 of 2011 and 1171 of 2016

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the award dated 31.01.2011 in O.P.No.887

of 2007 passed by the XXI Addl. Chief Judge-cum-VII Addl.

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the claimants have filed

MACMA No.1081 of 2011 for enhancement of the compensation

and Insurance Company has filed MACMA No.1171 of 2016

questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.

2. Since both the appeals arise out of the very same finding

in O.P.No.887 of 2007, both the appeals are disposed of by way of

common judgment.

3. Heard Sri P. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the

claimants, Sri Narsaiah Golla, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company and perused the entire material on record.

4. The deceased was second year Engineering student, who

died on account of the accident on 31.10.2006. The deceased was

travelling on a motor cycle. He over took a car and hit the lorry KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201

which was coming in opposite direction. The deceased was tossed

in air and fell down in front of the car. The manner in which the

accident had taken place is not disputed. The Tribunal finding

that both the vehicles which are car and lorry being responsible is

also not disputed by either of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is meager

when his qualification is taken into consideration. In case of

Engineering student, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Vasanthi

and another v. M/s. Adhiparasakthi Engg. College and another 1

found that the compensation that would be rightly awarded to a

Engineering student was by assessing his monthly income as

Rs.30,000/-.

6. Similarly, in the case of Managing Director, APSRTC,

Musheerabad X Roads, Hyderabad and another v. C.

Rangaswamy and another 2, though the monthly income was

claimed as Rs.5,000/- for the Engineering student, this Court

2022 (6) ALT 14 (SC)

2012 (4) ALD 609 KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201

considered the income as Rs.12,000/- per month. Accordingly,

counsel prayed the Court to consider the income of the

Engineering student in the present case at Rs.15,000/- per month

and grant compensation.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company would submit that the Tribunal having found that

claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 were responsible for the

accident, failed to apportion the compensation. When, it is found

that both the drivers of the vehicles are negligent, the Tribunal

ought to have undertaken apportionment of compensation.

Further, learned counsel submits that contributory negligence

percentage ought to have been decided by the trial Court and

accordingly, the compensation apportioned in between the two

vehicles.

8. The three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others 3, held that

when there was a composite negligence, and the claimant is

2015 ACJ 1441 KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201

entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and recover

the entire compensation, as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and

several. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in case of

composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between

two joint tortfeasors is not permissible and it is left open to the

claimant to recover at his option, the whole damages from any of

them.

9. In view of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Khenyei case (supra 3), the argument of the counsel for the

Insurance Company is rejected.

10. In view of the Judgment discussed above and also the

Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Vasanthi's case (supra 1),

this Court deems it appropriate to consider the income of the

deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance

Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 4 has held that while considering the

compensation in cases of death, the future prospects of the self

2017 (6) 170 (SC) KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201

employed shall also be considered. Having regard to the age of

deceased i.e. 20 years as on the date of accident and occupation as

self-employed, if 40 percent of the income is included towards

future prospects, the monthly income would come to Rs.14,000/-

(Rs.10,000+4,000). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation 5, 50%

of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as

the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, the annual contribution of

the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.7000X12).

The relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '17'. Hence,

the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to

Rs.14,28,000/-/- (Rs.84,000/-X 17).

12. As regards the consortium to be paid, each claimant is

entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards consortium as decided by the

Hon'ble Apex court in case of Pranay Sethi (4 Supra). With regard

to the funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants are

entitled for Rs.33,000/-.

2009(6) SCC 121 KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201

13. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation

as below:

      Head                              Compensation awarded

  (1) Loss of dependency                Rs.14,28,000

  (2) Funeral expenses and              Rs.33,000
      Loss of Estate

  (3) Loss of consortium                Rs.1,76,000/-

Total compensation awarded Rs.16,37,000/-

14. In the result, the MACMA No.1171 of 2016 of the

Insurance Company is dismissed. However, the MACMA

No.1081 of 2011 of the claimants is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.2,00,000/-/- to Rs.16,37,000/- as hereunder:

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

(b) The claimants shall pay the court fee on the enhanced

amount of compensation.

(c) The insurance company shall deposit the amount

within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of KS, J MACMA_1081_2011 and 1171_201

copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimants are entitled

to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any

security.