Telangana High Court

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Cheerla Swarupa And 6 Others on 8 April, 2024

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.995 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/

insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge,

Godavarikhani (for short, 'Tribunal") in O.P.No.243 of 2012,

dated 14.12.2015 and thereby seeking to set aside the order

passed by the Tribunal.

2. The appellants herein are the respondents 1 and 2-

insurance company and the respondent nos.1 to 5 herein are the

petitioners, respondent no.6 is the driver and respondent no.7 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 17.01.2011, at about 5.30 p.m., Mallesh @ Mallareddy

(hereinafter referred to as deceased) left from his house at

Kondampet village on his motor cycle bearing registration LNA,J

No.AP-36-Q-5946 to meet his paternal uncle by name Potu Bapu

Reddy at Bhupalapally and when he reached the outskirts of

Maddulapalli village, one Gipsy TATA motor vehicle bearing

registration No.AP-15-TA-5638 , driven by its driver, in rash and

negligent manner with high speed in opposite direction and

dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, he fell down

on the road and died on the spot. Police, Kataram P.S. registered

a case in Crime No.10 of 2011 against the respondent no.1 and

filed charge sheet.

3.2. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 i.e., wife, children and parents of

the deceased, respectively, have filed claim petition against

respondent no.1-driver of the crime vehicle, respondent no.2-

owner of the crime vehicle and the respondent nos.3 and 4-

insurance company under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1989 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/-.

3.3. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was aged about

32 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and used to

raise vegetables along with paddy in his agricultural lands and LNA,J

used to do business also i.e, purchase and sale of vegetables and

was earning Rs.15,000/- per month; that due to death of the

deceased, petitioners lost their earning member of the family.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte.

5. The respondent Nos.3 & 4-insurance company filed counter

before the Tribunal denying all the allegations in the claim

petition as regards the accident to the deceased, age, avocation

and income of the deceased. It is further contended that deceased

was not having driving license at the time of accident and that the

interest claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

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

framed for trial:

1. Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle i.e. (Gipsy) TATA motors-207 D1 Ex bearing No.AP-15-TA-5638 driven by its driver ?

LNA,J

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?

3. To what relief ?

7. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.Al to Ex.A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondent

Nos.3 and 4, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was 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.17,65,000/-

along with interest @ 9% per annum.

9. Heard learned counsel Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy for the

appellants-insurance company and Sri. P.Shravan Kumar Goud,

learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 2-insurance company.

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

for appellants-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal

erred in awarding compensation; that Tribunal ought to have

taken contributory negligence into consideration as the case on LNA,J

hand is head on collision between the crime vehicle and the

motor cycle of the deceased; that Tribunal erred in assessing the

monthly income of the deceased without there being any

evidence, so also the compensation towards conventional heads.

He further submitted that Tribunal erred in granting interest @

9% per annum on the compensation awarded, which is highly

excessive and contrary to law and finally, prayed to set aside the

award passed by the Tribunal.

11. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/

petitioners submitted that on due consideration of the evidence

and material placed on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded

the compensation and no grounds are made out to interfere with

the award passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss

the appeal.

Consideration:

12. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants insofar

as disputing the occurrence of accident is concerned, before the

Tribunal, P.W.2-K.Madhusudhan Reddy, who is cited as eye LNA,J

witness to the accident, was examined and he deposed that he

witnessed the accident and the accident was caused due to rash

and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. Further,

on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4, the driver of the crime

vehicle was examined as RW.2, who deposed that he did not try

to avoid the accident and he did not give report to the police. The

evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated with the documentary evidence

i.e., Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-inquest report, Ex.A3-postmortem

examination report and Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report,

which clearly show that accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore,

the contention raised by the appellants needs no interference with

regard to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

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

appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the

deceased, without there being any evidence, the Tribunal

considering the profession of the deceased as vegetable vendor,

had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. It is

pertinent to mention that the petitioners filed documentary LNA,J

evidence to substantiate their claim that the deceased was doing

agriculture and selling vegetables, i.e., Ex.A7 is the pattadar pass

books, as per which, the father of the deceased owns total extent

of Acs.3.16 guntas of agricultural lands and Ex.A9-bunch of bills

for sale of vegetables in the name of the deceased. Therefore, in

considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly

assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- in the light of

facts and circumstances of the present case, period of accident,

the inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of living etc., and

therefore, there is no need to interfere with the monthly income

of the deceased.

14. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for

appellants that the Tribunal erred in following the decision of

Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others 1 decided on

12.04.2013, in granting compensation towards conventional heads

totaling Rs.3,25,000/-. In support of his contention, he placed

reliance on the decision of Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and

(2013 ) 9 SCC 54 LNA,J

others v. National Insurance Company and others 2, decided on

23.04.2014, subsequent to the decision of Rajesh (supra), wherein

the Hon'ble Apex Court granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- under

conventional head and awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum.

15. As per the decision of National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3, decided on 31.10.2017, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely

(2015) 15 SCC 722

(2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J

to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

16. In view of the above legal position, in considered opinion

of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each

towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate under conventional heads.

Therefore, the amount awarded under conventional heads by the

Tribunal needs to modified to the above extent.

17. As per the decision of Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar

(supra) and taking into consideration the rate of interest as

prescribed by the Banks as on the date of accident, in considered

opinion of this Court, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal

is on higher side and the same required to be modified and

accordingly, the rate of interest is reduced from 9%, as awarded

by the Tribunal, to 7.5% per annum.

LNA,J

Conclusion:

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

recalculated as under:

 Sl.No.                Head                      Compensation awarded

 1        Total Income               Rs.1,20,000/- per annum (Rs.10,000/-
                                     per month)
 2        Deduction towards personal Rs.30,000/- (i.e., one-fourth of the
          expenses                   total income )
 3        Net Income                 Rs.90,000/- (i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- (-)
                                     Rs.30,000/-)


 5        Loss of dependency               Rs.14,40,000/- (i.e., Rs.90,000/- x 16)
          (Sl.No.1 to 4)
 6        Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 5)     Rs. 2,00,000/-

 7        Funeral expenses                 Rs.   15,000/-

 8        Loss of estate                   Rs.   15,000/-

Total compensation to be paid: Rs.16,70,000/-

19. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed reducing the

compensation amount from Rs.17,65,000/- to Rs.16,70,000/- with

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

petition till the date of realization. The appellants and the

respondent Nos.6 & 7 herein 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 respondents 1 to 5 herein are LNA,J

entitled to the apportionment and withdrawal of the amount as

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

20. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand

closed.