Telangana High Court
Md Afsar vs K Shankar Singh on 22 April, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.357 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- The Court of Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.2530 of 2011,
dated 20.04.2017, the appellants/claim petitioners in O.P. filed the
present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioners, who
are the sons of Smt.Abida Begum (hereinafter be referred as 'the
deceased'), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V Rules, 1989 seeking
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents for the
death of the deceased in a road traffic accident. It is stated by the
petitioners that on 01.07.2011, the deceased along with her
daughter and grand children went to Kowkur Darga and after
visiting the said Darga and while returning to Hyderabad in an
Auto bearing No.AP-9W-6222 and when reached near Bollaram
Check post, another Auto bearing No.AP-28TA-4907 came from
Risalbazar driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a
MGP,J
high speed and dashed the Auto in which the deceased and her
family members were traveling. As a result, the Auto turned turtle
and the deceased and her family members sustained grievous
injuries and fractures on vital parts of the body. Immediately, she
was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. But,
she was succumbed to injuries on 02.07.2011 at 01.30 hours while
undergoing treatment. Police, Bollaram Police Station, registered a
case in Crime No.69 of 2011 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC
against the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP-28TA-4907.
4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the crime vehicle,
remained exparte.
5. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age of
the deceased, manner of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle
i.e., Auto, rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP-
28TA-4907 and that the claim of compensation is excess and
exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it. In
the additional counter filed by them, it is contended that the
seating capacity of the Auto in which the deceased and her family
traveled is four. But, at the time of accident, six persons travelled
in the said Auto which is more than the permitted seating capacity.
Hence, the accident occurred due to the said negligence and for not
MGP,J
taking minimum precautionary measures by the driver of Auto
bearing No.AP-9W-6222. Also, the owner and insurer of the said
Auto bearing No.AP-9W-6222, who are necessary parties, were not
added as parties to the petition. Therefore, the Insurance
Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred
resulting in death of the deceased, Abida Begum,
due to the rash and negligent driving of the
motor vehicle ( Auto bearing registration
No.AP-28TA-4907) by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation? If so, at what quantum and what
is the liability of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7. In order to prove the above issues, petitioner No.1 was
examined as PW1. As he is not an eye witness to the incident, he
got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident and got
marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. On behalf of 2nd respondent,
RWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 and Exs.X1 to X6
were got marked.
8. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced
on both sides and perusing the entire documents available on
MGP,J
record, had partly allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners
by awarding compensation of Rs.4,22,000/- along with interest @
9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
payable by Respondent No.1 alone. Dissatisfied with the said
compensation amount, the appellants/petitioners filed the present
Appeal.
9. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for appellants
as well as learned Standing counsel for Respondent No.2-
Insurance company. Perused the record.
10. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellants are
that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating Respondent No.2
from its liability and attributing responsibility against Respondent
No.1 only; erred in considering the income of the deceased as
Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case between Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010(9) SCC 218); erred in not awarding
future prospects to the earnings of the deceased and contended
that though the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess driving
license, when the insurance policy is in force, the insurance
company shall pay at first instance and later recover the same
from the owner of the crime vehicle and also contended that the
MGP,J
claimants are entitled for grant of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards love
and affection.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 contended
that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had
rightly exempted Insurance company from its liability by fixing
liability against Respondent No.1 alone and awarded reasonable
compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
12. Now, the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the order passed by the trial Court requires
interference of this Court?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
available on record. Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1. He
reiterated the contents made in the claim petition. As he is not an
eye witness to the incident, he got examined PW2, who is the
daughter of the deceased and who travelled along with the
deceased on the date of accident and deposed that on 01.07.2011,
when she along with the deceased and her grand children after
visiting Kowkur Darga and were returning to Hyderabad in an Auto
bearing No.AP-9W-6222 during night hours, another Auto bearing
No.AP-28TA-4907 came from Risalbazar which was driven by its
MGP,J
driver in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
their Auto due to which, the Auto turned turtle and the deceased
along with other members sustained grievous injuries and
fractures. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. But she was succumbed to
injuries on 02.07.2011 at 1.30 hours while undergoing treatment.
She deposed that the said accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-28TA-4907.
During her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that
there were more passengers sitting in the Auto, due to which the
driver of the auto could not able to control the auto and therefore,
dashed another auto and that there was no negligence on part of
the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-28TA-4907. She denied the
suggestion that there was no light at the place of accident and that
she could not identify the auto which dashed the auto of the
deceased.
14. On behalf of 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, RW1, who
is Senior Executive, Legal in 2nd respondent office was examined.
He deposed that they issued policy bearing No.OG-11-9995 1803
00040121 for goods Auto bearing No.AP-28TA-4907 which is valid
from 16.04.2011 to 15.04.2012 and the said policy was in
existence as on the date of accident and it is marked as Ex.B1. He
MGP,J
also stated that as the driver of the crime vehicle do not hold any
valid driving license which is violation of Section 3(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any
compensation. Moreover, the MVI inspected the vehicle and
imposed fine to Respondent No.1 for driving without driving license
vide VCR.No.0532203, dated 25.07.2011 and as per RC records
and police records, the seating capacity of Auto is four in all, but
six persons were traveling in the said auto as per FIR.
15. RW2, who is Senior Assistant in RTA, Medchal, deposed in
his evidence that the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP-28TA-
4907 was registered in the name of K.Shankar Singh during the
period from 24.05.2010 to 09.05.2012 and Anand Metla was the
registered owner from 09.05.2012 to 19.02.2015. As it is
registered as three wheeler goods vehicle, the seating capacity is
one and there is no permission for passengers to travel in such
goods vehicle.
16. RW3, who is working as Junior Assistant in RTA Central
zone, deposed in his evidence that Auto bearing No.AP-09W-6222
was registered in the name of Mohd. Yousufuddin Ghori under the
clause of vehicle auto rickshaw transport and the seating capacity
of the said auto rickshaw was four in all and there was no permit
to claim as on 02.11.2011 i.e, the date of accident.
MGP,J
17. RW4, who is MVI, RTA, Medchal, deposed in his evidence
that he inspected Auto bearing No.AP-28TA 4907 on 25.07.2011 at
P.S.Bollaram at 4.30 pm and noticed that the owner could not
produce the license of owner-cum-driver and there is no proof of
quarterly tax. Hence, he issued check report bearing No.0532203
dated 25.07.2011 and seized the vehicle and kept under the safe
custody.
18. A perusal of Ex.X6 shows that the driver of the crime vehicle
has no driving license at the time of accident. As it is violation of
terms of insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to
pay any compensation and respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay
compensation. Further, the Insurance Company had addressed
letters dated 16.02.2012 and 02.04.2012 to Respondent
No.1/owner of the Auto bearing NO.AP-28TA-4907 requesting to
furnish copies of certain documents such as Copy of RC, Copy of
TC, copy of policy, copy of driving license of the driver at the time
of accident within a period of 15 days and 10 days. But, there
was no response from respondent No.1 regarding the same.
19. Hence, from the above discussion, it is clear that Respondent
No.1 failed to act upon the letters addressed by the Insurance
Company and also failed to prove that there is no negligence on his
part and also violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B1-Insurance
MGP,J
policy. Hence, the learned Tribunal had rightly fixed liability upon
Respondent No.1 in paying compensation to the petitioners.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said
finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal which is in proper
perspective.
20. Now coming to the quantum of compensation and income
fixed by the Tribunal, it is the contention of the learned counsel for
appellants that the learned Tribunal erred in considering the
income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Arun
Kumar Agarwal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 A perusal of the
said judgment shows that the deceased therein used to earn
Rs.50,000/- per month by engaging herself in paintings and
handicrafts. Here, in the present case, there is no evidence to
show that the deceased was earning by doing any other work apart
from the duty of Home Maker. This Court by relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Kirti &
another Vs.Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2 and Arum Kumar
Agrawal Vs.National Insurance Company & others 3 is inclined to fix
the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the
(2010(9) SCC 218)
2021(2)ALD1 SC
2010 AIR (SC)3426
MGP,J
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kirti v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
The principle of awarding of future prospects must apply
with equal vigor, particularly with respect to homemakers.
Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation
would equally apply.
21. From the above decision, it is clear that the deceased is
entitled for future prospects. As the age of the deceased was 54
years at the time of accident, she is entitled for addition of 10%
towards future prospects to the established income, as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 5.
Hence, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.5,500/-. As the number of dependants are four in number, if
1/4th amount is deducted towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.4,125/- per month. As the age of the deceased was 54 years at
the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '11' as per
the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
2021 SCC OnLine SC 3
2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
Corporation 6. Therefore, adopting multiplier '11', the total loss of
dependency works out to Rs.5,44,500/-(Rs.4125 x 12 x 11). That
apart, the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.77,000/-
under conventional heads. Thus, in all, the appellants/claim
petitioners are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.6,21,500/-
22. So far as awarding of interest is concerned, the learned
Tribunal granted interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization. This Court, by relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir
Singh and others 7, reduces the rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.
23. In the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,22,000/- to
Rs.6,21,500/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of
realization payable by Respondent No.1 alone. Respondent No.1 is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon
such deposit made by the respondent No.1, the appellants are
entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
7 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
the Tribunal. However, the appellants are directed to pay the
deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. There
shall be no order as to costs.
24. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.22.04.2024
ysk
