Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Madem Kondamma And 2 Others on 24 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
MACMA NO.216 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel the appellant-
insurance company and learned counsel Ms.K.Rajitha, for the
respondent Nos.1 & 2 /petitioners.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the
appellant/insurance company challenging the award passed by
the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family
Court) at Nalgonda (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.1025 of 2008,
dated 07.10.2016, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against
the insurance company.
3. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent, respondents 1
and 2 herein are the petitioners and respondent no.3 herein is the
1st respondent/owner of the crime vehicle before the Tribunal.
For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are
arrayed before the Tribunal.
LNA,J
MACMA No.216 of 2017
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
4.1. On 27.10.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., while the deceased i.e.,
Madem Mallamma was proceedings along with others on the
tank-bund of Jethya Thanda, the driver of tractor and trailer
bearing registration No.AP-24-M-1271 and 1272 (hereinafter
referred to as crime vehicle) drove the same in rash and negligent
manner with high speed, lost control over the crime vehicle and
hit the deceased and others from their behind and the crime
vehicle also turned turtle, as a result, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Devarakonda
P.S., registered a case in Crime No.370/2008 under Sections 304-A
and 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle.
4.2. The petitioners i.e., the parents of the deceased, have filed
claim petition against the respondents 1 and 2 under Section
163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest from the date
of the petition till the date of realization.
4.3. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 20 years,
and was hale and healthy and was working as labourer and was
LNA,J
earning Rs.3,000/- per month; that due to sudden death, the
petitioners lost their future hope, love and affection of the
deceased.
5. The respondent No.1, who is the owner of crime vehicle
remained ex-parte.
6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter
denying the manner of accident, age, avocation, income of the
deceased and further contending that the driver of the tractor and
trailer was not having valid and effective driving licence at the
time of accident and prayed to dismiss the petition against the
insurance company.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
i) Whether the deceased by name M.Mallamma died due
to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer
bearing No.AP-24-M-1271 and AP-24-M-1272 ?
ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation ?
If so, to what amount and from whom ?
iii) To what relief?
LNA,J
8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the
petitioners, petitioner no.1 herself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1
to A5 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurance
company, no witness was examined, however, copy of insurance
policy was marked as Ex.B1.
9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, came to conclusion that the deceased
died due to the accident arising out of use of the crime vehicle
and awarded compensation of Rs.3,94,000/- directing the
respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel
for appellant-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal
erred in awarding compensation, which is excessive, exorbitant;
that since the deceased girl was unmarried daughter of the
petitioners, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the
income towards personal expenses of the deceased, instead of
1/3rd; that Tribunal erroneously adopted the multiplier '16' while
computing the compensation; that the Tribunal erred in assessing
LNA,J
the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- without there being any
evidence and finally, prayed to set aside the award passed by the
Tribunal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants submitted that the
Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and material
placed on record, had rightly awarded the compensation and the
appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the award
passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
Consideration:
12. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the
deceased in a fatal accident. Since the claim petition filed under
Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, 1988, which is a special provision as
to payment of compensation on a structural formula basis, the
petitioners need not establish that the death was due to any
wrongful act or negligent or fault of the driver of crime vehicle.
Further, the Tribunal, on due consideration of the oral evidence
and documentary evidence i.e., Ex.4-inquest report and Ex.A5-
MVI report, had rightly held that accident had occurred due to
LNA,J
rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle.
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation.
13. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for
appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.3,000/- is concerned, perusal of record would
show that the Tribunal considering the avocation of the deceased
as labourer, had assessed her income at Rs.3,000/- per month
relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Latha
Wadwa vs. State of Bihar 1. In considered opinion of this Court,
the Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.3,000/- in the light of facts and circumstances of the present
case, relevant date 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 of learned counsel for appellant with
regard to the adoption of multiplier and the deduction of income
towards personal and living expenses are concerned, as per the
table annexed to Second Schedule-II of the M.V.Act, 1988, the
2001 ACJ 1735
LNA,J
multiplier is '16', where the age of the deceased is above 15 years
and not exceeding 20 years; that since the age of the deceased in
the case on hand was taken as 20 years as per Ex.A4-inquest
report and Ex.A5-MVI report, the Tribunal had rightly adopted
the multiplier of '16'. Insofar as the deduction of personal
expenses is concerned, as per the Second Schedule, deduction
should be 1/3rd. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court,
the Tribunal had rightly adopted the multiplier and deducted
1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
15. In view of the above discussion, evidence and material
placed on record, in considered opinion of this Court, the
Tribunal on elaborate discussion of the facts and legal position,
had rightly awarded the compensation amount and there are no
grounds to interfere with the said award by this Court.
16. From the above factual background and discussion, in
considered opinion of this Court, the appellant failed to make out
any case warranting interference of this Court with the well
reasoned award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, Appeal fails and
LNA,J
is accordingly dismissed. The appellant-insurance company is
directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of
six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by
duly adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by the
appellant-insurance company to the claimants. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 24.04.2024
kkm
