Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Doulath Bee And 4 Ors on 5 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.1129 OF 2010
&
M.A.C.M.A No.3992 OF 2012
COMMON JUDMENT:
1. M.A.C.M.A.No.1129 of 2010 is filed by the claimants
questioning the meagre compensation granted by the Tribunal.
Questioning the very same order, the Insurance Company has
filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3992 of 2012.
2. Heard learned counsel for respondent-Insurance
Company and learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants and
perused the record.
3. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same
award granted by the Tribunal, both are heard together and
disposed off by way of this common order.
4. The manner in which the accident had taken place and
the liability are not in dispute.
5. Briefly, the case of the claimants is that deceased was
working as a paid Driver of his father's car/R.W.1. While
driving the vehicle, on 24.07.2001, the deceased met with an
accident when an unknown lorry came in the opposite direction
and hit the car. The claimants filed a petition stating that the
deceased was being paid Rs.3,000/- by R.W.1 who is his father
and he was also living separately.
6. The Tribunal found that R.W.1 was working as a
Watchman, it cannot be believed that he was paying Rs.3,000/-
p.m. to deceased and engaged him as a Driver to his private car.
However, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/-
p.m., compensation was granted by the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
would submit that the Tribunal had committed an error in
granting compensation when Tribunal found that it was highly
improbable that the owner of the vehicle was working as
Watchman and engaged his own son for driving his vehicle and
at the same breath finding that the deceased was being paid
salary. Both are contradictory findings and accordingly, need to
be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court
in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Prakash Shankar
Gurav And Another 1 and judgment of erstwhile Andhra
Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2006 (2) T.A.C. 575 (Kant)
Hyderabad v. K.Anjaneyulu and another 2 and argued that
father engaging a son as a Driver is neither improbable nor
impossible. It was an arrangement made by the father to
engage his son. As such, relying on the judgments stated
supra, prayed for grant of compensation.
9. It is admitted that R.W.1 has purchased the vehicle and
he owned it as a private vehicle. The other sources of income
are not placed before the Court. However, the fact remains that
a private car was purchased by R.W.1. It cannot be said that it
is un-natural for a father to engage his son to drive his vehicle.
Similar view was taken in the judgments stated supra.
10. The accident was of the year, 2001, compensation can be
granted considering the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/-
p.m.
11. Accordingly, considering the income of the deceased at
Rs.2,500/- p.m., the annual income comes to Rs.30,000/-.
Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 3, 40% has
to be considered towards future prospects which comes to
Rs.42,000/- (30,000+12,000). In view of the judgment of the
L.C.ACR 2007(4) A.P.457
2017(6) ALD 170 (SC)
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation 4, the appropriate multiplier would be
'18'. When applied '18' multiplier, the amount comes to
Rs.7,56,000/-(42,000x18). Out of which, 1/4th has to be
deducted towards his personal expenditure, which comes to
Rs.5,67,000/-(7,56,000-1,89,000). Apart from the same, the
claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-(40,000x4
dependants) towards consortium and an amount of Rs.30,000/-
towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus the total
compensation amount is arrived at Rs.7,57,000/-. As the
contribution of the deceased is considered as 40% (7,57,000-
3,02,800) in causing the accident, the claimants are entitled to
receive 60% of the compensation. Accordingly, the total
compensation, the claimants are entitled to is Rs.4,54,200/-
12. In the result, MACMA.No.1129 of 2010 is allowed
enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.1,08,420/- to Rs.4,54,200/-. The enhanced amount shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization. The appellants are permitted to
withdraw the entire amount of compensation, on payment of
2009(6) SCC 121
deficit Court fee. Except the above, the award of the Tribunal
shall remain same on all other aspects.
13. Consequently, MACMA.No.3992 of 2012 filed by the
Insurance Company stands dismissed. Miscellaneous
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.08.2024
dv
