Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. K. Usha , Pallavi And 4 Others on 6 August, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No. 3596 OF 2012
And
CROSS-OBJECTION (SR) No.45568 of 2009
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. The insurance company preferred Appeal No.3596 of 2012
questioning grant of compensation of Rs.16,70,000/- to the
respondents/claimants, who are wife and daughter of the deceased
vide judgment in O.P.No.188 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.
Cross-objections are filed by claimants seeking enhancement.
2. Briefly, the case of the claimants is that while the deceased
was going in a car along with respondents/claimants, the offending
vehicle, which is lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner,
resulting in the accident. Learned Tribunal Judge, having decided
on facts of the case, held that the insurance company is liable to
pay compensation.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for
the insurance company would submit that the insurance company
intends to withdraw the appeal, as such, appeal is liable to be
dismissed and also the cross-objections filed by the
respondents/claimants vide No.45568 of 2009 in the appeal, may
consequently be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Cross-objectors/claimants
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shri Badru (since deceased) through L.R.Hari Ram etc., v. NTPC
Limited (formerly National Thermal Power Corporation Limited)
& others, (2019) 0 AIR (SC) 3385) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
"19. Order 41 Rule 22(4) of the Code, provides that where, in
any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a
memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or
is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless
be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties
as the Court thinks fit.
20. In our considered opinion, merely because the High Court
dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents herein though
on merits, yet that by itself would not result in dismissal of the
landowners' cross objection also. In our view, the cross
objection had to be disposed of on its merits notwithstanding
the dismissal of the appeals as provided by in Order 41 Rule
22(4) of the Code by assigning reasons."
5. Since the insurance company/appellant had withdrawn the
appeal, the findings of the Tribunal regarding manner in which
accident has taken place and the consequent liability of the
insurance company are upheld.
6. Cross-objections were filed on 14.12.2009 before this Court.
However, the cross-objection petition was not numbered, since
there was a delay of 882 days in filing the Cross objections in the
appeal. There is also delay of 5286 days in resubmitting the cross-
objections SR No.45568 of 2009. However, this Court, has today,
condoned the delay in filing the Cross-objection and resubmitting
cross-objection.
7. On facts, the deceased was working as Additional Public
Prosecutor II and his monthly income was claimed at Rs.15,900/-.
Accordingly, on the basis of income as claimed, compensation can
be granted. Loss of future prospectus, as per the Judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company v. Pranay Sethi (2017 ACJ 2700) is at the rate of 30% of
income for the persons of the age below 50 years i.e., 30% of
Rs.1,90,800/- comes to Rs.57,240/-. Then total income of the
deceased per annum is Rs.2,48,040/- and the same is rounded off
to Rs.2,48,000/-. If 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards his
personal and living expenses as per the Judgment of Sarla Varma
v. Delhi Transport Corporation, it comes to Rs.82,666/- per
annum rounded off to Rs.82,670/-. Then the total annual income
after deduction towards personal expenses comes to Rs.1,65,330/-.
The appropriate multiplier applied for the persons of the age of the
deceased is 13 as per the judgment of Praynay Sethi's case. If the
same is applied, it comes to Rs.21,49,290/- (Rs.1,65,330/- x 13)
towards loss of dependency.
8. The respondents/claimants are entitled for consortium of
Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) to respondents 1 and 2 who are
wife and daughter. In addition to the above, the claimants also
entitled for loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses
Rs.15,000/- i.e., Rs.30,000/- plus 10% increase for every three
years, which comes to Rs.6,000/-. Totally it comes to Rs.36,000/-.
9. Therefore, in all, the claimants are entitled to the
compensation as follows:
1. Loss of dependency : Rs.21,49,290/-
2. Loss of consortium : Rs. 80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each)
3. Loss of estate +
funeral expenses : Rs. 36,000/-.
____________________
Total: : Rs.22,65,290/-
_____________________
10. The compensation granted by Tribunal @ Rs.16,70,000/- is
enhanced to Rs.22,65,290/-.
11. In view of above, the appellant/insurance company is
directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount before the
Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. However, the
interest on the enhanced amount shall be calculated from the date
of this order at 7.5% per annum. The claimants are directed to
deposit the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount.
The claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to the compensation in equal
shares on the enhanced amount.
12. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and Cross-
objection is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently,
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.08.2024
kvs
