Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs G Jalaja And 3 Others on 21 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3245 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)
The present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant/United
India Insurance Company Ltd., aggrieved by the order and
decree dated 26.02.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.591 of 2011 by
the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
Special Sessions Judge for the trial of cases under SCs & STs
(PoA) Act-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B. Nagar (for short, "the Tribunal").
2. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri L.N.R. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for
respondents No.1 and 2.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioners, who are parents of the deceased G.
Shiva Sai Praveen, filed M.V.O.P. No.591 of 2011 claiming
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of the death of
their son Praveen in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
02.06.2011 stating that on 02.06.2011 at about 11.10 a.m.,
while the deceased was walking on footpath along with his two
friends from Indira Nagar to IIIT junction, on the way, when
they reached opposite H.P. Petrol Pump, one motorcycle
bearing No.AP-23J-7000, driven by its rider at high speed in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased from behind.
As a result, the deceased received bleeding injuries on his head
and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to
Apollo Hospital for treatment, and while undergoing treatment,
he died on 03.06.2011 at 2.10 a.m. On receipt of the
complaint, Police Raidurgam registered a case in Crime No.190
of 2011 under Section 304-A and 337 IPC against the rider of
the said motorcycle. Respondents No.1 and 2 are the owners,
and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the bike.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed a counter
stating that the petitioners have to prove that the deceased
died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident and the
accident occurred due to negligent driving of the rider of the
motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000. He further submitted
that the crime vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3
Company, and the policy was in force by the time of the
accident. He further submitted that he sold the vehicle to
respondent No.2 in March 2011, therefore, he is no way
concerned with the alleged accident. Accordingly, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
6. Respondent No.2 filed a counter stating that the
petitioners have to prove that the deceased died due to injuries
sustained by him in the accident and the accident occurred
due to negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing
No.AP-23J-7000.
7. Though respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed
counter, the same has not been reflected in the order of the
Tribunal. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-denying the
allegations made in the petition. They specifically contended
that vehicle No.AP-23J-7000 was not involved in the above said
alleged accident, the deceased Shiva Said Praveen did not die
in that accident, and the said vehicle was not insured with
them. They denied the age and income of the deceased. They
further contended that the accident occurred only due to gross
negligence on the part of the deceased G. Shiva Sai Praveen.
The petitioners are not entitled to any compensation since the
accident was only due to gross negligence on the part of the
deceased. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined
and marked Exs.A1 to A14 and Ex.X-1. No oral or
documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2. On behalf of respondent No.3, RW.1 was
examined and marked Ex.B1 as a copy of insurance policy.
9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of
the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000 and accordingly
awarded an amount of Rs.46,47,088/- with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with
proportionate costs. Challenging the same, the present
M.A.C.M.A. is filed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company contended that the Tribunal had relied on the salary
for the month of March 2011 instead of May 2011, which is
lesser, and that the Tribunal erred in not following the amount
paid towards Bonus, ex-gratia advance payment.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company further contended that the Tribunal has not
deducted any amount towards IT and professional tax, which
was deducted by the employer, and the Tribunal erred in
deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses
instead of 50% of the income.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking
the age of the deceased instead of taking the age of the
deceased's mother, and if the age of the mother is taken into
consideration, the proper multiplier would be "11". The
Tribunal applied the wrong multiplier and granted excess
compensation.
13. With regard to the accident, a perusal of the impugned
order discloses that the Tribunal, having framed issue No.1 as
to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000 by its rider
and having considered the evidence of PW.2, an eye witness to
the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A-
1/FIR and Ex.A-4/charge-sheet, rightly came to the conclusion
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-23J-7000 and has
answered in favour of the petitioners and against the
respondents. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with
the Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing
No.AP-23J-7000. In proof of death of the deceased, the
Tribunal observed that the petitioners got filed Ex.A3/Inquest
Report and Ex.A5/PME report, and the doctor who conducted
the PME opined that the deceased died due to head injury
associated with other injuries. On considering the evidence of
PWs 1 and 2, Inquest and PME report, the Tribunal rightly
came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the
injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident.
14. Insofar as the deceased's income is concerned, according
to the petitioners, the deceased was working as a Software
Engineer in Infosys and was earning Rs.47,196/- per month.
In support of their contention, the petitioners examined PW.3,
Associate Manager (Facilities), INFOSYS Ltd., and he deposed
that Shiva Sai Praveen was a permanent employee as
Technology Analyst in their INFOSYS Ltd., and was drawing a
salary of Rs.47,196/- per month. Ex.A7/Salary Pay slip was
issued by the INFOSYS Ltd., which shows that the deceased
was drawing Rs.44,240/-. The contention of the
appellant/Insurance Company is that there is no income tax
deduction. The Tribunal observed that Ex.A7 clearly shows
that they paid salary only for 3 days, and the remaining
amount is towards ex-gratia. Ex.A7 also shows that the salary
was withheld and it will be paid along with the final settlement.
Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company is incorrect. Petitioners also
filed Ex.A13/salary slip for the month of April 2011 and
Ex.A14/salary slip for the month of March 2011. It shows that
after deduction, the deceased used to draw Rs.40,484/-. Out of
which, Rs.4,284/- is the differential CPI which has to be
deducted. Similarly, a leave travel allowance of Rs.3,998/- is
also deducted from the salary. After deducting those two
heads, the deceased's salary was Rs.32,202/-. After deducting
1/3rd of his expenditure, his family's contribution is
Rs.21,468/-. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal
has considered all the aspects, such as, age of the deceased,
the multiplier, rate of interest etc., the Tribunal relied upon the
decision reported in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others; 1 wherein it was
observed that the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased
and not on the age of the dependant. The Tribunal observed
that PW.1 stated that the deceased was aged about 25 years,
and the same was shown in the Inquest and PME report, as
such, it applied the multiplier "18". Therefore, the Tribunal
awarded Rs.46,37,088/- (Rs.21,468/-x12x18) towards loss of
dependency and also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards cremation
charges. In all, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.46,47,088/-,
which requires no interference from this Court. Accordingly,
the MACMA is liable to be dismissed.
2012 ACJ 2002
15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming
the order and decree, dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Tribunal
in M.V.O.P.No.591 of 2011. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending,
shall stand closed.
________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
21st day of August 2024
BDR
