Telangana High Court
The Reliance General Insurance ... vs Binta Devi, R.R.Dist And 7 Others on 6 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.872 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Appeal is against the order dated 21.01.2017
passed in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal- cum - IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar (for short, the Tribunal) wherein, the learned
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,08,000/- payable by
Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent
No.2/Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
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 brief are that the petitioners, who are
the wife and children of the deceased-Manoj Kumar @ Raju had
filed claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act
claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- payable by respondents
1 & 2 on account of the death of her deceased husband and father
to petitioner nos.2 to 7, who died in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 01.01.2011. It is stated by the petitioners that on
01.01.2011 at about 8.30 AM, when petitioner No.1 along with her
deceased husband were going to Monda Market in an Auto bearing
No.AP 10W 1756 for purchasing grocery and when they reached
Narayana Concept School X Road, one Spark Car bearing No.AP
MGP,J
29BE 8249 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed the auto due to which, the husband of petitioner No.1
sustained bleeding injuries on his head. Immediately, he was
taken to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and while
undergoing treatment, he died on the same day at 12.40PM.
Based on a complaint the P.S.Marredpally, Secunderabad,
registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2011 under Section 304 IPC. It
is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was working as
owner-cum-driver of the said Auto and was earning Rs.16,000/-
per month. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners lost
their bread winner and financial assistance and finding it very
difficult to eke out their livelihood and hence, filed a claim petition
seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- which is payable by
Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
4. Respondent No.1 filed her counter denying the averments
made in the claim petition including the occurrence of accident,
age, income of the deceased and also denied that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
Spark Car and contended that the petitioners had not filed any
driving license to show that the deceased is a driver by profession
and prayed to dismiss the claim application.
MGP,J
5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition. It also stated
that the insurance company never issued any type of policy to the
crime vehicle and that the claim made is excess and exorbitant and
prayed to dismiss the claim against them.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 was examined and Exs. A1
to A8 were got marked through her. On behalf of the respondents,
none of the witnesses were examined. However, Ex.B1-Copy of
Insurance Policy was marked with the consent of other party.
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence
adduced on both sides and perusing the documents available on
record, allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners by
awarding compensation of Rs.15,08,000/- with proportionate costs
and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realization payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and
severally.
8. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.2/Insurance
Company filed the present Appeal.
9. Heard the submission of the learned Standing counsel for
Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondents. Perused
the material available on record.
MGP,J
10. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant-
Insurance Company are that the Tribunal erred in taking the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-, erred in awarding
interest @ 9% per annum, erred in awarding Rs.1,25,000/- under
non-pecuniary heads and had also erred in not apportioning the
negligence on part of driver of auto.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire
evidence and documents available on record, awarded reasonable
compensation for which this Court needs no interference.
12. Now, the point that arise for determination is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal suffers from any
irregularity?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire record and also the
evidence adduced on both sides. Respondent No.1 herein, who is
the wife of the deceased and also an eye witness to the accident,
got examined as PW1. She reiterated the contents made in the
claim petition and also deposed the manner of accident. In
support of her contention, she also got marked Ex.A1- Certified
Copy of FIR, Ex.A2-Certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3- Certified
copy of crime details form, Ex.A4- Certified Copy of inquest report,
MGP,J
Ex.A5-Certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A6- Certified copy of Post
Mortem Examination Report, Ex.A8- Copy of Registration
Certificate, Ex.A9- Copy of permit. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the appellant except stating that the respondents/claim
petitioners are not entitled for any compensation, did not choose to
examine any witness on their behalf. Further, nothing worthy is
elicited during the cross-examination of PW1 to disbelieve her
evidence.
14. It is also pertinent to mention that PW1 in her evidence
stated that her husband was working as an auto driver and was
earning Rs.16,000/- per month. But she has not filed any
documents evidencing the same. Therefore, the learned Tribunal,
by taking into account the cost of living in the year 2011 and by
estimating the earning capacity for an auto driver as Rs.300/- per
day, had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month
which this Court considers desirable. The other contention raised
by the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company is that
even though there is contributory negligence on part of the driver
of the Auto, but the leaned Tribunal, without considering the same,
had attributed negligence only against the driver of the Spark Car.
In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that Police after thorough
investigation, laid charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver of
the Car. Hence, under these circumstances, apportioning
MGP,J
contributory negligence on part of the driver of the Auto is
unwarranted. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence to prove the
same and have not taken any steps to give complaint to the police
concerned for proper investigation of the case.
15. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the
evidence of PW1, who is an eye witness to the accident, coupled
with Exs.A1 to A6, has rightly came to a conclusion that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Spark Car bearing No.AP 29BE 8249 which resulted in the
death of the deceased and also taking into account the age and
income of the deceased and by applying relevant multiplier, has
awarded reasonable compensation which needs no interference by
this Court.
16. Insofar as the interest aspect is concerned, the learned
Tribunal has awarded interest to the petitioners @ 9% per annum
on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of
petition till the date of realization. But as per the decision of the
Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1,
the said interest granted by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is
reduced to 7.5% per annum on the awarded amount from the date
1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
of petition till the date of realization. Except the said modification
in the interest awarded, the findings of the Tribunal in all other
aspects, shall remain the same.
17. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed by reducing the interest from 9% to 7.5% on the
compensation amount of Rs.15,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be
no order as to costs.
18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.06.02.2024
ysk
MGP,J
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.872 OF 2017
Dt.06.02.2024
ysk
