Telangana High Court

Maruti And 6 Ors vs N.Padma Rao And Anr on 19 February, 2024

               HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                        M.A.C.M.A. No.1199 OF 2008


Between:
Maruti, S/o. G. Shyam Rao, aged 48 years, Occ: Labour,
R/o. Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, and 6 others.

                                                            ..      Appellants

                                      Vs.

N. Padma Rao, S/o. Narayana Rao,
Aged Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No.AHT 5427,
R/o. H.No.4-26/1, Kukatpally, Hyderabad District, and another


                                                                .. Respondents




DATE OF THE JUDGMEMT PRONOUNCED:              19.02.2024




1.   Whether Reporters of Local newspapers                          Yes
     may be allowed to see the judgment?


2.   Whether the copies of judgment may be                          Yes
     marked to Law Reporters/Journals


3.   Whether his Lordship wishes to                                 Yes
     see the fair copy of the judgment?




                                                   _______________________
                                                     K. SURENDER, J
                 * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER


                       + M.A.C.M.A. No.1199 OF 2008

                      % DATED 24TH November, 2023


# Maruti, S/o. G. Shyam Rao, aged 48 years, Occ: Labour,
  R/o. Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, and 6 others.

                                                                  ..     Appellants


                                          Vs.

$ A N. Padma Rao, S/o. Narayana Rao,
Aged Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No.AHT 5427,
R/o. H.No.4-26/1, Kukatpally, Hyderabad District, and another


                                                                   .. Respondents


<Gist:


>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Appellants       : Sri Dhulipalla V.A.S. Ravi Prasad



^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri R. Sridhar




? CASES REFERRED               :    1.   (2019) 2 SCC 192
                                    2.   MANU/SC/1104/2023
                                    3.   (2005) 6 SCC 172
                                    4.   (2001) 8 SCC 197
                                    5.   (2017) 16 SCC 680
                                    6.   (2009) 6 SCC 121
                                    7.   (2018) 18 SCC 130
                                    8.   (2011) 10 SCC 756
                                    9.   2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.1199 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated

03.10.2007 in O.P.No.478 of 2005 passed by the III Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. The appellants herein are the petitioners/claimants in the

aforesaid O.P., which was filed by them seeking compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of one Mr. Lakhan, (hereinafter

referred to as 'the deceased").

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2003, while the

deceased was travelling in a Lorry bearing No.AHT 5427, at

Madannaguda, a Gas Tanker bearing No.KA 21 B 1296, which was

coming from Chandanagar side, being driven in a rash and negligent

manner at high speed, hit the Lorry in which the deceased was

travelling. Due to the head-on collision, the deceased and the drivers of

both the vehicles along with other labourers who were travelling in the

vehicle died on the spot.

4. On perusal of entire material on record, both oral and

documentary, the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 03.10.2007,

awarded an amount of Rs.86,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging the said

order, the appellants/claimants filed the present appeal.

5. Heard Sri Dhulipalla V.A.S. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants/claimants, and Sri R. Sridhar, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused

the record.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that

the deceased was working as a labourer and the said fact was

supported by the Inquest Report. However, the Tribunal failed to

consider the same and concluded that the deceased was not an earning

member of the family. Further, without considering the age and future

earning capacity of the deceased, the Tribunal has erroneously

computed the compensation as Rs.86,000/-. He would further submit

that the Tribunal dismissed the petition against respondent No.2-

Insurance Company. According to him, the policy issued by respondent

No.2-Insurance Company covers the risk of (6) persons under Section

147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, respondent No.2-Insuance

Company is also liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. In

support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramla and others

v. National Insurance Company Limited and others 1, Saroj Devi and

(2019) 2 SCC 192 others v. Narendra Singh and others 2 and National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Prembai Patel and others 3.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance

Company would submit that the insurance policy does not cover the

'labourer' travelling in the lorry as it covers only the two 'workers' in the

lorry and the compensation was already paid to those two workers. As

such, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the

compensation. Therefore, according to him, the Tribunal has rightly

dismissed the petition against respondent No.2.

8. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, having examined P.Ws.1 and 2

on behalf of the claimants and on consideration of Exs.A.1 to A.3, found

that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of lorry

bearing No.AHT 5427, in which the deceased was travelling. Further,

the insurance company had filed a counter affidavit stating that since

two persons namely, Saheb and Anil, who died in the accident, have

already claimed the compensation under the Workmen Compensation

Act, 1923, in Case No.75 of 2003, the claimants are not entitled for

compensation from respondent No.2. Though the claimants herein

have filed W.C.No.115 of 2003 for compensation, the same was

dismissed as not-pressed and subsequently, the present O.P. was filed.

9. The learned Judge of the Tribunal found that since the premium

was paid only on behalf of two labourers and that they were already

MANU/SC/1104/2023

(2005) 6 SCC 172 compensated by the Insurance Company, the liability would only be

fastened on the driver of the vehicle and not the Insurance Company.

10. Except filing a counter affidavit, the Insurance Company had not

taken steps to examine any witness on its behalf nor mark any

documents pertaining to the compensation paid to two labourers.

Admittedly, there was a driver in the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle

cannot be considered as a labourer.

11. Further, as seen from the FIR, the vehicle in which the deceased

was travelling, which is the lorry bearing No.AHT 5427, being driven in

a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit the Gas Tanker. Since

both the drivers died, the police had not investigated the matter and did

not file any charge sheet. In the said circumstances, the FIR which was

given at the earliest point of time i.e., on the next day of occurrence of

the accident - 18.06.2003, and the statement of P.W.2 - Constable, P.

Narasimha, who lodged the complaint, would reveal that it was the lorry

bearing No.AHT 5427 which had come in a rash and negligent manner

and hit the Gas Tanker.

12. In the said circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal regarding

contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e.,

lorry bearing No.AHT 5427, is hereby set aside.

13. The contention of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

that the deceased was not covered under the Insurance Policy since the

said policy was only for two persons, cannot be accepted since no evidence is produced by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal

regarding who the two labourers were to whom the workman

compensation was paid. Since it is not in dispute that the Insurance

Company i.e., respondent No.2 had insured the crime vehicle, the

Insurance Company itself is liable to pay compensation to the

claimants.

14. Coming to computation of compensation, on consideration of

entire material available on record, it appears that the deceased was

aged about 16 years at the time of his death. In Latha Wadhwa v.

State of Bihar 4 the Apex Court held that even when there is no proof of

income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated. Since

the deceased was aged about 16 years and he was able bodied person

and as per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was working as a

labourer, this Court inclined to take the income of the deceased at

Rs.3,000/- per month. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants, the Tribunal erred in not adding future

prospects of the deceased as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi 5. Hence, this

Court is inclined to add 40% towards future prospects (40% x

Rs.3,000/- = Rs.1,200/-), and by adding so, the monthly income of the

deceased comes to Rs.4,200/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50%

of the income needs to be deducted towards personal expenses,

(2001) 8 SCC 197

(2017) 16 SCC 680 according to the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma (Supra). Hence, after

deducting 50% towards personal expenses (50% x Rs.4,200/- =

Rs.2,100/-), the net annual income of the deceased being contributed to

the family comes out to Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2,100/- x 12). As per records,

the deceased was aged about 16 years at the time of his death.

Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 6, the multiplier of

income is '18'. Thus, the future loss of dependency comes to

Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.25,200 x 18). That apart, the claimants are entitled

to Rs.33,000/- under conventional heads as per the decision in Pranay

Sethi (Supra). Similarly, appellant Nos.1 and 2, being the parents of

the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each, under loss of filial

consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma

General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram 7. Thus,

in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,66,600/-, which is just and

reasonable.

15. In view of the above, the compensation is calculated as under:

S.No. Particulars Amount awarded by Amount awarded by the Tribunal this Court

1. Annual Income of the deceased Rs.15,000/- Rs.36,000/-

2. Addition towards future prospects @ Nil Rs.14,400/-

40%

3. Total Annual Income Rs.15,000/- Rs.50,400/-

4. Deduction towards personal expenditure Rs.5,000/- Rs.25,200/-

i. Tribunal - 1/ 3 rd x Rs.15,000/-

ii.This Court - 50% x Rs.42,500/-

(2009) 6 SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130

5. Net Annual Income Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,200/-

7. Compensation Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.4,53,600/-

8. Other Expenses Rs.12,000/- Nil (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,000/-)

9. Conventional Heads as per Nil Rs.33,000/-

Pranay Sethi (Supra)

10. Filial Consortium as per Nil Rs.80,000/-

Nanu Ram (Supra) @ Rs.40,000/- each Rs.40,000/- x 2

11. Deduction towards Contributory Rs.86,000/- Nil Negligence @ 50% (50% x Rs.1,72,000/-)

Total Compensation Rs.86,000/- Rs.5,66,600/-

16. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-

Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation

which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is

impermissible under law.

17. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and another 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court

while referring to Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh 9 held as under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC) is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

18. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to

above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has

been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece

of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount

consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit

to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.

19. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A is allowed and the compensation amount

awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.86,000/- to

Rs.5,66,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to

be payable by respondent No. 2-Insurance Company. The amount shall

be deposited within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt