Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs K. Manjula on 19 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.260 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company
aggrieved by the judgment, dated 17.01.2012 in
O.P.No.150 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,
Ranga Reddy, at L.B. Nagar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of
accident while the deceased-Sri Yadi Reddy along with one
Sri Madhava Reddy were proceeding in car bearing
No.AP29Q4689, the Tractor bearing No.AP16X5346 driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car
from its behind, due to which the car was crushed between
the Tractor and the Lorry bearing No.AP16TW2788 which
was stationed at the place of accident i.e. near Sripathi
Labs on National Highway, Grundrampally Village. At the
time of accident, the deceased sitting beside the driver's
seat. In fact, the Tractor had hit the car and the car was
dragged towards the stationed lorry. The dependants of
2 KS,J
deceased Sri Yadi Reddy, filed O.P.No.150 of 2009 claiming
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal allowed
same as prayed for granting compensation amount of
Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on
the ground that since the lorry was stationed on the road
and the car was crushed between the Lorry and the
Tractor, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Archit Saini Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. 1, the fault would lie with the lorry and the
company insuring the lorry has to pay the compensation
and not the company which insured the Tractor as is found
by the Tribunal.
4. The manner in which the accident had taken place, it
is apparent that the tractor hit the car from behind and the
car was dragged towards the lorry. In the said
circumstances, it cannot be said that the stationary lorry
had anything to do with the accident when it is the tractor
which hit the car from behind without stopping and it
1 2018 (3) SCC 365
3 KS,J
dragged the said car towards stationed lorry. Therefore,
the fault lies with the tractor as is correctly held by the
Tribunal and the said finding cannot be interfered with in
the present case.
5. However, insofar as the compensation granted, the
Tribunal has not considered the future prospects in
accordance with the law laid down in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others 2. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others 3 in the
three Bench Judgment, held that though there was no
cross-appeal made, if the High Court comes to a conclusion
that just compensation would be to a certain extent may be
granted, such extent can be granted in the said case. In
view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
future prospects and consortium to the dependants of the
deceased.
2 (2017 AACJ 2700 (SC))
3 MANU/SC/0803/2020
4 KS,J
6. In view of the above, considering the income of the
deceased at Rs.1,82,000/- per annum and as the age of the
deceased is 37 years 40% of future prospects are to be
added as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi (2 supra). Therefore, the future annual
income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,54,800/-
(Rs.1,82,000/- + Rs.72,800/-). From this, 1/4th is to be
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased
following the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 4, since there are only three dependents. After
deducting 1/4th therefrom towards his personal and living
expenses, the contribution of income by the deceased to
the family comes to Rs.1,91,100/- per annum. Since the
age of the deceased was 37 years as held by the Tribunal,
the appropriate multiplier is '16' as per the guidelines laid
down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (4 supra).
Adopting multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency comes
to Rs. 1,91,100/- x 16 = Rs.30,57,600/- That apart, the
claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- under the head of
4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
5 KS,J
loss of estate and funeral expenses and claimant No.1 is
entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium as per
the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (2 supra).
Further, since the claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the children
and claimant Nos.4 and 5 being the parents of the
deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental and filial
consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in
Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram 5. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to
Rs.32,87,600/-.
7. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. However,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby
enhanced from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.32,87,600/-. The
enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the
date of award till the date of realization. The enhanced
amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by
the Tribunal. Time to deposit the entire compensation is
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
5 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904
6 KS,J
judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to
withdraw their respective share amounts without
furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to
costs.
8. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any
pending shall stand closed.
____________________
K. SURENDER,J
February 19, 2024.
BMS
