Telangana High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Jangam Lavanya And 5 Ots on 19 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.3141 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2012 in
O.P.No.137 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-Madhava Reddy along with
one Sri Yadi 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 was driving the car and Yadi
Reddy was sitting by the side of the driver. In fact, the
Tractor had hit the car and the car was dragged towards
2 KS,J
the stationed lorry. The dependants of deceased driver-Sri
Madhava Reddy filed O.P.No.137 of 2009 claiming a
compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- and the Tribunal partly
allowed the O.P.No.137 of 2009 granting compensation
amount of Rs.9,00,000/-.
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/pushed 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
1 2018 (3) SCC 365
3 KS,J
which hit the car from behind without stopping and it
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.1,00,000/- per annum and as the age of the
deceased is 45 years 25% 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.1,25,000/-
(Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/-). From this, 1/3rd 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 1/3rd therefrom towards his personal and living
expenses, the contribution of income by the deceased to
the family comes to Rs.83,333/- per annum. Since the
age of the deceased was 45 years as held by the Tribunal,
the appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the guidelines laid
down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (4 supra).
Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of dependency comes
to Rs.83,333/- x 13 = Rs.10,83,329/- 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 No.2 being the son and
claimant No.3 being the mother of the deceased, this Court
is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to claimant
Nos.2 and 3 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.12,33,329/- which is rounded off to Rs.12,33,500/-.
7. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. However,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby
enhanced from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.12,33,500/-. 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
