Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Guntoji Prakruthamma And 3 Others on 19 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A No.2168 OF 2019
JUDGMENT :
The 3rd respondent in O.P.No.592 of 2010 i.e.,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its
Manager, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2014,
whereunder the petition filed by the
respondents/claimants for compensation on account of
road traffic accident was partly allowed, granting a sum of
Rs.13,00,400/-, filed this appeal under Section 173 of
M.V.Act and sought for setting aside the impugned order
on the following grounds:
The Tribunal committed an error by fixing liability
against the appellant herein. The Tribunal was wrong in
assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.7,800/- per
annum in spite of the fact that he was a student without
any income. The Tribunal was wrong in accepting the
payment under the alleged salary certificate though it was
not proved by any acceptable evidence. The multiplier
SSRN, J
adopted by the Court below was incorrect and the Tribunal
committed an error in awarding lump sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- as future prospects, thereby sought for
setting aside the award.
2. As could be seen from the impugned order, the
respondent/claimants have filed O.P.No.592 of 2010
seeking compensation on account of death of one
G.Srinivas (hereinafter be referred as deceased) in a road
traffic accident.
3. As per the petition filed by the respondent, the
deceased who is none other than their son, was a student
and while he and his friends were proceeding to
Hayathnagar to attend birthday function on a motorbike,
there was an accident when the driver of a lorry bearing
No.AP-29U7-963 by driving the same in rash and negligent
manner, dashed the motor bike and as he suffered grievous
injuries, died on the spot.
4. The respondents have filed the petition against the
driver, owner and insurer of the above said lorry and
SSRN, J
sought for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The respondent Nos.1
and 2 i.e., driver and owner of the vehicle remained
exparte. But, the insurance company i.e., present appellant
disputed the claim.
5. However the Court below after conducting enquiry,
came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the above said
lorry and awarded Rs.13,00,400/- as compensation
payable by all the respondents.
6. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company
on the ground that the Tribunal did not appreciate the oral
evidence and documents properly, but fixed the salary of
the deceased as Rs.7,800/- per month on the basis of
Ex.A9 the alleged salary certificate. However, the evidence
placed before the Court indicates that to prove their claim,
the respondents have examined the mother of the deceased
as PW1 and one Bhanu Chander as PW2. The respondents
have claimed that the deceased was working as part time
faculty in Wisdom High School and he was a 3rd year
SSRN, J
B.Tech student and that he was earning Rs.7,800/- per
month. The contention of the respondent that the
deceased was B.Tech student was not denied by the
insurance company which filed the present appeal.
7. According to the other material placed before the
Court it was proved that the deceased was 21 years old. In
view of the settled proposition of law in case of an
engineering graduate or a person who is prosecuting
engineering, the chances of his getting employment with a
minimum salary of Rs.12,000/- per month cannot be ruled
out. Taking the age of the deceased and his qualification as
3rd year B.Tech student, the Court rightly considered the
income of the deceased as Rs.7,800/-. If a reasonable
amount is added to the said figure as future prospects, the
claimants are certainly entitled to the awarded amount.
The impugned award clearly shows that the Court below
having appreciated the fact that the deceased was a
bachelor, considered 50% of the above said income as his
personal expenditure and having adopted appropriate
multiplier assessed the financial loss as Rs.8,42,400/-.
SSRN, J
The Tribunal has considered that the claimants are entitled
to 50% of the said income as future prospects of the
deceased. Had the Court below appreciated the fact that
the deceased was a 3rd year B.Tech student and assessed
his income @ Rs.12,000/-, certainly the respondent would
have earned more compensation. However, the Tribunal
has appreciated the other evidence and awarded
appropriate compensation. Therefore, there are no merits
in the appeal and liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date: 19.02.2024
PSSK
