Telangana High Court
The Iffcotokio General Insurance Co. ... vs Cheerlavancha Padma on 27 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No.2916 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/R3-Insurance
Company aggrieved by the award dated 09.05.2012 granted by the
Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District
Judge at Kaimnagar in M.V.O.P.No.463 of 2007.
2. The 1st and 2nd respondents herein are the parents of the
deceased, Respondent No.3 is the driver of the offending vehicle and
respondent No.5 is the owner of the offending vehicle.
3. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company is that on
11.06.2006 the deceased engaged a Tractor bearing No.AP 15 R
6015 along with Trailer bearing No.AAR-3846 and loaded material
in the tractor and he also travelled in the same tractor by sitting
beside the tractor driver. When the tractor reached Muskanapet
cross roads, at about 1.00 p.m., the driver of the Tractor/trailor
drove the tractor in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
due to which the deceased was thrown out of his seat and the rear
wheel of the tractor ran over the deceased. Due to which he
sustained internal and external injuries. He was shifted to
Illanthakunta for first aid and from there to Government Hospital,
Karimnagar. However, he succumbed to injuries while undergoing
treatment on 12.06.2006.
4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record on
behalf of claimants i.e. PW.1 and documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A5 and
also the evidence of on behalf of respondents i.e. RW1 and Exs.B1 to
B3, granted compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- with proportionate costs
and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization
against respondents 3 and 4 therein, jointly and severally, who are
appellant and respondent No.5, respectively. The Tribunal
dismissed the petition against R1 & R2 therein who are R3 and R4
herein.
5. Though the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the quantum of compensation, liability fixed, interest,
income of the deceased, income towards personal expenses of the
deceased and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal but the counsel for
the appellant restricted his argument with regard to income towards
personal expenses of the deceased and the liability of the Insurance
Company.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance
company submits that in case of death of an unmarried son, 50% of
the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the
deceased, but, the Tribunal deducted only 1/3rd of the income
towards personal expenses of the deceased. He also submits that
the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving
licence and also the deceased sat beside the driver of the tractor on
the mudguard of the tractor as a gratuitous passenger, thereby the
owner of the Tractor and trailer violated the terms and conditions of
the Insurance Policy. As such, the appellant-Insurance Company is
not liable to pay compensation.
7. He also relied on the Judgments rendered by the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company limited v. Baljit Kaur
and others 1and Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company
Limited v. Geeta Devi and others 2
8. In view of the aforesaid Judgments rendered by the
Honourable Supreme Court, the appellant-Insurance Company is
directed to pay the compensation amount, initially, determined by
the Tribunal, and recover the same from 5th respondent herein -
owner of the offending vehicle. As far as the ground raised by the
Insurance Company with regard to deduction of personal expenses
is concerned, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income towards
2004(2) SCC 1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1398
personal expenses of the deceased. I do not find any infirmity with
the said finding.
9. Accordingly, the MACMA is partly allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this
appeal shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt.27.02.2024
tk
