Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Kothapalli Sumalatha on 9 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.177 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri Harinath Reddy Soma for the
appellant-insurance company and Sri. C.Mohan Prakash, learned
counsel for respondents-claimants.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/
insurance company challenging the award passed by the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Prl.District Judge) at
Suryapet (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVOP No.10 of 2016, dated
14.09.2022, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the
insurance company.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
3.1. On 08.08.2015, while the deceased-K.Ramakrishna was
going towards Mehdipatnam from Patancheruvu on his motor cycle
bearing registration No.AP-24-AK-5706 and on the way he stopped
the vehicle and was answering call of nature, at that time, the
driver of water tanker bearing registration No.AP-28-Y-3305, drove
it in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the
deceased from his back side, due to which, the deceased sustained
LNA,J
severe injuries to his head, right side ribs and right hand.
Immediately, he was shifted to citizen Hospital for treatment and
from there, he was shifted to NIMS hospital, Hyderabad for better
treatment and he succumbed to injuries on 09.08.2015 at 4.30
a.m., while undergoing treatment. The Police, Chandanagar P.S.
registered a case in Crime No.310 of 2015 for the offence under
Section 337 IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and after
completion of investigation charge sheet was filed under Section
304-A IPC.
3.2. The claimants i.e., wife, children and mother of the deceased
have filed claim petition against driver, owner, insurer and the
insurance company under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and the Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989, before the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- along with interest from
the date of the petition till the date of realization.
3.3. The deceased was aged about 32 years and was earning
Rs.20,700/- per month as a contract lecturer in history at Tara
Government College, Secunderabad and contributing the same to
the welfare of his family. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the
LNA,J
claimants lost the love and affection of the deceased and also their
breadwinner and they became destitute.
4. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein, who are the driver and
owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.
5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter denying all
the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective
driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It is
contended that respondent no.3 has not furnished the particulars
of the accident to the insurance company as required under
Section 134(C) of MV Act, that the accident occurred due to sole
negligence of the deceased who did not take safety precautions or
observe traffic rules and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i) Whether on 08.08.2015 at 3.40 p.m., the 1st
respondent drove the vehicle bearing No.AP-28-Y-
3305 and caused the accident to the
deceased/K.Ramakrishna at Gulmoharpaka of
Sherlingampalli and thereby caused his death ?
ii) Whether the petitioners are the dependents on
K.Ramakrishna by the date of accident ?
LNA,J
iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek
compensation on the ground of death of Ramakrishna
in the motor vehicle accident, if so, to what amount
and who are liable to pay such amount ?
iv) To what relief ?
7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants,
P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On
behalf of the appellant-insurance company, RW.1 was examined
and copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle
and awarded compensation of Rs.45,77,320/- along with costs and
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
9. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel
for appellant-insurance company submitted that the sole issue
which requires consideration is in this appeal is with regard to
proper deduction of personal expenses of the deceased.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants submitted
that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and
LNA,J
material placed on record, had rightly awarded the compensation
on other counts. However, he admitted that Tribunal erred in
deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased,
instead of 1/4th.
11. The counsel for appellant did not press any other ground
except the ground of wrong deduction by the Tribunal towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Consideration:
12. Insofar as the contention raised by the appellant with regard
to personal and living expense of the deceased is concerned, as per
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs.
Delhi Transport corporation and another 1 , the Hon'ble Apex
Court at paragraph-30 held that where the deceased was married,
the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased should be one-fourth (1/4th), where the number of
dependent family members is 4 to 6.
13. In view of the above decision, as the dependents of the
deceased are four in number, one-fourth (1/4th) of the income of
(2009) 6 SCC 121
LNA,J
the deceased should be deducted towards his personal and living
expenses. However, the Tribunal deducted 1/5th of the income of
the deceased towards his personal and living expenses
erroneously, instead of 1/4th, which requires consideration of this
Court.
Conclusion:
14. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is
recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income Rs.2,46,000/- per annum
(Rs.20,500/- per month)
2 Future prospects Rs.98,400/- (i.e., 40% of the annual
income i.e., Rs.2,46,000/-)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.86,100/- (i.e., one-fourth (1/4th)
expenses of Rs.2,46,000/- + Rs.98,400/-)
3 Total Income Rs.2,58,300/- (i.e., Rs.2,46,000/- +
Rs.98,400/- (-) Rs.86,100/-)
5 Loss of dependency Rs.41,32,800/- (i.e., Rs.2,58,300/-
x 16)
6 Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4) Rs. 1,60,000/-
7 Funeral and transport charges Rs. 9,000/-
Total compensation to be paid: Rs.43,01,800/-
15. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is
LNA,J
concerned, is modified. The above compensation amount shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim
petitions till the date of realization. The appellant is directed to
deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting
the amount already deposited by the appellant. The claimants are
entitled to the apportionment of the amount as directed by the
Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 09.01.2024
kkm
LNA,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.177 OF 2023
Date: .01.2024
kkm
