Telangana High Court

The Bajaj Al Lianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Patloth Ram Singh Died on 22 January, 2024

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  M.A.C.M.A.NO.313 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned standing counsel Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy

for the appellant-insurance company and Sri. Akkam Eshwar,

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-cum-Principal

District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy (for short, 'Tribunal')

in M.V.O.P.No.12 of 2017, dated 25.10.2022, thereby seeking to

set-aside the award against the insurance company.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4. The petitioner no.1/deceased i.e., Mohammad Patloth

Ram Singh went to Yellareddy for milk vending and while

returning to his village by walk and when he reached to

Messanpally village shivar, the driver of Crane vehicle bearing

registration No.AP-27-BB-8179, driven the same in rash and

negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner LNA,J

no.1/deceased, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries to

his right leg, fracture of right lower limb till the ankle joint and

was in a serious condition. Immediately, he was shifted to

Community Health Centre, Yellareddy and later admitted in

S.V.Pooja Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment on

22.11.2016. On the same day, operation was conducted and his

right leg was amputated upto knee level and was discharged

from hospital on 28.11.2016. The petitioner no.1/ deceased

was taking treatment due to injuries and commutation and died

on 21.05.2019. The concerned Police registered a case in and

filed charge sheet.

5. The claimants, i.e., the legal heirs of petitioner

no.1/deceased, have filed claim petition against owner, driver of

the crime vehicle and insurance company under Section 166

(1)(a) and 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal

claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest

from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

6. The deceased was aged about 45 years and was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month through milk business and agriculture LNA,J

and was contributing his earnings to the family. On account of

injuries and amputation of his right leg, the deceased was

completely bedridden, being unable to attend his regular duties

without assistance and subsequently died and thus, claimants

lost the support of the deceased.

7. The respondent Nos.11 and 12 herein, who are the owner

and driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.

8. The appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement

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 deceased died of natural death,

but created as if he died due to impact of injuries alleged to have

been sustained in the road accident and there is no nexus

between the death of the deceased and the alleged injuries

sustained in the alleged accident. It is further contended that

there is no medical evidence placed by claimants to show that

death was caused due to impact of injuries sustained in the

accident and in the absence of any such proof, claimants are LNA,J

not entitled for any compensation and prayed to dismiss the

claim petition.

9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

the following issues on 06.04.2018:

i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries and amputation of right leg in the road accident on 22.11.2016 at about 8.00 a.m., near Messampally village shivar due to rash and negligent driving of Crane vehicle No.AP-27-BB-8179 by its driver ?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for ?

iii) To what relief?

The issue no.2 is re-casted as follows on 07.10.2021.

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if any, from whom and what just amount.

On filing of the additional written statement, the following additional issues are settled on 25.02.2022.

1) Whether the injured Patloth Ramesh died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident ?

2) Whether the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for compensation. If so, from whom and what just amount?

3) To what relief ?

LNA,J

10. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the

claimants, the first wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1

and also examined Danavath Narsingh, who is eye witness, as

PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On behalf of the

appellant-insurance company, RW.1 was examined and copy of

insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

11. 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 crane vehicle

bearing registration No.AP-27-BB-8179 and awarded

compensation of Rs.15,55,000/- along with costs and interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization. The owner and driver of the crime vehicle i.e.,

respondent Nos.11 and 12 herein and appellant-insurance

company are liable to pay the said compensation amount.

12. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned

counsel for appellant-insurance company submitted that

Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact there is no nexus between

the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by him as LNA,J

the alleged death took place after 2½ years of the accident;

further, except self-serving statement of claimants, no

documents such as PME report was filed and no doctor was

examined to show that alleged death took place on account of

injuries sustained in the accident. He submitted that Tribunal

erred so far as the quantification of compensation is concerned.

13. He further submitted that Tribunal committed serious

illegality in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-

p.m., without any cogent evidence and calculating the loss of

dependency on that amount is excess, arbitrary and contrary to

the settled principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and finally, prayed to set aside the award passed by the

Tribunal.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants

submitted that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the

evidence and material placed on record, had rightly awarded the

compensation on other counts. However, he further submitted

that Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th towards personal

expenses of the deceased, instead of 1/5th.

LNA,J

Consideration:

15. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant insofar

as disputing the occurrence of accident is concerned, before the

Tribunal, P.W.2, who is cited as eye witness to the accident, was

examined and he deposed that he was present on the spot and

noticed the accident, wherein the driver of the crane vehicle

dashed the petitioner no.1/deceased and deceased received

grievous injuries to his left leg and immediately deceased was

shifted to Community Health Centre. Further, the evidence of

eye witness P.W.2 is corroborated with the documentary

evidence i.e., Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-charge sheet, which clearly

show that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the crime vehicle.

16. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for

appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of

the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal had taken the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- considering the

profession of the deceased as milk vendor and doing agriculture.

Perusal of record would show that the Tribunal had erred in LNA,J

taking the monthly income of the deceased without there being

any cogent evidence to that effect. Therefore, in considered

opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased can

be taken at Rs.10,000/- in the light of facts and circumstances

of the present case, period of accident, the inflation, devaluation

of rupee, cost of living etc., and therefore, the monthly income of

the deceased is liable to be modified accordingly.

17. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for

appellant with regard to living expenses of the deceased, as 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-fifth (1/5th), where the number of dependent

family members exceeds six.

18. In view of the above decision, one-fifth (1/5th) of the

income of the deceased should be deducted towards his

personal and living expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal had erred

(2009) 6 SCC 121 LNA,J

in deducting 1/4th instead of 1/5th of the income of the deceased

towards his personal and living expenses and the same is liable

to be modified.

Conclusion:

19. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount

is recalculated as under:

Sl.No.                Head                  Compensation awarded

1        Income                       Rs.1,20,000/-        per       annum
                                      (Rs.10,000/- per month)
2        Deduction towards personal   Rs.24,000/- (i.e., one-fifth (1/5th) of
         expenses                     Rs.1,20,000/-)
3        Total Income                 Rs.96,000/-     (i.e.,   Rs.1,20,000/-   (-)
                                      Rs.24,000/-)


5        Loss of dependency           Rs.10,56,000/- (i.e., Rs.96,000/- x
                                      11)
6        Consortium                   Rs.    40,000/-

7        Funeral expenses             Rs.    15,000/-

8        Loss of estate               Rs.    15,000/-

         Total compensation to be     Rs.11,26,000/-
         paid:

20. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned

award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount

is concerned, is modified. The above compensation amount shall LNA,J

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.