Telangana High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Yasala Jyothi And 5 Others on 24 January, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A Nos.227, 271 AND 275 OF 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
( Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Ananthula Ravinder, learned counsel for respondent (s) - claimant (s).
2. M.A.C.M.A. No.227 of 2015 is filed by M/s. National Insurance
Company Limited challenging the award and decree dated 07.08.2014 in
O.P.No.1998 of 2006 passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge
(Mahila Court) - cum - XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at
Hyderabad, fixing liability on the Insurance Company alone.
3. Whereas, M.A.C.M.A. No.271 of 2015 is filed by the very same
Insurance Company challenging the award and decree dated 07.08.2014 passed
in O.P. No.1999 of 2006, while M.A.C.M.A. No.275 of 2015 is filed
challenging the award and decree dated 07.08.2014 passed in O.P. No.2000 of
2006.
4. Respondent No.6 and the appellant herein, owner and Insurer of the
crime vehicle i.e., Tata Indica Tax Car bearing registration No.RJ 26/To 390, 2 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively, in all the aforesaid OPs,
while the respondents are the claimants.
5. O.P. No.1998 of 2006 (relating to MACMA No.227 of 2015) is filed
by the wife, children and parents of the deceased - Yasala Naresh Kumar
against the appellant and respondent No.6 herein claiming an amount of
Rs.80,00,000/- towards compensation for the death caused in road accident on
16.10.2005 at 4.30 P.M. near Sikhwali Village, Laxmangadh, Rajasthan State.
As against the said claim, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.51,76,500/- as
compensation with interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of petition
till its realization.
6. O.P. No.199 of 2006 (relating to MACMA No.271 of 2015) is filed by
the wife of the deceased claiming an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Lakhs Only) towards compensation for the injuries she received in the aforesaid
road accident. As against the said claim, the Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation with interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the
date of petition till its realization.
7. O.P. No.2000 of 2006 (relating to MACMA No.275 of 2015) is filed
by the claimant - N. Sivaram @ Sivaramaiah claiming an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) towards compensation for the injuries
he received in the aforesaid accident. As against the said claim, the Tribunal 3 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
awarded an amount of Rs.3,24,963/- as compensation with interest @ 6% per
annum thereon from the date of petition till its realization.
8. Challenging the liability fastened on the Insurance Company as well
as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance
Company filed the all these appeals.
9. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as
arrayed they were arrayed in the OPs.
10. The case of the claimants in the aforesaid OPs is as under:
i) The deceased - Yasala Naresh Kumar along with his wife and daughter
(claimants in OP Nos.1998 and 1999 of 2006) and other family friends, namely
Mr. Shivaram (claimant in OP No.2000 of 2006) and Raju went to Jaipur from
Hyderabad to visit Salsar Hanuman Temple. After completion of darshan, they
were returning to Jaipur by engaging a local Taxi Car bearing registration
No.RJ 26/To 390. When they reached near Sikhwali village, at about 4.30
P.M., the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at
high speed and dashed against a bus bearing registration No.RJ 10/PAO 148
coming in opposite direction, due to which, the deceased - Yasala Naresh
Kumar, Raju and the driver of the said car died on the spot, whereas the
claimants received grievous injuries.
4
KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
ii) The deceased is a business man and having M/s. Vaishnavi Traders,
bunny bags and poultry feeds, Revathi Agro Farms and also getting rents from
houses and other business of paddy, mirchi and wheat etc. The deceased is an
Income Tax Assessee and his annual income was Rs.8,06,430/- for the year
2004-05 and Rs.3,53,623/- for the year 2005-06. Therefore, the claimants in
O.P.No.1998 of 2006 being the wife, children and parents of the deceased
claimed an amount of Rs.80.00 lakhs as compensation.
iii) The claimant in O.P.No.1999 of 2006, the wife of the deceased,
received grievous injuries in the aforesaid accident. She was given first aid and
thereafter shifted to the hospital at Jaipur and thereafter, she returned to
Hyderabad by flight and admitted in KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Thus, she
claimed an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs as compensation.
iv) The claimant in O.P. No.2000 of 2006 received grievous injuries in
the said hospital. He was given first aid and thereafter shifted to Jaipur hospital
and from there, he returned to Hyderabad by flight, went to his native place
Dharmavaram. Then went to Chennai and admitted in PDR Hospital, MOIT
Hospital and spent huge amount towards flight charges and treatment. Thus, he
claimed an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs as compensation.
11. The Insurance Company opposed the aforesaid claims, mainly
contending as under:
5
KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
i) The police registered a case against the driver of opposite bus, which
shows that due to negligence of bus driver only, the accident had occurred, but
not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car/offending vehicle.
The police, after conducting investigation only registered a case against the
driver of the opposite bus. Therefore, the claimants ought to have claimed the
compensation against the owner and insurer of the bus, but not the car. In view
of the same, the Insurer of the car is not liable to pay any compensation to the
claimants and, therefore, sought to dismiss the claims.
12. On consideration of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the
Tribunal awarded the compensations in favour of the claimants in the manner
mentioned above fastening liability on the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle/car.
13. Challenging the same, the insurance company filed the present
appeals on the following grounds:
i. The accident did not occur due to the fault of the driver of the offending
vehicle/car;
ii. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the driver, owner and
insurer of the bus;
iii. The claimants ought to have impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of
the bus; and 6 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
iv. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the claimants have not filed
any documentary proof to show the income of the deceased as well the
claimants and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on
higher side. In view of the same, the appeals filed by it are liable to be
allowed.
14. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend
that the Tribunal awarded the compensation on consideration of the entire
evidence and there is no error in the impugned awards.
15. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, we have perused the entire
material available on record
i) PW.1 is the injured claimant in O.P. No.2000 of 2006; PW.2 and PW.3
is the same person i.e., Smt. Yasala Jyothi, wife of the deceased in O.P.
No.1998. PW.4 is the claimant in O.P. No.2001 of 2006, the daughter of the
deceased. PWs.5 to 8 are the Medical Officers who treated the claimants.
PWs.9, 10 and 12 are the persons who accompanied the injured claimants and
deceased in flight from Jaipur to Hyderabad. PW.11 is the Chartered Account,
who looked after the accounts of the deceased during his life time. RW.1 and
RW.3 is the same person i.e., J. Suresh Chandra Mohan examined twice and he
is the Administrative Officer of Insurance Company, while RW.2 is the Sub-
Inspector of Laxmanghad Police Station.
7
KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
ii) In this case, PWs.1 and 2 are the eye-witness to the accident.
According to them, they along with deceased, Buvaneshwari and others went to
Jaipur to visit Hanuman Temple on 16.10.2005 and after completion of Darshan
while they were returning in the offending vehicle when they reached near
Sikhwali village at about 4.30 P.M., its driver drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the car and dashed against
the bus coming in opposite direction. As a result, they received grievous
injuries apart from the deceased and other inmates of the offending vehicle.
However, the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased died on the spot.
iii) The evidence of PWs.1 and 2, eye-witnesses to the accident
categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the
offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed on account of
which he lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the bus coming in
opposite direction. In fact, they have also received grievous injuries in the said
accident. PWs.3 and 4, who are injured claimants in O.P. Nos.1999 of 2006 and
2001 of 2006 also deposed in the same lines. During cross-examination,
nothing contra we elicited from the said witnesses by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Insurance Company. However, learned counsel for Insurance
Company relying on Ex.A1 and A2 - certified copies of FIR and charge sheet
and the evidence of RW.2 - Sub-Inspector of Police, would contend that the 8 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus,
but not the car and, therefore, the driver, owner and insurer of the bus alone are
liable to pay compensation and not the insurer of the car.
iv) In view of the above, it is clear that PWs.1 and 2 were travelling in
the offending vehicle apart from other inmates and the deceased persons, and
they are the best persons to speak about the fault, the manner in which accident
was occurred. They categorically deposed that the accident had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle/car. RW.2 is the
Sub-Inspector of Police and he reached the spot only after receipt of information
about the accident. Ex.A1 - FIR was registered after receipt of the information
with regard to the accident and Ex.A2 - charge sheet filed after completion of
investigation. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 - eye witnesses is in
corroboration with each other and it is believable. RW.2 is not an eye-witness.
He is not the competent witness to prove the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of either of the vehicle as he is only the Administrative Officer of the
Insurance Company. At the most, his evidence would be useful with regard to
issuance of policy and terms and conditions contained therein. Therefore, the
contention of learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer that the accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus
and not on the part of the driver of the car and that the driver, owner and insurer 9 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
of the bus alone are liable to pay compensation is unsustainable. Once the
Tribunal on considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a
specific finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the Car. The said finding is supported by reasons. It is apt to note that
the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation to provide solace of
just compensation to the family of the victim or injured persons. Even, when
two views are possible, the view which is beneficial to the claimant is to be
considered. Thus, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant
- Insurer in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa 1 , T.O.
Anthony v. Karvarnan 2, APSRTC v. K. Hemalatha 3, Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal 4 and Machindranath Kernath Kasar v.
D.S.Mylarapp 5 are inapplicable to the present case.
16. The next contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant -
Insurer that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants are on higher
side and the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased properly
while computing the compensation.
i) Coming to the compensation awarded in O.P.No.1998 of 2006
(MACMA No.227 of 2015), the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.51,76,500/-
1 . 2008 ACJ 1964 2 . (2008) 3 SCC 748 3 . 2008 (5) ALD 116 (SC) 4 . 2007 ACJ 1284 5 . (2008) 13 SCC 198 10 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
as compensation to the claimants, wife, children and parents of the deceased. In
this case, it is the contention of the claimants that during the life time of the
deceased, he was doing business by running M/s. Vaishnavi Traders, Bunny
Bags & Poultry feeds, Revathi Agro Farms and also getting rents from houses
and other business of paddy, mirchi and wheat etc. and thereby used to earn
Rs.50,000/- per month. Claimants have filed Exs.19 and 20 - Income Tax
returns for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and Ex.A21 - shopping complex
property document. Ex.A19 - income tax returns for the year 2004-05 shows
the annual income of the deceased as Rs.8,06,433/-, while Ex.A20 shows the
annual income of the deceased as Rs.3,53,820/- for the year 2005-06. They are
the authenticated documents. The claimants have also examined PW.11, the
Chartered Accountant, who was looking after the accounts of the deceased.
Learned Tribunal on consideration of the said evidence arrived the annual
income of the deceased at Rs.5,80,000/- out of which, 30% was deducted
towards expenditure and remaining amount of Rs.4,06,000/- as the net income
of the deceased per annum. As per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation 6 , 1/4th of the annual income i.e. Rs.1,01,500/- was
deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased during his life
time and the remaining amount of Rs.3,04,500/- was considered as loss of
dependency by the Tribunal.
6 . (2009) 6 SCC 121 11 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
ii) As per the evidence available on record, the age of the deceased was
considered as 30 years as on the date of accident. Accordingly, multiplier '17'
was taken and applying the same to the annual income of the deceased arrived
at Rs.51,76,500/- as the loss of dependency to which the claimants are entitled.
Accordingly, the same was awarded to the claimants. In fact, the claimants are
also entitled certain amounts under different heads which were not awarded by
the Tribunal.
iii) Considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the
Tribunal awarded the aforesaid compensation to the claimants and there is no
error in it to interfere by this Court. In view of the same, there is no error in
awarding the compensation of Rs.51,76,500/- to the claimants as compensation
for the death of the deceased and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company vide MACMA No.227 of 2015 is liable to be dismissed.
17. Now, coming to the compensation awarded in O.P.No.1999 of 2006
(MACMA No.271 of 2015), the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries
received by the claimant. Out of Rs.20,00,000/- an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
was claimed towards permanent disability. To prove the same, the claimant
relied upon the evidence of PW.7 and Exs.A1, 2 and A36. It is not in dispute
that the claimant had received injuries in the accident and the same is evident 12 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
from Exs.A1 and 2 and also Ex.A27. Though the claimant pleads that she
sustained permanent disability, no documentary evidence is placed to that
effect. PW.7, the doctor, who treated the claimant, did not speak on the said
aspect.
i) It is also not in dispute that immediately after the accident, the
claimant was taken to the hospital at Jaipur for treatment and from there to
Indraprastha Apollo Hospital at Delhi. Thereafter, she came back to Hyderabad
and took the treatment in KIMS Hospital as inpatient from 19.10.2005 to
29.10.2005 as per Exs.A13 and 27 to 30, medical bills. The claimant travelled
all the way from Jaipur to Hyderabad by flight for which certainly she must
have incurred certain amounts towards transportation. The Tribunal
considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, awarded an amount
of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra
nourishment and medicines and Rs.1,50,000/- towards transportation charges
including flight charges of one attendant making a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
as compensation. The claimants did not file any appeal challenging the said
award.
ii) As discussed above, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the aforesaid
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries, she
sustained in the aforesaid accident, and there is no error in it to interfere by this 13 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
Court. Thus, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide MACMA No.271
of 2015 is liable to be dismissed.
18. With regard to O.P. No.2000 of 2006 (MACMA No.275 of 2015), as
stated above, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,24,963/- as compensation
as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries he received in the
aforesaid accident.
i) To prove the claim, the claimant himself examined as PW.1. It is also
not in dispute that the claimant received injuries in the accident. The claimant
also examined PWs.5 and 6, the doctors, who treated him at Chennai. PWs.5
and 6 deposed with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant and the
treatment which they have given to the claimant. However, they did not depose
about the disability suffered by the claimant. During cross-examination, PW.5
specifically admitted that there is no affect to the vision due to the injury and
further admitted that he has not mentioned any disability in Ex.A10. PW.6,
another doctor also did not depose with regard to the disability suffered by the
claimant. Thus, on perusal of the said evidence, it is clear that the claimant did
not suffer any disability.
ii) However, as per the evidence of PWs.1, 5 and 6 and Exs.A10 to A13,
the claimant received grievous injuries and that he had taken treatment as in
patient in Government Hospital at Jaipur for the period from 17.10.2005 to 14 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
18.10.2005 and also taken treatment as in-patient in Santokba Duriabhiji
Memorial-cum-Medical Research Institute, Jaipur from 18.10.2005 to
25.10.2005 and later he had taken treatment in MOIT Hospital, Chennai from
28.10.2005 to 03.11.2005 and thereafter again he has taken treatment as in
patient in PDR Orthopedic Hospital at T.Nagar, Chennai from 03.11.2005 to
09.11.2005 and also from 03.10.2006 to 05.10.2006 in Shanker Netralaya
Hospital, Chennai, the Tribunal considered the pain and suffering and
accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards pain and
suffering and an amount of Rs.1,52,893/- towards extra nourishment and
medicines.
iii) The Tribunal also considered the fact that after the accident, the
claimant was shifted to nearby local Government Hospital, later admitted in a
private hospital in Jaipur and thereafter he was shifted to Delhi and again from
Delhi to Hyderabad by flight. Ex.A35 shows that he spent an amount of
Rs.21,035/- towards flight charges from Jaipur to Hyderabad. The claimant
needs assistance of one attendant in order to shift him from the place of incident
to Hyderabad and thereafter to Chennai and accordingly granted an amount of
Rs.42,070/- towards transport charges.
iv) The Tribunal also considered the loss of income observing that the
claimant was working as employee in Birla Institute of Scientific Research at 15 KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
Jaipur on a monthly salary of Rs.15,280/- and due to the accident, he was
constrained to take bed rest for a period of six months for which he lost his
earnings. Though the petitioner deposed in his evidence that he was getting
monthly salary of Rs.15,280/-, he himself averred in the claim petition that he
was getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-, which is contrary to his evidence
and, therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the
Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings for a period
of three (03) months @ Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal in all
awarded an amount of Rs.3,24,935/- as compensation as against the claim of
10,00,000/- for the injuries he sustained in the aforesaid road accident.
v) Considering the evidence of PWs.1, 5 and 6 and Exs.A10 to A13,
medical bills, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the aforesaid amount of
Rs.3,24,935/- as compensation and there is no error in it to interfere by this
Court. Thus, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide MACMA No.275
of 2015 is liable to be dismissed.
19. As far as rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 6% per annum
on the respective amounts is concerned, the same is also in tune with the
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and does not warrant any
interference by this Court. Therefore, the rate of interest @ 6% per annum is
also confirmed.
16
KL,J & SKS,J MACMA No.227 of 2015 & batch
20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, all these appeals fail and
accordingly the same are dismissed confirming the awards and decrees dated
07.08.2014 in O.P.Nos.1998, 1999 and 2000 of 2006 passed by learned V
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) - cum - XIX Additional
Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad. The appellant - Insurance
Company shall pay balance amount awarded by the Tribunal within one (01)
month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeals
shall stand closed.
_____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J
________________ K. SUJANA, J 24th January, 2024 Mgr
