Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Malinati Jagadamba on 11 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No. 750 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)
This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the
appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the order and decree
dated 03.08.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2015 on the file of the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District
Judge, Suryapet (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before
the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 12.10.2014, the deceased late Malinati Yedukondalu, was
proceeding with his friend Kamalla Venkata Ramaiah in a motorcycle
bearing No.AP-36-5196 on some personal work. On the same day,
while returning, they reached near Swagruha Foods at about
11.30 pm, and while crossing the Bundar Road signal point at
Vijayawada, the 1st respondent drove the Kaveri Travels Bus bearing
No.AP-27-T-7227 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed the said motorcycle, which was being driven by the
deceased's friend, Sri Kamalla Venkata Ramaiah. Resultantly, the
deceased fell from the motorcycle and sustained bleeding injuries to
2 SP,J and RRN,J
his head. He was rushed to the Government Hospital Vijayawada,
where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The
Station House Officer, Suryaraopet, registered a case in Crime No.349
of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of
the IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently
filed a charge sheet in CC No.728 of 2014. The deceased was aged
about 46 years at the time of the accident and was working as a
Record Assistant at APSTDCL Circle Office, Guntur, earning
Rs.48,724/- per month as salary. The petitioners along with
Respondent No.4 depend on the deceased's earnings. Therefore, the
petitioners filed the claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.81,70,000/-.
4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 remained ex-
parte.
5. Respondent No.3 filed a written statement denying the
allegations made in the claim petition.
6. To prove the petitioners' case, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, and
Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of
the respondents, but Ex.B1-Copy of the Insurance Policy was marked.
7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition in part by
3 SP,J and RRN,J
granting a sum of Rs.59,22,664/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakh Twenty
Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four Only) with costs and interest
@ 7.5% per annum from date of the petition till the date of realization
and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay
the awarded amount. Challenging the same,
respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
8. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company and Sri C. Mohan Prakash, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
contended that the Tribunal committed a serious illegality in not
deducting the Income Tax from the earnings of the deceased and it
ought to have seen that if the monthly income of the deceased is
taken at Rs. 35,627/-, the annual income would arrive at
Rs. 4,27,524/-. If the income tax is calculated as per the slab rates of
the Assessment Year 2015-2016, a tax liability of Rs.17,752.40/- has
to be deducted from the said annual income of the deceased. The
Tribunal failed to consider the same and has erroneously awarded
excessive compensation.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the
Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/5th towards the personal
expenditure of the deceased, when it ought to have deducted only
4 SP,J and RRN,J
1/4th of the deceased's income since the dependants are only 4 in
number, i.e., wife, two minor children and mother.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the
appellant has already deposited Rs.50,00,000/- with interest.
12. Learned counsel for the claimants has not opposed the same.
13. This court, having considered the said submissions of the
learned counsel for the respective parties is of the considered view
that the deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased has
been clearly laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 1. A
perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Tribunal erred
by wrongly deducting 1/5th of the income when it ought to have
deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, in
terms of Pranay Sethi (supra) as the dependants are four in number.
Hence, the deduction towards the personal expenditure of the
deceased is liable to be fixed at 1/4th of the deceased's income.
Further, the Tribunal ought to have directed the appellant-Insurance
Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants after
deducting the income tax.
2017 (16) SCC 680.
5 SP,J and RRN,J
14. Therefore, the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Tribunal in
M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2016 is modified as follows :-
S.No. Particulars Amount
1. Annual salary of the Rs.4,27,524/-
deceased (Rs.35,627/- X
12)
2. Less: Professional Tax (-) Rs.2,400/-
(Rs.200/- X 12)
3. Less: Income Tax (-) Rs.17,752/-
4. Net Income [1-(2+3)] Rs.4,07,372/-
4. Add: 30% Future Prospects Rs.1,22,212/-
5. Sub-Total Rs.5,29,584/-
6. Less: 1/4th towards (-) Rs.1,32,396/-
Personal Expenditure
7. Sub-Total [5-6] Rs.3,97,188/-
8. Total Loss of Dependency Rs.51,63,444/-
(Rs. 3,97,188/- x 13)
9. Add : Conventional Heads Rs.36,300/-
(Funeral Expenses and
Loss of Estate)
(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-
+10%+10%)
10. Add: Loss of spousal Rs.48,400/-
consortium (Rs.40,000/-
+10%+10%)
11. Add : Loss of filial Rs.40,000/-
consortium
12. Add : Loss of parental Rs.80,000/-
consortium
11. Total Compensation Rs.53,68,144/-
6 SP,J and RRN,J
15. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7.5% per
annum which needs no interference by this Court.
16. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from
Rs.59,22,664/- to Rs. 53,68,144/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakh Sixty
Eight Thousand One Hundred Forty Four Only) with interest @ 7.5 %
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and
interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if
any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to
withdraw the said amount in the same manner and ratio as
apportioned by the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall
stand closed.
________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
June 2024
Prv
