Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Gajjela Laxmamma And 3 Others on 19 June, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
MACMA No. 2482 OF 2008
Between:
United India Insurance Company Limited ... Appellant/R2
And
1.Smt.Gajjela Laxmamma
2.Gajjela Goverdhan Reddy
3.Gajjela Narender Reddy
...Respondents/claimants
4. Sri A.Koti Reddy
... Respondent No.4/R1
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19.06.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ MACMA No. 2482 OF 2008
% Dated 19.06.2024
# United India Insurance Company Limited ... Appellant/R2
And
$ 1.Smt.Gajjela Laxmamma
2.Gajjela Goverdhan Reddy
3.Gajjela Narender Reddy
...Respondents/claimants
4. Sri A.Koti Reddy
... Respondent No.4/R1
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Smt.K.Lalitha for R1 to R3
Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopireddy
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2021) 16 SCC 467
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
3
(2009) 6 SCC 121
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No. 2482 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company
Limited, questioning the grant of compensation to the claimants
by the Tribunal, mainly on the ground that according to the
charge sheet filed by the Police after investigation, the deceased
was shown as accused who caused accident and the case was
abated on account of his death. Since the police investigation did
not reveal the complicity of the insured vehicle and its driver, the
question of fastening liability on the insurer does not arise.
2. Briefly, the case of the claimants is that the deceased and
his friend-PW3 were going on motorcycle from Nidamanoor to
Miryalaguda and about 8.30 p.m., the motorcycle dashed against
the stationed Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AIC 2240. On
account of the impact, the deceased was taken to hospital and he
died while undergoing treatment in the hospital.
3. Learned Tribunal Judge having examined PWs.1 to 3 and
marking Exs.A1 to A8 found that the deceased died due to the
negligence of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer and accordingly
claimants entitled for compensation.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for Insurance Company would
submit that the Tractor was stationary on the road on account of
a flat tyre. The stationary vehicle was hit by the deceased resulting
in the accident and the consequent death. The Police having gone
to the scene of offence and examining witnesses found that the
accident was caused on account of the negligent and rash driving
of the deceased. Once the investigation reveals that the deceased
was at fault while driving the two wheeler and dashed against the
stationary tractor, the question of granting compensation holding
the driver of the Tractor responsible and asking the insurer of the
Tractor to pay compensation is illegal and contrary to the evidence
on record. Accordingly, the counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company sought to set aside the finding of the Tribunal in
granting compensation to the claimants.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants would submit that once the vehicle is parked on the
road without any indication, even according to the Honourable
Supreme Court in several decisions, if the stationary vehicle on
the road has not put up any lights or indication to suggest to the
vehicles plying on the road that there is a stationed vehicle on the
road, compensation should be granted. He further, argued that in
view of the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Surekha v. Santosh 1 held that if the Court finds that the amount
of compensation can be enhanced, the same can be done without
cross-appeal.
5. It is admitted that the Tractor was parked on the left side of
the road without any indicators or lights to enable drivers of the
vehicles on the road to identify and take caution regarding the
stationed vehicle and accordingly maneuver their vehicles. In the
absence of any such indication, the drivers of the vehicles on the
road will not expect any stationary vehicle when the traffic is
moving. It is not expected that driver of any vehicle to react to a
stationary vehicle on the road suddenly, which is parked without
any caution or indication.
6. Though, the Police have investigated the case and filed
report, that itself cannot form basis for a competent court to
adjudicate on the circumstances of an accident and grant or
refuse compensation accordingly. The investigation done by the
Police Officer is not final, but, subject to verification by the Court
and on facts, the Court can always draw its own conclusions. The
argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
(2021) 16 SCC 467
Company that investigation of a Police Officer is final, cannot be
accepted.
7. The driver of the Tractor has parked his vehicle on the road
without any indication which resulted in the deceased ramming
into the vehicle and consequently dying on account of injuries. It
cannot be said that the deceased was at fault in the present
circumstances.
8. The Honourable Supreme Court in the Judgment of
Surekha v. Santosh (supra) held that it is well-settled that in the
matter of insurance claim, compensation in reference to the motor
accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and
ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person
or the claimants, even in the absence of cross appeal by the
claimants.
9. In view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation;
10. It was specifically mentioned that the deceased was working
in the Agriculture Department and earning a net salary of
Rs.10,749/- per month. As such, it can be concluded that an
amount of Rs.10,749/- per month can be taken as the income of
the deceased. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and others 2, future prospects @ 10% of the income
of the deceased has to be added which comes to Rs.1,074/-. The
total income comes to Rs.11,823/-. The annual income of the
deceased comes to Rs.1,41,876/-p.a. (11,823 x 12). Since the
dependents are 3 in number, 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs.47,292/-
(1,41,876x1/3) has to be deducted towards personal expenses
which comes to Rs.94,584/-p.a.(1,41,876-47,292). As per the
Service Register of the deceased, the deceased was aged 56 years
on the date of accident. Then, as per the Judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3
the relevant multiplier for the age group of 56-60 is '9' and then
the loss of income due to the death of the deceased comes to
Rs.8,51,256/- (94,584 x 9).
11. As per the decision of the Constitutional Bench of Apex court
in case of Pranay Sethi's case, the conventional heads namely
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively and the
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
same should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years
and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10%. Then the total
consortium granted to wife and mother comes to Rs.96,800/-
(40,000 x 2 + 10% for every three years) and Loss of Estate and
funeral expenses comes to Rs.36,300/- (15,000 + 15,000 + Add
10% for every three years).
12. In total claimants are entitled to a total amount of
compensation of Rs.9,84,356/-( 8,51,256 + 96,800 + 36,300).
13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed, making the Owner and Insurance Company of the
Tractor and Trailer jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the claimants.
14. Accordingly, the compensation granted by the Tribunal to
the claimant is enhanced from Rs.4,26,760/- to Rs.9,84,356/-
with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of
petition till realization payable by respondents 1 and 2 in the OP.
amount shall be deposited within 6 weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. The said amount of Rs.9,84,356/ shall be
apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in which
original compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by
the Tribunal and the claimants are permitted to withdraw their
respective shares without furnishing any security. The claimants
have to pay the deficit Court fee or the Tribunal may deduct the
amount required for the purpose of Court fee from the amount
awarded to the claimants after respondents Insurance Company
deposits the amount.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 19.06.2024
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
tk
