Telangana High Court
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs B. Andalu And 3 Others on 28 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
2592 OF 2019
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded in the Order and Decree dated
26.03.2019 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle
Original Petition No.591 of 2014 by the learned Family
Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar
(for short "the learned Tribunal"), appellant-Insurance
company preferred the present Appeal praying this Court
to set aside the impugned Order.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array before the
learned Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos.1
and 2 filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for
the death of one B.Kondal (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
occurred on 02.03.2014. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the
mother and sister of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 02.03.2014 at
evening hours, the deceased was proceeding on his
Motorcycle bearing No. AP 29 BB 3925 from Rythu Bazar
towards Red Tank, Vanashalipuram and when he reached
near Jyothi Chicken Centre at Vanasthalipuram, a Tractor
bearing No. AP 21 TT 2881 and Trolley bearing No. AP 29
TB 5318 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') driven by
its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner dashed the deceased who fell down and sustained
injuries. The deceased was shifted to Kamineni Hospital,
who succumbed to the injuries while undergoing
treatment. The Police, Vanasthalipuram registered a case
in Crime No.181 of 2014 for the offence under Section 304-
A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') against the
driver of the crime vehicle.
05. According to petitioners, the deceased was aged
28 years and he was running a Tea Stall at
Vanasthalipuram and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and
used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the
family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, petitioners
lost their bread winner and love and affection. Therefore,
petitioners filed the claim petition against respondent
Nos.1 to 3 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on
various heads.
06. Before the learned Tribunal, while the
respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte, respondent
No.2-Insurance company filed counter denying the
averments of the petition, manner of accident, age,
avocation of the deceased and further contended that the
accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the
deceased who had no driving license and that
compensation claimed by petitioners is very high and
exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. On behalf of petitioners, petitioner No.1 was
examined as PW1, eyewitness was examined as PW2 and
servant of the deceased was examined as PW3 and got
marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of respondent No.2-
Insurance company, its Legal Officers were examined as
RW1 and RW2 and also examined staff of RTO as RW3 and
got marked Ex.B1 and B2.
08. Considering the claim of petitioners and
counter filed by respondent No.2 and on evaluation of oral
and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed
Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total
compensation of Rs.19,34,136/- along with interest @ 9 %
per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2,
jointly and severally.
09. Challenging the same, respondent No.2-
Insurance company has filed this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-
Insurance company and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Perused the material available on record.
11. The main contention of the learned Standing
Counsel for appellant-Insurance company is that even
though petitioners have not filed any document to show the
deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- by running a Tea Stall,
the learned Tribunal without proper evidence awarded
compensation of Rs.19,34,136/- which is on higher side
and prayed this Court to allow this appeal by setting aside
the impugned Order.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the learned
Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the
same needs no interference by this Court.
13. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned Order and Decree dated
26.03.2019 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition
No.591 of 2014, is liable to be set aside?
P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
15. PW1 who is the mother of the deceased
reiterated the contents of claim application and got marked
Exs.A1 to A9 as she is not an eyewitness to the accident,
she got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the accident
who deposed that on 02.03.2014 at evening hours, the
deceased was proceeding on his Motorcycle bearing No. AP
29 BB 3925 from Rythu Bazar towards Red Tank,
Vanashalipuram and when he reached near Jyothi Chicken
Centre at Vanasthalipuram, the crime vehicle driven by its
driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
dashed the deceased, who fell down and sustained injuries.
During the course of cross-examination nothing was
elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
16. RW1 and RW2 officials of insurance company
reiterated the contents of the counter-affidavit and they
deposed that the deceased died due to his own negligence
and there is no rash and negligence on the part of the
crime vehicle driver. During the course of cross-
examination, they admitted that they have not witnessed
the accident. They further stated that one investigator was
appointed to investigate the case, however, the
investigation report was not filed before the learned
Tribunal. They further admitted that crime vehicle was
insured with their insurance company. Ex.B1-Insurance
Policy was filed by RW1.
17. RW3-Staff of RTO produced Ex.B2-Driving
License extract of driver and stated that the transport
license is not required for the driver to drive LMV transport
if its unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs., while as per
Ex.7R.C. book, unladen weight of the crime vehicle is 1835
kgs and as such the driver was eligible to drive the crime
vehicle.
18. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
Exs.A1-First Information Report discloses that Police,
Vanasthalipuram registered a case in Crime No.181 of
2014 for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC against
the driver of the crime vehicle and took up investigation.
During the course of the investigation, Ex.A3-Crime details
form, Ex.A2-inquest and Ex.A4-postmortem examination
were conducted over the dead body of the deceased vide
A2-Inquest request and during the inquest, the
panchayathdars have opinioned that the deceased died due
to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Ex.A4-
Postmortem examination report discloses that the deceased
died due to head injury sustained in the road traffic
accident. Ex.A9-Driving license of crime vehicle driver
shows that it was valid and effective as on the date of
accident. Ex.A8 and Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance policy which
shows that the policy was in force, valid and effective as on
the date of accident.
19. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute
regarding the accident, death of the deceased in the road
traffic accident. After considering the evidence of
eyewitness i.e., PW2 coupled with material available on
record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
crime vehicle. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are
based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective.
Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard
to the quantum of compensation.
20. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the
age and avocation of the deceased, has taken
income at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is
the case of petitioners that the deceased was
earning Rs.12,000/- per month by running a Tea
Stall. Hence, considering the avocation of the
deceased, this Court is not inclined to interfering
with the said finding of the learned Tribunal in
taking monthly income as Rs.10,000/-. The
learned Tribunal awarded future prospects at the
rate of 40% in view of the decision of the Honourable
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others 1. However, the learned
Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased but as per the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another 2, it should be 50% as the
deceased was a bachelor, therefore, the net annual
contribution to the family comes to Rs.84,000/-
(Rs.7,000/- X 12).
1 2017 ACJ 2700
2 2009 (6) SCC 121
21. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 28
years at the time of fatal accident. Therefore, as per the
decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla
Varma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Thus,
applying the multiplier '17' to the annual loss of
dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.84,000/-, the
total loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,28,000/-
(Rs.84,000/- x 17). In addition to that, petitioners are
entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads
(Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Thus, in all,
petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.14,61,000/-.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.19,34,136/- is at higher
side and the same is reduced to Rs.14,61,000/-. In so far
as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
awarded interest at the rate of 9 percent per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. This Court by relying upon the decision of
the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir
Singh and others 3 inclined to reduce the rate of interest
awarded by the learned Tribunal to 7.5 percent per annum
on entire compensation amount from the date of petition
till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation
amount along with interest shall be deposited by
respondents within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit,
petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same without
furnishing any security.
23. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed reducing the
compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal
from Rs.19,34,136/- to Rs.14,61,000/-. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 28-JUN-2024
KHRM
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
