Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs K. Vani And Another on 18 March, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
MACMA No.629 OF 2010
Between:
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager, Basheerbag,
Hyderabad, through the local Branch at
Khammam, vide its cover Note No.480293/2004
Valid from 12.02.2005 to 11.02.2000
... Appellant/Respondent No.2
And
1. K. Vani, W/o Sambaih,
Age Major, Occ: Owner of Auto bearing No.
AP20-W-2766, R/o Duginepalli Village,
Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District
... Respondent/Respondent
2. Tukkani Rami Reddy S/o Verra Reddy,
Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Ramachandrapuram, Aswapuram Mandal,
Khammam District
... Respondent/Petitioner
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 18.03.2024
Submitted for approval.
KS, J
MACMA_629_2010
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
KS, J
MACMA_629_2010
3
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ MACMA No.410 of 2006
% Dated 18.03.2024
# The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager, Basheerbag,
Hyderabad, through the local Branch at
Khammam, vide its cover Note No.480293/2004
Valid from 12.02.2005 to 11.02.2000
... Appellant/Respondent No.2
And
1. K. Vani, W/o Sambaih,
Age Major, Occ: Owner of Auto bearing No.
AP20-W-2766, R/o Duginepalli Village,
Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District
... Respondent/Respondent
2. Tukkani Rami Reddy S/o Verra Reddy,
Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Ramachandrapuram, Aswapuram Mandal,
Khammam District
... Respondent/Petitioner
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. I Maamu Vani
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri K. Pavan Kumar
>HEAD NOTE:
1 (2011) 13 SCC 236
2 2017 (6) 170 (SC)
KS, J
MACMA_629_2010
4
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.629 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company
questioning the order dated 28.03.2009 passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.870 of
2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-V Additional District Judge (FTC) at Khammam.
2. Heard Smt. I Maamu Vani, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company and Sri K. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel
for the respondent/claimant and perused the entire material on record.
3. The Insurance Company has filed the appeal questioning the
grant of compensation by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the
driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license.
4. The accident and the death of the deceased during to the injuries
received, etc. are not disputed by either of the parties. However, the only
ground raised by the Insurance Company is that the charge sheet which
was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 304-A
of IPC shows that he was also charged for the offence under Section 181
KS, J
MACMA_629_2010
of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving the vehicle without a valid driving
license.
5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit
that the charge sheet is a public document and once the charge sheet was
laid for the offence under Section 181 of the MV Act, it has to be
deemed that the driver did not possess a valid driving license.
6. The charge sheet is a report filed by the police after
investigation. The said charge sheet would be the sum and substance of
the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation. In accordance with law, the said allegations leveled in the
charge sheet have to be proved before a Court by adducing both oral and
documentary evidence. Per se, the charge sheet is no evidence and unless
the charge mentioned in the charge is proved before a competent Court,
it cannot be said that the allegation made in the charge sheet is true and
correct.
7. The judgment of the Trial Court is not produced before this
Court nor it is the case of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company
that the driver of the vehicle was convicted for the offence under Section
181 of the MV Act for not being in possession of the valid driving
KS, J
MACMA_629_2010
license to drive the vehicle. In the said circumstances, the ground raised
by the Insurance Company cannot be sustained.
8. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant has
not filed any appeal. He submits that when the Court has come to the
conclusion that the award passed by the Tribunal is not just and
reasonable, the Court can enhance without there being appeal filed by the
claimant. He submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 1 has taken
the monthly income of the agricultural labourer as Rs.4,500/- without
there being any evidence, whereas, in this case, when the claimant has
claimed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum out of
agricultural work, the Tribunal has taken the same as Rs.1,500/- per
month. He further submits that the age of the deceased as on the date of
accident was 53 years and the compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- granted by
the Tribunal is not just and reasonable.
9. The claimant has neither filed any cross objections nor filed a
separate appeal questioning the award. Now the Insurance Company is
before this Court questioning the quantum of compensation granted in
(2011) 13 SCC 236
KS, J
MACMA_629_2010
favour of the claimant. If the Insurance Company is questioning the
quantum of compensation, while considering the said aspect, if this
Court finds that the reasonable amount was not granted by the Tribunal,
the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial legislation, this Court without
going into the technicalities can as well enhance the compensation.
10. In this case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
claimant, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per
month in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Ramachandrappa's case (stated supra), wherein, the income of a daily
labourer is taken as Rs.4,500/- without there being any evidence.
Considering the age of the deceased, future prospects at 10% have to be
included which comes to Rs.4,950/- and as the dependant is one member,
half of the of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure
which comes to Rs.2,475/- (Rs.4,950X 1/2). Thus the annual
contribution of the deceased to the claimant would be of Rs.29,700/-
(Rs.2,475X12). If this sum is multiplied with relevant multiplier to the
age of the deceased i.e.'11', total comes to Rs.3,26,700/-. Thus, the
claimant is entitled to this amount under the head of loss of dependency.
KS, J
MACMA_629_2010
11. As per the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has
granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure and
transport and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding.
12. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, the claimant is granted
Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, Rs.44,000/-
towards consortium.
13. Therefore, the claimant is eligible for the compensation as
below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.3,26,700
(2) Medical expenditure & Transport Rs.20,000
(3) Funeral expenses and Loss of Estate Rs.33,000
(4) Loss of spousal consortium Rs.44,000
Total compensation awarded Rs.4,23,700
14. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the
Insurance Company is dismissed by enhancing the compensation granted
by the Tribunal from Rs.1,84,000/- to Rs.4,23,700/- as hereunder:
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
KS, J
MACMA_629_2010
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The claimant shall pay the court fee on the enhanced amount
of compensation.
(c) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a
period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
judgment. On such deposit, claimant is entitled to withdraw the
entire amount without furnishing any security.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no costs.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 18.03.2024
gvl
