Telangana High Court
L And T Ins. Com. Ltd., Hyderabad vs T N Gangaram, Nizamabad Dist And 3 Others on 22 March, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.801 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2016 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.323 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad District (for short, the
Tribunal), the 2nd Respondent in M.V.O.P./L & T Insurance
Company filed the present Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the claim petitioners,
who are the father, brother and sister of Sri Tummala Venkatesh
(hereinafter be referred as 'the deceased') filed a claim petition
under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of the
deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.03.2015.
It is stated by the claim petitioners that on 07.03.2015, when the
deceased was driving the Tractor bearing No.TS-16-BTR-8237 from
the fields and going towards the village and when reached near
Laxmi Canal Bank at Renjarla Village outskirts, Balkonda Mandal,
some Buffaloes came across the road, due to which the deceased
could not control the Tractor and the Tractor turned turtle and the
MGP,J
deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is
stated by the petitioners that as on the date of accident, the
deceased was aged 26 years and was getting salary of Rs.15,000/-
per month with Batta of Rs.300/- per day and was contributing the
same for maintenance of the family. Due to his sudden death, the
petitioners are put to monetary loss and hence, claimed
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- which is payable by Respondent
No.1, who is the owner of the Tractor and Respondent No.2, who is
the insurer of the said Tractor.
4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Tractor, filed
counter and denied the age, avocation and earnings of the
deceased and stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was
driving the Tractor on the side of the road and some Buffaloes
came across the road, due to which, the deceased could not control
the tractor and caused the accident. He also stated that the said
Tractor is having Insurance company which is valid from
04.02.2015 to 03.02.2016 and hence, Respondent No.2 is liable to
pay compensation and that the compensation claimed is excess
and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. Respondent No.2 had not filed any counter and hence,
remained exparte.
MGP,J
6. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the deceased Tummala Venkatesh died
in a motor accident with the Tractor bearing
No.TS-16-BTR-8237?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation. If so, to what extent and
from whom?
3. To what relief?
7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3
were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked.
8. On behalf of respondents, the owner of the subject Tractor
was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1-Insurance policy.
9. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and
documents available on record, partly allowed the claim petition of
the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.
Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company
preferred the present appeal.
MGP,J
10. Heard the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for
Appellant-Insurance Company and learned counsel for
respondents 1 to 3/claim petitioners. Perused the record.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for
Appellant/Insurance Company is that the deceased died due to
self-negligence and no future prospects will be added for the cases
filed under Section 163-A of M.V.Act and that the Tribunal had not
followed Schedule II of Section 163-A and that the compensation
awarded is on higher side and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
against it.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents
/claim petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal, after
considering the entire evidence and documents available on record,
had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of
this Court is unwarranted.
13. Now the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers
from any irregularity?
POINT:-
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
available on record. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were
MGP,J
examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1-FIR shows that
police, Balkonda Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered a
case in Crime No.35 of 2015 under Section 304-A IPC. Ex.A2 is
the inquest report. Ex.A3 is the Post mortem Examination report
shows that the cause of death of the deceased was due to Head
injury. Ex.A4-Insurance policy shows that the vehicle is having
valid insurance at the time of accident. Ex.A5 is the driving license
of the deceased.
15. On behalf of the respondents, RW1, who is the owner of the
Tractor, was examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 policy was marked on
his behalf.
16. It is pertinent to state that as the claim petitioners filed claim
petition under Section 163-A of MV Act, the claimants are not
obligated to establish that such death had happened owing to the
wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of
any other person. Hence, no fault liability principle applies here.
The only aspect which has to be dealt with is with regard to
awarding of compensation.
17. Though the learned counsel for respondents relied upon a
decision reported in the case between R.K.Malik and others
MGP,J
Vs.Kiran Paul 1 with regard to awarding of future prospects under
Section 163-A of MV Act, 1988, but this Court, by relying upon the
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Sikkim,
Gangtok reported on 04.04.2022 in the case between The Branch
Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Dilu Rai and
others 2, is not inclined to award future prospects to the deceased.
Para 20 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"20. ... ... ... In light of all the foregoing discussions, we
hold that under Section 163A, future prospects or any other
additional non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation
in a claim petition under Section 163A of the M.V.Act is to be
strictly computed on the structured formula provided in the
second schedule to the Act. The reference stands answered
accordingly."
18. The learned Tribunal by considering the occupation of the
deceased, had fixed the monthly income of the deceased @
Rs.5,000/- and added Rs.2,500/- towards his future prospects and
deducted 1/3rd amount towards contribution to the family and
applied multiplier '18' which came to Rs.10,80,000/- and further
granted Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/-
2009 A.C.J. 1924(S.C.)
MAC App.No.10 of 2018 (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/4387811
MGP,J
towards loss of love and affection and arrived at a total
compensation of Rs.11,50,000/-. This Court is inclined to
interfere with the compensation arrived at by the learned Tribunal
and modify the same to the extent indicated below:-
19. It is admitted fact that the claimants have filed a claim
petition under Section 163A of M.V.Act claiming compensation as
per the structured formula prescribed under Schedule-II of Section
163A of M.V.Act on the principle of "No fault Liability" in respect of
the death of the deceased, who died in the motor vehicle accident.
The deceased in this case was working as a driver on Tractor and
in the absence of income proof, this Court is inclined to fix the
notional income of the deceased @ 40,000/- per annum as per the
structured formula as provided under Second Schedule of Section
163A. If 1/3rd amount is deducted as per the note appended to the
Schedule II of Section 163(A) of M.V.Act, the net contribution of
deceased would arrive at Rs.26,667/-. At the time of accident, the
deceased was aged 26 years. Therefore, as per Second Schedule of
Section 163A M.V. Act, the appropriate multiplier would be '18'.
Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,80,006/-(26,667x18)
rounded to Rs.4,80,000/-. Since the deceased is a Bachelor, he is
entitled for an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards conventional heads
as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
MGP,J
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 3.
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.5,13,000/-.
20. Hence, M.A.C.M.A.801 of 2017 filed by Insurance Company
is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount awarded by
the Tribunal from Rs.11,50,000/- to Rs.5,13,000/-. The interest
awarded by the Tribunal shall remain the same. There shall be no
order as to costs.
21. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.22.03.2024
ysk
2017ACJ 2700
