Telangana High Court
M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Chityala Jangamma on 12 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
3164 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 01.11.2017
passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.1131 of 2015
(impugned Order) by the learned XXIV Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the
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
Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and Rule 475/1B of the Andhra
Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation
of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one Chityala Erra
Anjaneyulu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who
died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on
13.05.2015. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 to
4 are children of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 13.05.2015 the
deceased being labour, loaded gravels in their land and
loaded into Tractor Trolley bearing No. AP 22 Y 1004 and
AP 22 Y 1005 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') and
was proceeding towards Jadcherla to sell the same. On the
way at Bandameedipally village at about 03:00 PM., the
driver of the said tractor and trolley drove the vehicle at
high speed in a rash and negligent manner lost control and
ran over granites, due to which the deceased fell down from
the tractor trailer and as a result sustained grievous
injuries and subsequently, on the intervening night of
13/14.05.2015 at about 01:00 AM., while undergoing
treatment he succumbed to the injuries. The Police,
Jadcherla, Mahboobnagar District registered a case in
Crime No.293 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A
of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime
vehicle.
05. According to petitioners, the deceased was aged
45 years and used to attend agricultural work and also
working as labour and earning Rs.8,000/- 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 claim petition against respondent No.1-
owner of the crime vehicle, respondent No.2-insurnace
company and respondent No.3-driver of the crime vehicle,
claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
06. The learned Tribunal has forfeited the right to
file counter of respondent Nos.1 and 3. Respondent No.2-
Insurance company filed counter denying the claim of
petitioners denying the manner of accident, earnings of the
deceased. It is further contended that the accident
occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased and that the compensation claimed by petitioners
is very high and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the
petition.
07. On behalf of petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were
examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of
respondent-Insurance company, RW1 was examined and
got marked Ex.B1.
08. Considering the claim of petitioners and
counter filed by respondent-Insurance company and on
evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Tribunal allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition,
awarding a total compensation of Rs.11,62,100/- along
with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by
respondents.
09. Challenging the same, respondent-Insurance
company has preferred this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-
Insurance company and Sri M.Vijay Reddy, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-claimants.
Perused the material available on record.
11. The main contention of the learned Standing
Counsel for appellant-Insurance company is that the
learned Tribunal without proper evidence on record
awarded huge compensation towards compensation which
is on higher side, future prospects were also taken at 30%
and further awarded huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards consortium. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow
this appeal by setting aside the impugned Order.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents-claimants has contended that the learned
Tribunal has adequately granted reasonable and just
compensation and the same needs no interference by this
Court.
13. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned Order passed by the
learned Tribunal, 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 wife of the deceased reiterated
the contents of the claim application. As she was not
eyewitness to the accident, she got examined PW2-
eyewitness who deposed about the manner of the accident
and stated that the accident was the result of rash and
negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.
During the course of cross-examination, nothing was
elicited from them to discard their evidence. RW1-Official
of insurance company reiterated the contents of the
counter and during the course of cross-examination, he
admitted that Ex.B1-policy was in force as on the date of
accident.
16. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the Tribunal after evaluating the oral evidence of PW1 as
well as PW2-eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the
documentary evidence available on record, has awarded
compensation. It is pertinent to state that a perusal of
Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police, Jadcherla,
Mahboobnagar District registered a case in Crime No.293
of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle and
during the course of investigation inquest and postmortem
examination was conducted vide Exs.A3 and A4 and
further prepared the crime details form along with rough
sketch, after completion of investigation Ex.A2-charge
sheet was filed against the driver of the crime vehicle.
Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report disclose that there
are no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Therefore,
it can be safely concluded that the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the crime
vehicle. Hence, 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.
17. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered the
age of the deceased as 45 years and that the
deceased was attending agricultural work and
doing labour work, however, as there was no oral
or documentary evidence to prove the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-, the Tribunal
has taken monthly income as Rs.4,500/-. Hence,
this Court is not inclined to interfering with the
said finding of the Tribunal.
18. While calculating the compensation
amount, the learned Tribunal has taken future
prospects at the rate of 30%, further learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss
of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards cremation
charges.
19. It is pertinent to state here that as the
deceased was self-employed and aged 45 years,
25% future prospects have to be taken into
consideration instead of 30% as future prospects
and petitioners are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the
conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement
thereon) instead of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards cremation
charges, as per the guidelines formulated by the
Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 and Smt.Sarla
Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2.
Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal to that effect
are hereby set aside.
20. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited 1st supra), 25%
(Rs.1,125/-) towards future prospects can duly be added
thereto. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to
Rs.67,500/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,125/- x 12 being 25%
towards future prospects). Since there are four
dependents, after deducting 1/4th (Rs.16,875/-) towards
personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of
the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma case
(cited 2nd supra), the net annual contribution to the family
comes to Rs.50,625/- (Rs.67,500/- - Rs.16,875/-). As
seen from the evidence, the deceased was 45 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 '14'. Thus, applying the multiplier
'14' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already
1 2017 ACJ 2700
2 2009 (6) SCC 121
arrived at Rs.50,625/-, the total 'loss of dependency' comes
to Rs.7,08,750/- (Rs.50,625 x 14). In addition to that,
petitioners are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the
conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement
thereon). In addition thereof, petitioners No.3 and 4 who
are minor children of the deceased and petitioner No.1 are
entitled for Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.80,000/- under the
head of 'parental consortium' as per the decision of the
Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3.
Thus, in all, petitioners are entitled to compensation of
Rs.8,65,750/-.
21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.11,62,100/- is at
higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.8,65,750/-. In
so far as interest is concerned, the compensation amount
shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization. The
compensation amount, if not deposited by respondents,
(2018) 18 SCC 130
shall be deposited within a period of two (2) months 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, subject to payment of
deficit Court fee. Petitioners shall pay deficit Court fee for
Rs.65,750/- only. If the deficit Court fee is already
deposited by petitioners for the compensation amount
granted by the learned Tribunal, the difference Court fee
shall be refunded to petitioners, after proper calculation
and under proper acknowledgement.
22. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal reduced
from Rs.11,62,100/- to Rs.8,65,750/-. There shall be no
order as to costs.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 12-NOV-2024
KHRM
