Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Hyd vs D. Krishna, Hyd And Two Others on 25 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.
42 of 2017 & 1912 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.42
of 2017 is filed aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated
01.11.2016 passed in Original Petition No.1991 of 2014
(impugned Order) by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'),
appellant-Insurance company preferred the present Appeal
praying this Court to set aside the impugned Order.
02. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.1912 of 2019 is filed dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded vide impugned Order by the
learned the Tribunal, appellants-petitioners preferred the
present Appeal praying this Court seeking enhancement of
the compensation amount.
03. As the both these Appeals arising out of same
impugned Order, the parties are one and the same and
they are interlinked with each other, these Appeals are
being disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.
04. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array before the
learned Tribunal.
05. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of the Andhra
Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read with Amended Act,
54 of 1994 before the learned Tribunal claiming
compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of
Smt.D.Vijaya Laxmi (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased')
in Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 10.07.2014.
Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the deceased and
petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the deceased and
petitioner No.1.
06. According to petitioners, on 10.07.2014 at
11:00 hours, the deceased along with other members were
travelling to Chandanagar from Guntur on Wagoner Car
bearing No. AP 26 AA 0188 and when they reached near
Chennamma Hotel at ORR, the driver of Lorry bearing No.
AP 21 T 3695 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') drove
the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high
speed and without giving any signal suddenly slow down
the lorry due to which the car driver lost control and
dashed the said lorry, as a result of which, the inmates of
the said car including the deceased sustained injuries. The
deceased and one Srinivasulu died on the spot. A case in
Crime No.232 of 2014 was registered by Police, RGI Airport
for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian
Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle.
07. As per petitioners, the deceased was aged about
35 years at the time of accident and she was doing
business and earning Rs.3,50,000/- per annum and
contributing the same for maintenance of her family. Due
to sudden death of the deceased, petitioners are put to
monetary loss and also loss of love and affection.
Therefore, they sought for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-
from respondents.
08. Respondent No.1-owner remained exparte
before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.2-Insurnce
company filed counter denying averments of the claim
petition, rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
crime vehicle and the manner of occurrence of the
accident. Further, the age, avocation of the deceased, were
also denied. It is further contended that the driver of the
crime vehicle has no valid and effective driving license and
that there is contributory negligence on the part of the car
driver and that the compensation claimed is excessive and
exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
09. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues were settled:
i. Whether the accident took place
due to rash and negligence on the part of the
driver of the crime vehicle?
ii. Whether petitioners are entitled
for any compensation? If so, to what extent
and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
10. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioners got
examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On
behalf of respondent-Insurance company, no oral evidence
was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was
marked.
11. Considering the claim of petitioners and
counter affidavit filed by respondent-Insurance company
and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the
Original Petition, awarding an amount of Rs.19,25,000/-
towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 7
percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization, to be deposited by respondents.
12. Challenging the impugned Order and decree
appellant-Insurance company filed the Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 2017 and challenging the
quantum of compensation, appellants-petitioners have filed
this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1912 of
2019 seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
13. Heard Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for
petitioners as well as Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned
counsel for Insurance company. Perused the material
available on record.
14. The main contention of the learned counsel for
claim petitioners is that though claim petitioners proved
their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying
on the documents under Exs.A1 to A9, the learned
Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously
awarded meager amount towards compensation without
granting any future prospects and also taken monthly
income at lower side and prayed to enhance the
compensation amount.
15. On the other hand, the learned Standing
Counsel for Insurance company contended that there was
no negligence on the part of driver of crime vehicle and that
the driver of the crime vehicle was not possessing valid and
effective driving license and without considering the said
aspects the learned Tribunal awarded huge amount
towards compensation by granting an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses and sought for dismissal of the
petition.
16. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether petitioners are entitled for
enhancement of compensation amount in addition to
the compensation amount granted vide impugned
Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal, or whether
the impugned Order is liable to be set aside?
P O I N T:
17. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
18. Petitioner No.1 himself was examined as PW1
and reiterated the contents of the claim application and got
marked Ex.A1 to A9 and as he was not the eyewitness for
the accident, hence got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to
the accident deposed that she was one of the inmates of
the car and explained the manner of accident. She further
stated that she was sitting behind the driver seat. PW3-
Income Tax Officer who deposed about the income tax
returns filed by the deceased vide Exs.A7 to A9-Income Tax
Returns for the years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14
respectively. During the course of cross-examination,
nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
19. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners had also
relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to
A9. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR discloses that a case in Crime
No.232 of 2014 was registered by Police, RGI Airport for the
offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal
Code against the driver of the crime vehicle and took up
investigation and during the course of investigation, scene
of offence panchanama and postmortem examination was
conduced over the dead body of the deceased and those
reports were marked as Exs.A3 and A4 respectively and
after completion of investigation laid Ex.A2-Charge sheet
filed against driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A5-Motor
Vehicle Inspector's Report which shows that there are no
mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.A6-Original
Registration Certificate of Shiva Krishna Agencies. Ex.B1-
copy of insurance copy discloses that policy was in force as
on the date of accident.
20. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the Tribunal after evaluating the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, 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.
21. The only contention raised by learned counsel
for Insurance Company is that the though the driver of the
crime vehicle do not have any valid driving license, the
learned Tribunal fastened the liability upon insurance
company and that the learned Tribunal awarded huge
amount towards loss of consortium without following the
guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court.
22. As seen from the entire records, the Insurance
company did not try to adduce any oral or documentary
evidence to show that the driver of the crime vehicle was
not holding valid and effective driving license as on the
date of accident and that there are any violations of terms
and conditions of the insurance policy. Except marking
the copy of insurance policy there is no evidence adduced
by the Insurance company to prove its contentions. Even
before this Court no single piece of paper has been filed by
way of additional evidence to prove the contributory
negligence on the part of the car driver. Therefore, the
appeal filed by the Insurance company is devoid of merits
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
23. In so far as the contention with regard to
granting of compensation amount towards consortium and
funeral expenses is concerned, the same will be considered
while dealing with aspect of 'quantum of compensation' in
the following paragraphs.
24. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered the
age of the deceased between 36-40 years, but the
contention of the learned counsel for appellants is
that the deceased was aged about 35 years as on
the date of accident. As seen from the
documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A1-FIR, A2-
Chargesheet, A4-Postmortem Examination Report
the age of the deceased was categorically
mentioned as 34 years. It is not known how the
learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the
deceased was aged between 36-40 years. There is
no reason or discussion in the impugned Order to
that effect. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case including the above
documentary evidence, this Court is of the
considered view that the deceased is aged 34 years
as on the date of accident.
25. After analyzing the oral and documentary
evidence i.e. the evidence of PW3 coupled with
Exs.A7 to A9-Income Tax Returns including Ex.A6-
Registration Certificate, the learned Tribunal has
came to a conclusion that the deceased was doing
business. The monthly income of the deceased was
calculated at Rs.15,000/- after taking average of
gross income in the above income tax returns.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said finding of the learned Tribunal. In
view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and others 1 40% i.e. Rs.6,000/- towards future prospects
can duly be added thereto, which comes to Rs.21,000/-
1 2017 ACJ 2700
(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6,000/-). Hence, this Court is
inclined to fix the annual income of the deceased at
Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.21,000x12). Since the deceased
was having two dependents, after deducting 1/3rd of the
income (Rs.84,000/-) towards personal expenses of the
deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another 2, the net annual contribution
to the family comes to Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.2,52,000/- -
Rs.84,000/-). As the deceased was 34 years at the time of
fatal accident. As per the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Smt.Sarla Varma (cited supra), the appropriate
multiplier is '16'. Thus, applying the multiplier '16' to the
annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at
Rs.1,68,000/-, the total loss of dependency comes to
Rs.26,88,000/- (Rs.1,68,000/- x 16).
26. While calculating the final compensation
amount, the learned Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and
further awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
2 2009 (6) SCC 121
expenses, which is against the guidelines
formulated by the Honourable Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi case (cited supra). Therefore, the findings of the
learned Tribunal to that effect are hereby set aside. Hence,
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 and further awarded Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses, as per settled principle of
law laid down in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra). Thus, in
all, petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.27,65,000/-
towards compensation.
27. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.19,25,000/- is
enhanced to Rs.27,65,000/-. In so far as interest
component is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
awarded interest at the rate of 7 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 enhance 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 entire compensation amount along with
enhanced interest shall be deposited by respondents jointly
and severally, within a period of two (2) months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same
without furnishing any security.
28. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 2017 filed by Insurance
company is dismissed. The Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.1912 of 2019 is partly allowed
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
learned Tribunal from Rs.19,25,000/- to Rs.27,65,000/-
with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum on entire
compensation amount from the date of petition till the date
of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in these Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 25-NOV-2024
KHRM
