Telangana High Court

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Polurisailaja on 24 September, 2024

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                 AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024

                                 and

                Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

 COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)

The present M.A.C.M.A. and Cross Objections are being

disposed of by this common judgment, since M.A.C.M.A. filed

by the Insurance Company and Cross Objections filed by the

petitioners/claimants are directed against the very same

order and decree dated 15.04.2024 passed in M.V.O.P.No.355

of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short 'the

Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will

be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

On 09.01.2021, the deceased/Poluri Srinivasa Rao was

proceeding on his Motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-AU-0393 from

his house to purchase groceries and when he reached Road 2 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

No.2, Chaitanya Nagar, Khammam at about 10.00 hours, the

driver of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.TS 04 EY 5949 drove

the said Car in a rash and negligent manner at high speed

without taking any precautionary measures and dashed

against the Motor Cycle of the deceased, as a result of which,

the deceased fell on the road and sustained injuries over the

head and other vital organs. Immediately, the deceased was

shifted to KHIMS Hospital, Khammam. After receiving the first

aid, due to his critical condition, the deceased was shifted to

KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and underwent treatment, but the

Doctors advised to take back the deceased as his condition

was hopeless. Accordingly, on 13.01.2021, the petitioners

shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Khammam,

where the doctors examined and declared as dead at about

15.40 hours. The petitioners spent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-

towards the medical expenses of the deceased. Based on the

report, the Police Khammam II Town registered a case in

Cr.No.16/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 337

IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle, and later altered it

to Sec.304-A IPC. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale

and healthy, aged about 52 years. The deceased worked as a 3 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

Government Teacher at UPS, Khanapuram Village, Wyra

Mandal, Khammam District and used to draw Rs.64,515/-

per month as salary. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the

wife and son of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking

compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit denying the

averments made in the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit denying the

averments made in the claim petition. The 1st respondent,

who is the driver of the offending vehicle, did not have a valid

driving licence at the time of the accident, therefore, the 1st

respondent alone is liable to pay compensation to the

petitioners, and the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any

compensation to the petitioners.

6. On behalf of the petitioners, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and

Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-

Insurance Company, examined RW-1 and marked Ex.B-1

Copy of the Insurance Policy.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident 4 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle and accordingly awarded an amount of

Rs.90,71,136/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date

of petition till the date of realization to be paid by respondents

jointly and severally. Challenging the same,

M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 is filed by the Insurance

Company and Cross Objections No.62 of 2024 is filed by the

petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company contended that since the deceased was a

Government Teacher by profession and an Income Tax

assessee, the Tribunal ought to have deducted Income Tax

and Professional Tax from the earnings of the deceased in

view of the settled law laid down by the Apex Court in

Shamavathi Sharma and Others Vs. Karan Singh and others

(2010 ACJ 1968) and Vimal Kanwar & Others Vs. Kishore Dan

& Ors ( Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012).

9. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company further contended that as per the calculations made

by the Insurance Company in terms of the settled law, the 5 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

liability would not be more than Rs. 80,30,168/- under all

heads, but the Tribunal erroneously granted an amount of

Rs.90,71,136/-, which is excessive. Accordingly, prayed the

Court to set aside the order and decree passed by the

Tribunal and allow the present appeal.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended that the Tribunal ought to have

awarded the total amount of compensation claimed by the

petitioners instead of Rs.90,71,136/-. The Tribunal erred in

not awarding any amount under the head of funeral

expenses, and as per law, it ought to have granted an amount

of Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further

contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the rate

of interest @ 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum as

per the judgments of the Apex Court in Magma General

Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanuram (2018 ACJ 2782 SC.) and

Narender Padu Ranga Kadam (1995 (1) SCC 320). The

Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation as per the

Apex Court judgments under various heads as claimed by the 6 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

petitioners, and therefore, the amount awarded by the

Tribunal may be enhanced.

12. Heard both sides and perused the record.

Findings of this Court :-

13. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the

Tribunal, having framed recasted issue on 07.02.2024 as to

whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and whether the

deceased died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on

09.01.2021 and having considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 4

coupled with Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-5 rightly came to the

conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and no

contra evidence was putforth by the 2nd respondent to show

that the accident occurred in any manner other than the

claimed by the petitioners and has answered in favour of the

petitioners and against the respondents. Therefore, there are

no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle's driver.

7 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

the Insurance Company admitted all the aspects, considered

by the Tribunal, except the quantum of compensation.

15. The Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA Vs. DELHI

TRANSPORT CORPORATION, held as follows :-

"Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents.....".

16. As per the above decision, it is clear that the petitioners

have to establish the age, income of the deceased and number

of dependents of the deceased at the time of the accident and

the deductions and additions to be made.

17. The evidence of P.W-1 and Exs.A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4

shows that the deceased was aged about 52 years at the time

of the accident and rebutting the same, the respondents did

not adduce any evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held

that the deceased was aged about '52' years as on the date of

accident.

8 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

18. To prove the income of the deceased, PW.1 examined

PW.4, Head Master of ZPHS, Rebbavaram, Wyra Mandal of

Khammam District, who deposed that the deceased was

working from 11.07.2018 till his death, i.e., 13.01.2021 as a

Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) in MPUPS, Khanapuram,

Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. He issued Ex.A-8-Pay

Slips for the months of October, November and December

2020 as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer, showing that the

deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.64,515/- per

month. He also issued Ex.A-21- TSTC Form 47 Salary Bill

pertaining to the deceased. He further stated that from

01.04.2020, PRC was implemented for monetary benefit, and

after implementation of PRC, the salary of the deceased for

the month of December, 2020 is Rs.81,791/-. This Court is of

the considered view that the Tribunal, based on Ex.A-21,

rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.81,791/-, which needs no interference by this Court.

Therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to

Rs.9,81,492/-. However, the Tribunal erred by not deducting

the professional tax and the income tax payable by the

deceased, and the same ought to have been deducted before 9 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

computing the compensation. The income-tax slab rates for

the Financial Year 2021-22, as applicable to the deceased,

are:

S.No.                Income Slab             Tax Rate
                                            Applicable
     1.        Upto Rs.2,50,000/-                 NIL

     2.        Rs.2,50,001/- to                   5%
               Rs.5,00,000/-
     3.        Rs.5,00,001 to                     20%
               Rs.10,00,000/-

19. Hence, the income tax payable on the said amount, i.e.,

Rs.9,81,492/-, is Rs.1,08,798/- [Rs.12,500/- + Rs.96,298/-].

The professional tax applicable is Rs.2,400/- [Rs.200/- x 12]

and accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.8,70,294/-

[Rs.9,81,492/- (minus) Rs.1,08,798/- (minus) Rs.2,400/-].

20. The Tribunal rightly added 15% towards the future

prospects of the deceased since the deceased was a

Government Teacher and was aged about 52 years at the time

of the accident as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi 1, and accordingly, the annual income of the deceased

arrives at Rs.10,00,838/- [Rs.8,70,294/-+ Rs.1,30,544/-].

2017 (16) SCC 680.

10 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd towards the personal

expenditure of the deceased since the claimants are two in

number, in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra). After deducting

1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the

income arrives at Rs.6,67,225/- [Rs.10,00,838/- (minus)

Rs.3,33,613/-]. Further, the Tribunal rightly took the

multiplier as '11' in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2,

and after applying the said multiplier, the total loss of

dependency comes to Rs.73,39,475/- (Rs.6,667,225/- X 11).

21. The Tribunal, based on Exs.A-13, A-14, A-15, Ex.A-17,

rightly awarded a sum of Rs.15,592/- towards medical bills,

Rs.40,000/- towards ambulance bills and Rs.5,21,797/-

towards inpatient bills, which need no interference by this

Court.

22. In the instant case, the Tribunal has erroneously

granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each, i.e., Rs.2,00,000/-

to the petitioners towards consortium and loss of love and

affection. However, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), the

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 11 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

petitioner No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs.

40,000/- +10%+10%) towards the loss of spousal consortium.

As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma

General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru

Ram 3, the 2nd petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/-

(Rs. 40,000/- +10%+10%) towards loss of parental

consortium.

23. Insofar as the funeral expenses are concerned, the

Tribunal held that the petitioners are not entitled to an

amount of Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, as the

deceased was a Government employee and he might have

already withdrawn the said amount. But, in PRANAY SETHI

(supra), the Supreme Court has not distinguished the

granting of funeral expenses in respect of Government

employees and ordinary persons. Therefore, the petitioners

are entitled to a sum of Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% +

10%) towards funeral expenses.

24. Insofar as loss of estate is concerned, the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate,

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 12 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 & Cross Objections No.62 of 2024

which needs to be enhanced since three more years have

lapsed from the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the petitioners are

entitled to a sum of Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%)

towards loss of estate. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled

to a compensation of Rs.80,49,964/-.

25. Therefore, the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the

Tribunal in MVOP.No.355 of 2021 is modified as follows:-

S.No.      Particulars                      Amount

1.         Annual salary of the deceased          Rs.9,81,492/-
           (Rs.81,791/-X 12)
2.         Less: Professional Tax                  (-)Rs.2,400/-
           (Rs.200/- x 12)
3.         Less: Income Tax                      (-)Rs.1,08,798/-

4.         Net Income [1-(2+3)]                   Rs.8,70,294/-

5.         Add: 15 % Future Prospects             Rs.1,30,544/-

6.         Sub-Total                              Rs.10,00,838/-

7.         Less: 1/3rd towards Personal          (-)Rs.3,33,613/-
           Expenditure
8.         Sub-Total                              Rs.6,67,225/-

9.         Total Loss of Dependency               Rs.73,39,475/-
           (Rs.6,67,225/- x 11)
10.        Add : Conventional Heads                 Rs.36,300/-
           (Funeral Expenses and Loss of
           Estate)
           (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-
           +10% + 10%)
                                13                            SP,J & RRN,J
                                            M.A.C.M.A.No.1103 of 2024 &
                                           Cross Objections No.62 of 2024



11.      Add: Loss of spousal                    Rs.48,400/-
         consortium (Rs.40,000/-+
         10%) to petitioner No.1
12.      Add: Loss of parental                   Rs.48,400/-
         consortium to petitioner No.2
13.      Add : Medical bills                     Rs.15,592/-

14.      Add : Ambulance bills                   Rs.40,000/-

15.      Add : Medical bills                   Rs.5,21,797/-

         Total Compensation                    Rs.80,49,964/-

26. The Tribunal erroneously granted interest at 6% per

annum and the same has to be modified. Therefore, the

petitioners are entitled to the interest @ 7.5% per annum

instead of 6% per annum.

27. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. and Cross Objections are

disposed of by modifying the order and decree dated

15.04.2024 passed in MVOP No.355 of 2021. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced

from Rs.90,71,136/- to Rs.80,49,964/- (Rupees Eighty lakh

forty nine thousand nine hundred and sixty four only) with

interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

realization. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit