The United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mrs Ganta Jangamma And 6 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5162 Tel

Telangana High Court

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mrs Ganta Jangamma And 6 Others on 29 April, 2025

                                    1


      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                      M.A.C.M.A.NO.39 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 04.07.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2016

passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short

"the trial Court").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on

05.05.2016 at about 14:45 hours while the deceased-Sanjeeva

Reddy was proceeding from Vijaynagar Colony, Uppal to

Chilkanagar on his motor bike bearing No.AP-29AF-4895, when he

reached Shiva Sai Hospital and while he was trying to park the

bike before the said hospital, rider of the Yamaha FZ bearing

No.TSAP-05W-4888, driven by its rider in a rash and negligent

manner at a high speed, dashed him due to which the said

Sanjeeva Reddy sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was

shifted to Aditya Hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to

injuries on the next day at 08:29 a.m., The claimants sought a

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

3. The respondent No.1, 3 and 4 remained ex-parte.

ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter

denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the

manner in which the accident has occurred. They further

contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the

deceased and that there is no negligence of the rider of the Yamaha

FZ bearing No.TSAP-05W-4888. Thus, they denied their liability to

pay their compensation.

5. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the victim viz., Ganta Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o9 Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of Yamaha FZ bearing No.TS-08-EC-4454?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3

and got marked Exs.A1 to A11 and X1 and X2. On behalf of the

respondents RW1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.11,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and

decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

8. Heard the submission of Sri M. Satish Reddy, learned

counsel for the appellant.

ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

order and decree passed by the Tribunal is against the law and

weight of evidence and against the probabilities of the case. He

further argued that the Tribunal has awarded huge compensation

without any proof of income established by the petitioners. He

further argued that the Tribunal has dismissed the petition against

the owner of the vehicle and thus, the Insurance Company would

not be liable to pay any compensation. But However, the Tribunal

has wrongly fastened the liability against the Insurance Company

even after dismissing the case against the owner. Thus, the order

of the Tribunal is against law and therefore, prayed to set aside the

same. He further, argued that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the

multiplier to be '13' and that the deceased was aged '56' years. He

further has argued that the Tribunal has granted huge amounts

under various heads and therefore, prayed to set aside the order

and decree passed by the Tribunal.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

has submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the

Tribunal and thus, prayed to uphold the same. She further argued

that the deceased have to be compensated by taking into

consideration their pathetic condition and that even in the

absence of driving license to the driver of the crime vehicle, pay

and recovery can be ordered and that the compensation granted by ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

the Tribunal is just and reasonable. She therefore, prayed to

uphold the same.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether there was no driving license to the rider of Yamaha FZ bearing No.TS-08-EC-4454. If so, whether the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

12. POINT NO.1:

a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the rider of

the Yamaha FZ bearing No.TS-8EC-4454 was not holding a valid

driving license and though the vehicle is insured with them, their

company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

Further, it is their contention that the Tribunal has dismissed the

case against the respondent No.1 herein. Once the owner is

absolved from liability, this Insurance Company do not have any

liability.

b) It is their case that as per the R.C, the owner is respondent

No.1, while respondent No.3-Gandikonta Ravi was riding the bike

at the relevant point of time when the accident has occurred. The

said person-respondent No.3-Gandikota Ravi was not holding a

valid driving license as on the date of the accident and thus, their ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

company is not liable to pay any compensation. Another contention

is that the owner of the motor bike i.e., respondent No.1/Vinay

Kumar was absolved from his liability by the Tribunal and

therefore, the question of indemnifying the said respondent No.1

does not arise.

c) In support of their contention, the respondents have filed

Ex.B1 to B5 and got examined RW1. The evidence of RW1 and a

perusal of these exhibits would reveal that on intimation about the

accident, they have served notice on the owner and the rider of the

motor bike, but inspite of receipt of the said notices, they failed to

produce the driving license of Gandikota Ravi, who was riding the

motor bike at the relevant point of time. The owner has failed to

furnish the particulars. In his cross examination he admitted that

at the time of accident, the policy was in force.

d) A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.A3 reveals that the

charge sheet is filed against Gandikota Ravi who is arrayed as

accused No.1, who was riding the motor bike and it is also filed

against one Shiva who is the owner of Yamaha Bike showroom. The

contents of the charge sheet reveal that the accident occurred due

to the rash and negligent driving of the said Gandikota Ravi who

was riding the bike bearing No. TS-8EC-4454. The accused No.2-

Shiva is the owner of the Ashoka Motors which runs a bike ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

servicing centre and accused No.1 is the Assistant Mechanic of the

accused No.2.

e) LW6/ Vinay Kumar who is the owner of the crime vehicle

and respondent No.1 in the present case has handed over his bike

for servicing on 05.05.2016 and that the accused No.2 has allowed

the accused No.1 to go on the said bike in an unauthorized

manner. Thus, while accused No.1 was proceeding on the said

bike, the accident has occurred. Therefore, the Tribunal has

arrived at a conclusion that there was no negligence on part of the

respondent No.1 who has given his bike for servicing at the

relevant point of time. It is the owner of the Yamaha showroom

who entrusted the bike in an unauthorized manner to the rider

and thus, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the said

respondents. Since, the respondent No.3 did not have valid driving

license, the Insurance Company was ordered to pay the

compensation and then recover from the respondent No.4 i.e., the

owner of Yamaha Showroom.

f) The point to be considered in this regard is that, though

there was no negligence on part of the owner, it is the

rider/respondent No.3 of the bike, who was negligent and since,

the accident occurred with the said vehicle, the owner/respondent

No.1 as well as the insurer/respondent No.2 would be made liable

to pay compensation and respondent No.4/the owner of bike ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

service centre was negligent in handing over the said bike in an

unauthorized manner to the rider. Respondent No.4 was negligent

in handing over the bike to respondent No.3 in an un-authorized

manner. Therefore, all the respondents would be held liable for

paying the compensation jointly and severally. However, since it is

elicited from the evidence of RW1 coupled with Exs.B1 to B5 that

the notices were served on the owner and rider of the bike, but still

they could not produce the valid driving license. Therefore, since

the rider of the bike did not possess a valid driving license, the

Insurance Company has to pay the compensation and recover from

the other respondents.

13. Point No.2:

a) The grievance of the claimants is only that the Tribunal has

not considered the addition of income towards future prospects. As

per the law laid down by National Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1, by the Apex Court, addition has to

be made with regard to future prospects, while computing the

compensation. In the present case the deceased is stated to have

been Real Estate Agent and the Tribunal has taken the monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

b) A perusal of the driving license reveals the date of birth of

the deceased as 07.07.1959. Thus the appellant counsel has

contended that the deceased was aged around '57' years and thus

the multiplier '9' has to be applied in this case. While the

respondent counsel has contended that as per Post Mortem

Examination Report, it is only '53' years, so the same has been

taken by the Tribunal and that may be upheld. When date of birth

is revealed by driving license, the same has to be taken into

account and considering the said age of the deceased, multiplier '9'

is applicable in this case.

c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 10% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 53

years, adding 10% towards future prospects i.e., ,9000+900 would

give Rs.9,900/- per month, which comes to Rs.9,900/- x 12 =

Rs.1,18,800/- per annum.

d) The number of claimants herein are four and therefore, 1/4th

deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

expenses and this would come up to Rs.89,100/- (Rs.1,18,000/- (-)

Rs.29,700/-).

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

e) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the

deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation 3. The deceased being aged 57

years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '9'. Therefore, the

loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,01,900/-.

f) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss

of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and

the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.

g) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 4, the Apex Court has elaborately

discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has

further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children

of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore,

in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each

towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount

under this head would be Rs.1,93,600/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.

Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded.

h) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are

entitled is calculated as Rs.11,61,799/- while the Tribunal has

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

awarded Rs.11,41,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners

are entitled for enhancement of compensation.

Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.3:

It is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be

modified with regard to the liability of respondents and the

quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the

compensation to Rs.11,61,799/- from that of Rs.11,41,000/- i.e.,

awarded by the Tribunal and the respondent No.2 shall pay the

compensation and recover the same from respondent No.1, 3 and

4.

14. POINT NO.3:

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly

allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 04.07.2019 in

M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Secunderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.11,41,000/-

to 11,61,799/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall

carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till

realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any is

forfeited. The appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee.

Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation and then

recover the same from other respondents. Respondent No.2 is ETD,J MACMA No.39_2021

directed to deposit the amount with accrued interest within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On

such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said

amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective

shares as allotted by the Tribunal. The judgment copy shall be

made available subject to the payment of deficit Court fee by the

appellants. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 29.04.2025 ds