Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Kovvakula Padma And 3 Others on 10 January, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2332 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2015 (hereinafter will
be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the learned
Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III
Additional Chief Judge, Khammam (hereinafter will be referred
as 'Tribunal') in M.A.T.O.P.No.175 of 2010, the Insurance
Company/respondent No.2 has filed the present Appeal to set
aside the impugned order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are that the petitioners filed claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1
and 2 for the death of their family member by name
"Venkateshwarlu" (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased').
The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the
deceased is that on 08.12.2005 at about 7.00 AM while the
deceased was standing in front of Congress Office, Wyra, a lorry
bearing No. AP -05- TT - 462 (hereinafter will be referred as
'crime vehicle') being driven by its driver with high speed in rash
MGP,J
and negligent manner dashed the deceased, who died on the
spot.
4. Based on the complaint lodged by one Gugloth Laxmi Bai,
a case in Crime No.134/2005 was registered by Police, Wyra for
the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal
Code Police against the driver of the crime vehicle.
5. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about
28 years and earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing lighting
business. The deceased used to contribute his income for
maintenance of his family and due to sudden death of the
deceased, the petitioner No.1 lost love, affection and conjugal
happiness and the future of petitioner No.2, who is a minor, lost
his bright future and petitioner No.3, who is the father of the
deceased, lost his son at his old age. Therefore, the petitioners,
claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. 1 and
2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle
respectively, for the death of the deceased.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/
owner and insurer of the crime vehicle filed separate counters.
The respondent No.1 contended that as the crime vehicle was
MGP,J
insured with respondent No.2, the compensation, if any, is
liable to be paid by respondent No.2. On the other hand, the
respondent No.2 denied the manner of the accident, age,
avocation and income of the deceased and that the claim of the
petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, on the above
grounds, the Insurance Company assailed the liability to pay
any compensation amount and prayed for dismissal of the case.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving by the Lorry bearing No. AP 05 TT
462 resulting the death of Kovvakula Venkateswarlu
on 08.12.2005?
ii) Whether the petitioners are legal heirs of the
deceased, if so, are they entitled to compensation, to
what amount and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
8. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 4 were examined
apart from relying on documentary evidence under Exs. A1 to
A7. On behalf of the respondent No.2, none were examined
apart from exhibiting Ex. B1 copy of insurance policy.
9. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in
favour of the petitioner/claimant and making respondent Nos.1
and 2 liable to pay the compensation of Rs.15,48,000/- jointly
MGP,J
and severally from the date of the petition till the date of
deposit. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal to
set aside the impugned judgment.
10. Heard Sri Somanchi Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing
Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company/Respondent
No.2 as well as Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, learned counsel
for respondents/petitioners and perused the entire material
available on record including the grounds of Appeal.
11. It is pertinent to note that the claimant has not filed any
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. There is no
dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as the learned
Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of eyewitness (PW2)
coupled with Exs.A1 (FIR) and A2 (charge sheet), answered
issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the crime vehicle and that the deceased
succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.
12. There is no dispute that the insurance policy (Ex.B1) was
subsisting as on the date of accident. There is also no dispute
with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the
petitioners.
MGP,J
13. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in
assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month
without any documentary evidence.
14. In this regard, the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as
PW1, wherein she categorically stated that the deceased was
engaged in the work of arranging decoration lights and used to
earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Apart from that the petitioners got
examined PW3, who is alleged to be the employer of the
deceased. PW3 deposed that he is an electrician and doing his
profession in the name and style of Upendra Kalyana
Mandapalu and that nearly four or five electricians are working
under his control. He further deposed that he is paying
Rs.250/- per day to each electrician and the deceased is one
such electrician. Thus, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated
with the evidence of PW2. As rightly observed by the learned
Tribunal, there cannot be any documentary evidence of proof of
income for such occupation. Hence, the above contention of the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company is untenable.
Therefore, the income of the deceased as fixed by the learned
Tribunal is treated to be in proper perspective.
MGP,J
15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in adding
future prospects @ 50% to the income of the deceased while
computing the compensation.
16. The learned Tribunal while arriving to the annual income
of the deceased has rounded off the annual income of
Rs.1,08,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/-. In general, a figure, which is in
decimal form, would be rounded off to a closer to the next
number. There is no decimal form in the figure arrived by the
learned Tribunal but only for the sake of convenience in
calculations, the learned Tribunal has rounded off
Rs.1,08,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- i.e., with a difference of
Rs.2,000/-. This difference of Rs.2,000/- will have considerable
impact on the quantum of compensation. Thus, the learned
Tribunal ought not to have rounded off the number to such a
large extent.
17. As seen from the page No.5 of the impugned order, the
learned Tribunal has added 50% to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects. In view of the principle laid down by
the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
MGP,J
Pranay Sethi and others 1, the deceased is entitled to future
prospects @ 40% of his salary, since the he was below 40 years
and self employed. Thus, the monthly income with future
prospects would arrive to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-).
Since the claimants are 3 in number, 1/3rd of the monthly
salary (Rs.8,400/-) of the deceased i.e., Rs.2,800/- shall be
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the
monthly income of the deceased after deducting personal
expenses would come to Rs.5,600/- (Rs.8,400/- - Rs.2,800/-).
The annual income would arrive to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.5,600/- x
12 months). Thus, the income contributed by the deceased
towards his family members would be Rs.67,200/-.
18. When the annual salary of the deceased after deducting
his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier,
it comes to Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.67,200/- x 18). Thus, the loss of
dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is arrived
to Rs. 12,09,600/-. Thus, the loss of dependency on account of
sudden demise of deceased is being reduced from
Rs.13,23,000/- to Rs.12,09,600/-.
1 2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
19. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss
of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is settled principle of
law in respect of granting compensation under conventional
heads as per the principle laid down in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2 the claimants
are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads
(Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). In addition thereof,
petitioner No.2, who is the minor son of the deceased and
petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- 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/claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.13,26,600/- (Rs.12,09,600/- + Rs. 77,000/- + Rs.40,000/-).
20. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal ought to have
awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of 9%, which is
highly excessive. By considering the principle laid down by the
Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and
2 2017 ACJ 2700
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130
MGP,J
others 4, this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest
granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5% per
annum.
21. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that impugned Award passed by the
learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of
above observations.
22. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The quantum
of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is hereby
reduced from Rs.15,48,000/- to Rs.13,26,600/- with interest at
7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to
be payable by respondents (owner and insurer of the crime
vehicle) jointly and severally. Out of the above said
compensation, the petitioner No.1 is awarded an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/-, petitioner No.2 is awarded Rs.3,50,000/- and
petitioner No.3 is awarded Rs.1,76,600/-. The respondents
(owner and insurer of the crime vehicle) are directed to deposit
the amount within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw the entire
4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
amount awarded to them without furnishing any security. The
compensation awarded to petitioner No.2/minor is ordered to be
deposited as FDR in any nationalized bank until the minor
attains the age of majority. The petitioner No.1 being the
natural guardian of the minor is entitled to withdraw the
interest accrued thereon once in six months to meet the day to
day expenses of the minor. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 10.01.2025
AS
