Telangana High Court
M/S. The Sbi General Insurance Company ... vs K.Therisa on 10 January, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.597 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2017 (hereinafter will
be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the learned Motor
Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XII Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad (hereinafter will be
referred as 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.1874 of 2014, the Insurance
Company/respondent No.3 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 petitioner filed claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1
to 3 for the death of her son by name "Bala Prasanna"
(hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased'). The reason assigned
by the petitioner for the death of the deceased is that on
28.10.2015 at about 5.45 PM while the son of the petitioner was
proceeding on his motorcycle from Secunderabad towards
Athwelly, respondent No.1 i.e., the driver of DCM Van bearing
No. AP 28 TD 1289 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime
MGP,J
vehicle') drove the said vehicle at high speed in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the
deceased from the backside and ran over the body of the
deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries,
as such he was shifted to Balaji Hosital, Kompally and from
there he was shifted to KIMS hospital, wherein the doctors
declared as brought dead.
4. A case in Crime No.643/2015 was registered by Police,
Medchal for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal
Code Police against the driver of the crime vehicle.
5. According to the petitioner, the deceased was aged about
24 years, hale and healthy, working as Associate CS (Retension)
in Agile, Begumpet, Hyderabad and drawing Rs.25,000/- to
Rs.30,000/- per month. The deceased used to contribute his
income for maintenance of his family and due to sudden death
of the deceased, the petitioner lost her sole bread earner of the
family. Therefore, the petitioner, claimed compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the driver,
owner and insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No. DCM Van
MGP,J
bearing No. AP 28 TD 1289 respectively, for the death of the
deceased.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 and
2/driver and owner of the crime vehicle were set exparte and
whereas the respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter
denying the averments of the claim petition, the manner in
which the accident occurred, the age, avocation of the deceased
and that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle was not holding
a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident.
7. It was further contended that there was no valid permit to
the said vehicle and that the claim of the petitioner 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.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in
death viz., K. Bala Prasanna due to the rash and
negligent driving of the DCM Van bearing No. AP 28
TD 1289?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if
so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the
respondents?
iii) To what relief?
MGP,J
9. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 and 2 were examined
apart from relying on documentary evidence under Exs. A1 to
A7. On behalf of the respondent No.3, RW1 was examined apart
from exhibiting Exs. B1 to B4.
10. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim
petition in favour of the petitioner/claimant and making
respondent Nos.1 to 3 liable to pay the compensation of
Rs.15,73,280/- jointly and severally from the date of the
petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the impugned
order, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company has preferred
the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.
11. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company/Respondent
No.3 as well as Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for
respondent/petitioner and perused the entire material available
on record including the grounds of Appeal.
12. 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
Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of eyewitness (PW2)
MGP,J
coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 (FIR), A2
(charge sheet), A3 (scene of offence panchanama with rough
sketch), A4 (inquest report), A5 (Postmortem Examination
Report) and A6 (Motor Vehicle Inspector Report) answered issue
No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the DCM Van bearing No.AP 28 TD 1289
and that the son of the petitioner succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the said accident. 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 claimant.
13. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,73,280/- by relying on Ex.A7 pay
slip, which shows the monthly salary of deceased as
Rs.10,728/-.
14. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is that Ex.A7 pay slip of the deceased is fake
and fabricated one and created only for the purpose of claiming
compensation.
15. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the
respondent No.3 made some efforts in discarding Ex.A7 through
MGP,J
correspondence under Exs.B2 to B4 to establish that the
company in which the deceased alleged to have worked is not in
existence. A perusal of impugned order discloses that the
learned Tribunal did not even whisper about the efforts put
forth by the respondent No.3 under Exs.B2 to B4 in discarding
Ex.A7. When the respondent No.3 is seriously disputing the
authenticity or genuineness of Ex.A7, the learned Tribunal
ought to have discussed in the impugned order with regard to
authenticity of Ex.A7 despite exhibiting Exs.B2 to B4 on behalf
of respondent No.3.
16. In this regard, the Senior Executive (Legal) was examined
as RW1, who deposed that on enquiry they found that no such
office is functioning in the given address. In the cross
examination, RW1 deposed that when they tried to contract the
numbers shown on Ex.A7 through phone, the mobile number
was informed as wrong number and whereas the land line
number belongs to Shiva Balaji Academy, Dilsukhnagar. A
suggestion was given to RW1 that the office was shifted from the
given address. But the petitioner failed to explain as to where
the said office was shifted from the given address.
MGP,J
17. A salary slip issued by an employer is presumed to be
authentic unless there is credible evidence or reasonable
suspicion to suggest otherwise. However, when the authenticity
is challenged, additional evidence may be required to establish
its genuineness. If the respondents question the authenticity of
the salary slip, oral evidence from a competent authority, such
as a representative of the deceased's employer, may be
necessary to verify its genuineness. This testimony could clarify
the nature of the employment, the salary structure, and
whether the slip was indeed issued by the employer. Even
without oral evidence, a salary slip can be corroborated by other
documents such as bank statements reflecting salary deposits,
income tax returns filed by the deceased, employment records
or appointment letters from the employer etc. Courts often
emphasize the need for corroborative evidence when the primary
document like a pay slip or salary certificate is disputed. In
such cases, the claimant may be required to produce additional
evidence to support her claim. If oral evidence is unavailable or
impractical as in the instant case (when the employer is
unreachable) the court may consider other circumstantial
evidence and the overall facts of the case. The court has
discretion to weigh the evidence and decide whether the salary
MGP,J
slip can be relied upon. In the instant case, except Ex.A7 there
is no other oral evidence or documentary evidence to
corroborate that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,728/-. Thus,
salary slip alone may not be sufficient as conclusive proof of the
deceased's income, especially when authenticity of such salary
slip/salary certificate is questioned by the respondents.
18. However, there is no dispute that the deceased was doing
private job as can be seen from Exs.A1 and A2. Considering the
cost of living during the relevant period and taking into
consideration the qualification of the deceased as tenth class as
deposed by PW1, this Court is inclined to consider the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month.
19. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal has awarded
future prospects @ 50% instead of 40%. In the light of the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, the
deceased is entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his salary,
since the deceased was aged 24 years as per Exs.A1, A2, A4 and
A5. Thus, monthly income would arrive to Rs.11,200/-
1 2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
(Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-) and annual income would arrive to
Rs.1,34,400/- (Rs.11,200/- x 12 months). Since the deceased
is a bachelor, 50% of the same has to be deducted towards his
personal expenses. Thus, the income contributed by the
deceased towards his family members would be Rs.67,200/-
(Rs.1,34,400/- - Rs.67,200/-)
20. It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal while
calculating the loss of dependency has fixed the multiplier as 15
based on the age of mother of the deceased. But the
Honourable Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others
v. National Insurance Company Limited and
Others 2 observed that the selection of multiplier is based on the
age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the
dependent; there may be a number of dependents of the
deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of
the dependents has no nexus with the computation of
compensation. In the instant case, the age of the deceased is 24
years, thus, the appropriate multiplier would be '18' as per the
principle laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 3.
2 (2012) 11 SCC 738
3 (2009) 6 SCC 121
MGP,J
21. 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 Rs.
12,09,600/-. Thus, the loss of dependency on account of
sudden demise of deceased is being reduced from
Rs.14,48,200/- to Rs.12,09,600/-.
22. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss
of love and affection by relying on the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in M. Mansoor and another v.
United India Insurance Company Limited 4. The learned
Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses by
relying on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh
and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 5. Thus, except
interfering with the finding of learned Tribunal on the point of
loss of dependency, the remaining part of the impugned order is
appearing to be in proper perspective in all other aspects. Thus,
in all, petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation of
Rs.13,34,600/- (Rs.12,09,600/-+Rs. 1,00,000/-+Rs.25,000/-).
4 (2013) 12 Scale 324
5 (2013) 9 SCC 54
MGP,J
23. 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
others 6, this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest
granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5% per
annum.
24. 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.
25. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The quantum
of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is hereby
reduced from Rs.15,73,280/- to Rs.13,34,600/- with interest at
7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to
be payable by respondents (driver, owner and insurer of the
crime vehicle) jointly and severally. The respondents (driver,
owner and insurer of the crime vehicle) are directed to deposit
the amount within a period of one month from the date of
6 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount
without furnishing any security. 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
