Telangana High Court

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs K Murali And 3 Others on 10 January, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.3356 OF 2016
                             AND
     M.A.C.M.A.No.2013 OF 2019 (Along with I.A.No.4 of 2017)



COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.3356 of 2016 filed by the Insurance

Company, seeking to set-aside the order passed by the learned

Tribunal and M.A.C.M.A.No.2013 of 2019 filed by the claim

petitioners, seeking for enhancement of compensation, both are

directed against the very same order dated 24.08.2016 passed in

O.P.No.1999 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal -cum- IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad. I.A.No.4 of 2017 is filed seeking amendment of the

claim amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they

were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who

are the husband and daughters of Late Smt.K.Vijaya (hereinafter

be referred as "the deceased"), filed a petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules,

1989, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of

the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.3356 of 2016 and 2013 of 2019 (along with I.A.No.4 of 2017)

07.02.2014. It is stated by the petitioners that on 07.02.2014,

when the deceased along with her husband-Sri Murali started from

Ramayampet in order to go to Borumpet on Scooty bearing No.AP-

11-M-6071 towards left side of the road, on the way at about 21.00

hours, when they reached Gandimaisamma 'X' roads, one Lorry

bearing No.AP-29-TB-4442 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner, came from behind and dashed the said Scooty.

As a result, the deceased along with her husband fell down on the

road and sustained grievous chest injury and other grievous

injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The rider of the

said Scooty also sustained serious injuries all over the body.

Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to

Government Hospital for conducting Autopsy.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Dundigal Police Station

registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2014, under Sections 304-A

and 337 IPC against the driver of the crime Lorry bearing No.AP-

29-TB-4442.

5. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the

deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 48 years and used to

earn Rs.15,000/- per month by working as private employee in

M/s.P.V.Electro Plating Works, Fathenagar, Hyderabad and

contribute the same for maintenance of her family. Due to

untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners have lost their sole

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.3356 of 2016 and 2013 of 2019 (along with I.A.No.4 of 2017)

bread-winner and were put to irreparable mental agony and

therefore filed claim petition seeking compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/-initially and later filed I.A.No.4 of 2017 in

MACMA.No.2013 of 2019 seeking for amendment of claim amount

from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.25,78,000/-.

6. Respondent No.1/Owner of the crime lorry remained ex-

parte.

7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its written

statement denying the income of the deceased and contended that

the accident occurred due to the negligence of rider of Scooty

bearing No.AP-11-M-6071 for not observing the traffic rules and

therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had

framed the following issues for conducting trial:-

(i) Whether the pleaded accident on 07.02.2014 at about 21.00 hours was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Lorrybearing No.AP-29-TB-4442 and whether the deceased died in the said accident?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what quantum and whether the crime vehicle was owned by Respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 and what is the liability of the respondents?

           (iii)    To what relief?

                                                                                                 MGP,J

MACMA.Nos.3356 of 2016 and 2013 of 2019 (along with I.A.No.4 of 2017)

9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner

No.1/husband of the deceased was examined as PW1 and got

marked Exs.A1 to A5. As respondent No.1 remained ex-parte, on

behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, no witness was

examined, however, Ex.B1-Insurance policy was marked with

consent.

10. After considering the claim petition, counter filed by

Respondent No.2 and the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of

Rs.15,65,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of date of petition till the date of realization payable by both

the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the

same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance

Company and the claim petitioners respectively.

11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned

Standing Counsel representing appellant-Insurance Company in

M.A.C.M.A.No.3356 of 2016 and Sri T.Vishwarupa Chary, learned

counsel for claim petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.No.2013 of 2019.

Perused the record.

12. The contentions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.3356 of 2016 are

that the income fixed by the Tribunal towards salary of the

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.3356 of 2016 and 2013 of 2019 (along with I.A.No.4 of 2017)

deceased is not proper and the learned Tribunal awarded excess

amounts towards conventional Heads and therefore, requested to

allow the Appeal by setting-aside the order of the Tribunal.

13. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for

respondents 1 to 3/ claim petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.2013 of 2019 is

that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the

income of the deceased and hence requested for enhancement of

compensation and also filed I.A.No.4 of 2017 for amendment of

claim amount.

14. Now the points that emerge for determination are,

1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any irregularity?

2. Whether the appellants/claim petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

POINTS:-

15. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute and it has

come on record that in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

07.02.2014, the deceased while travelling along with her husband

on Scooty bearing No.AP-11M-6071 and when reached near

Gadimaisamma X roads, at that time, one Lorry bearing No.AP-29-

TB-4442 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner, came from behind and dashed their Scooty, due to which,

the deceased along with her husband sustained grievous injuries

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.3356 of 2016 and 2013 of 2019 (along with I.A.No.4 of 2017)

all over the body and the deceased died due to grievous chest

injury. Further, the contents of Ex.A1-FIR shows that Police of

Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered a

case in Crime No.62 of 2014, under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC,

took up investigation and laid charge sheet under Ex.A4 against

the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-29-TB-4442. Ex.A2 is the

inquest report. Ex.A3 is Post- mortem examination report wherein,

the cause of death of the deceased was shown as "due to Multiple

Injuries" . Ex.A5 is the Salary Certificate of the deceased issued by

the Proprietor of P.V.Electro Plating Works, Fathenagar, Hyderabad

and it bears his signature. Ex.B1- Insurance policy shows that the

policy was in force as on the date of accident.

16. The only point that has to be dealt with in the present

Appeal is regard to quantum of compensation.

17. The contention of learned Standing Counsel representing the

appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.3356 of 2016 is

that the income fixed by the Tribunal is not proper and that the

Tribunal awarded excess amounts towards conventional Heads.

18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents/claim petitioners/appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.2013 of

2019 contended that the learned Tribunal failed to award future

prospects to the income of the deceased and therefore requested

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.3356 of 2016 and 2013 of 2019 (along with I.A.No.4 of 2017)

for enhancement of compensation amount and also filed I.A.No.4 of

2017 requesting for amendment of claim amount.

19. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned

Tribunal, taking into consideration Ex.A5-Salary Certificate of the

deceased, fixed the income of the deceased @ Rs.15,000/- per

month. A perusal of the Certificate under Ex.A5 issued by the

Proprietor of P.V.Electroplating Works clearly depicts that the

deceased used to work as "Supervisor" in P.V. Electro Plating

Works Organization and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per

month towards her salary. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence

by the respondent/Insurance Company and considering the

contents of Ex.A5-Salary Certificate, this Court do not find any

reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal which is

in proper perspective.

20. Since the deceased being 48 years old and used to work as a

Supervisor in a reputed organization, this Court, by relying upon

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.Pranay Sethi 1, is inclined to add

30% towards future prospects of the deceased. Then the net future

income of the deceased comes to Rs.19,500/-. As the number of

dependents are 3, if 1/3rd is deducted towards the living and

personal expenses of the deceased, then the net monthly income

2017(6) 170 SC

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.3356 of 2016 and 2013 of 2019 (along with I.A.No.4 of 2017)

comes to Rs.13,000/- and the annual income comes to

Rs.1,56,000/-. After applying multiplier '13' as the deceased being

48 years at the time of accident, then the total loss of dependency

for the death of the deceased would arrive at Rs.20,28,000/-.

Besides this, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium which this Court finds it to be

excess and is inclined to interfere with the same and hereby award

an amount of Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads i.e. loss of

estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as per the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 2700).

Hence, the petitioners are awarded with a total compensation

which is calculated as under:-

S.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded Amount awarded by Tribunal by this Court 1 Monthly income Rs.15,000/- -

2. 30% towards future - Rs.19,500/-

prospects

3. Deduction of 1/3rd Rs.10,000/- Rs.13,000/-

          towards      personal
          and living expenses

4. Loss of dependency Rs.14,40,000/- Rs.20,28,000/-

          after application of (multiplier used
          multiplier '13'           is 12)

5.        Conventional Heads             Rs.1,25,000/-                  Rs.77,000/-

6.        Total compensation          Rs.15,65,000/- Rs.21,05,000/-

                                                                                              MGP,J

MACMA.Nos.3356 of 2016 and 2013 of 2019 (along with I.A.No.4 of 2017)

21. Thus, the claim petitioners/appellants in MACMA.No.2013 of

2019 are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.21,05,000/-.

22. As far as rate of interest on the compensation amount is

concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. This

Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding of the

learned Tribunal as it deems fit, considerable and proper.

23. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.3356 of 2016 filed by the

Insurance Company is partly-allowed by reducing the amounts

awarded under conventional heads by the learned Tribunal from

Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.77,000/-and M.A.C.M.A.No.2013 of 2019