Telangana High Court

Shriram General Insurance Company ... vs V Konda Reddy on 10 January, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1569 OF 2018
                                AND
                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1672 OF 2018


COMMON JUDGMENT:

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

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1569 of 2018, filed by Shriram

General Insurance Company challenging the order of the Tribunal

and M.A.C.M.A.No.1672 of 2018, filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation, are directed against the very same

order dated 22.02.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.191 of 2014, on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court -

cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein 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 in-laws and mother of Late Smt.V.Narmada (hereinafter

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.17,50,000/-

for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 27.04.2012. It is stated by the petitioners that on

27.04.2012, when the deceased accompanied her husband as a

pillion rider on his Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-28-CD-8972 for

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

attending their relatives funeral rites and were proceeding towards

left side of the road, on the way, at about 3.00 P.M., when they

were near to Housing Board Colony in front of Darga gate, within

the limits of Jadcherla, a Mahendra Bolero Comper SC XLE Goods

carriage vehicle bearing No.AP-22Y-2081 came in opposite

direction from Mahabubnagar side and proceeding towards

Jadcherla and which was driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed, came towards extreme right side

of the road by crossing middle line of the road and dashed against

the motorcycle on which deceased was travelling. As a result, the

deceased along with her husband fell down and sustained severe

injuries and the motorcycle was also completely damaged.

Immediately, they both were shifted to SVS Hospital,

Mahabubnagar, for treatment and the husband of the deceased

succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing

treatment in the Hospital and the deceased-Narmada was shifted

to Apollo Hospital for better treatment. As her condition was not

stable, she was treated as inpatient and while undergoing

treatment, she went into septic shock and had cardiac arrest and

declared dead on 19.05.2012.

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

registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2012 under Section 304-A

IPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

driver of Mahendra Bolero Comper SC XLE Goods Carriage Vehicle

bearing No.AP-22Y-2081.

5. It is stated by the petitioners that at the time of accident, the

deceased was quite hale and healthy, aged about 27 years and had

completed short term vocational certificate course (module wise) at

Government of Andhra Pradesh State Institute of Vocational

Education, Vignan, ICSS Vocational Institute, Mahabubnagar and

also pursued M.Com in the year 2007 and was working as an

Accountant in different offices at Hyderabad and used to draw

salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is also stated by the

petitioners that the deceased was an LIC policy holder for assured

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and is paying installment policy premium of

Rs.35,383/- commenced from 28.03.2012.

6. It is further stated by the petitioners that the deceased

sustained blunt injury on abdomen, liver laceration, compound

fracture of right femur, Grade-III, compound fracture of both bones

of right leg, Grade-III, Fracture of superior and inferior public rami

bilateral and other multiple bleeding and grievous injuries all over

the body besides fractures and underwent operation on 03.05.2012

for DCS right femur nailing of right tibia and transposition of flap

in SSG of right thigh besides knee amputation to her right thigh

and also underwent multiple attempts of debridement. It is also

stated by the petitioners that they spent an amount of

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

Rs.10,00,000/- for treatment of the deceased-Narmada and also

spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges, extra

nourishment and special diet during the period of treatment. Due

to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants had lost their

beloved daughter-in-law's and daughter's love and affection and

had lost their caretaker and were subjected to mental agony.

Therefore, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.17,50,000/-

against the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and the

insurer of the crime vehicle-MAHENDRA Bolero Comper SC XL5

Goods Carriage vehicle bearing No.AP-22Y-2081.

7. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1/owner of the crime

vehicle filed his counter denying the averments made in the claim

petition and stated that the driver of the crime vehicle is having

valid license to ply the vehicle on the road and that the claim of

compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to

dismiss the claim against it.

8. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the contents of the claim petition including, rash and

negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle, income of the

deceased and contended that the respondent No.1, inspite of

knowing the fact that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess

valid and effective license to drive the vehicle, handed over the said

vehicle to him and violated the policy conditions and therefore, the

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the

petitioners. It also contended that the owner and insurer of the

motorcycle are proper and necessary parties to the petition and

that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed

to dismiss the claim against it.

9. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the

following issues for conducting trial:-

(i) Whether the accident occurred on 27.04.2012 at about 3.00 p.m., near Housing Board Colony in the limits of Jadcherla, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle i.e., MAHENDRA Bolero Comper SC XL5 Goods Carriage vehicle bearing No.AP-22Y-2081?

(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled to claim compensation amount? If so, to what amount?

(iii) To what relief?

10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 5

were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. On behalf of

respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance

policy was marked.

11. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the

claim petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation of

Rs.13,86,568/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

of petition till the date of deposit 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 claim

petitioners vide M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

respectively.

12. Heard Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for

appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.1569 of 2018 and

Sri Mohd.Yousuf, learned counsel for the claim petitioners in

M.A.C.M.A.No.1672 of 2018. Perused the record.

13. The contentions of the learned counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.1569 of 2018 are

that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the owner and insurer

of the motorcycle as proper and necessary parties to the petition;

erred in fixing the income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per

month without any basis, erred in awarding amounts under

conventional heads against the settled proposition of law and also

erred in awarding excess interest @ 9% per annum and therefore

requested to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the

learned Tribunal.

14. On the other hand, the contentions of the learned Counsel

for the respondents/claim petitioners/Appellants in

M.A.C.M.A.No.1672 of 2018 are that the learned Tribunal failed to

award future prospects to the income of the deceased; failed to

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

consider the Medical Bills filed under Exs.A11 to A13 and also

failed to consider the evidence of PW3 who deposed about the

payment made towards treatment of the deceased and also failed to

award amounts under conventional Heads by following the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and hence requested for

enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

15. Now the points that emerges for determination are,

1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal requires interference of this Court ?

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

POINTS:-

16. A perusal of the material available on record would make it

clear that there occurred an accident on 27.04.2012 within the

limits of Jadcherla and the husband of the deceased while

undergoing treatment at Mahabubagar SVS Hospital, succumbed

to the injuries on the same day of accident and the deceased died

on 19.05.2012 due to cardiac arrest and septic shock.

17. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

Appellant/Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal failed to

consider the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-

28-CD-8972 as proper and necessary parties to the petition

18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW5-

an eye witness to the incident, who deposed that on 27.04.2012,

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

when he was proceeding from Jadcherla to Mahabubnager on his

vehicle, on the way when he reached near Housing Board Colony in

front of Darga gate within the limits of Jadcherla at about 3.00

P.M., in front of him, one Mahendra Bolero Comper Goods Carriage

vehicle bearing No.AP-22Y-2081, driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the Motorcycle

bearing No.Ap-28-CD-5972, due to which the rider and pillion rider

of the said motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries

and immediately they were shifted to SVS Hospital,

Mahabubnagar. On enquiry, he came to know that both the

injured persons succumbed to injuries in the Hospital. He stated

that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of Mahendra Bolero Goods vehicle bearing No.AP-22Y-2081.

19. Though PW5 was cross-examined by the Insurance

Company, nothing adverse was elicited from him to disbelieve his

testimony.

20. Further, a perusal Ex.A1 clearly shows that Police of

Jadcherla Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered a case

in Crime No.109 of 2012 under Sections 304A and 337 IPC,

conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against

the driver of the crime Bolero Goods vehicle.

21. Therefore, from the evidence of PW5 coupled with the

documentary evidence under Exs.A1 & A2, it is made clear that the

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Crime Bolero Goods vehicle. As no contributory

negligence is attributed on part of the rider of the motorcycle,

making the insured and insurer of the said motorcycle as

necessary parties to the claim petition does not arise. Hence, the

contention of the learned Standing Counsel in this regard is

unsustainable.

22. The other contention made by the learned Standing Counsel

for Insurance Company is with regard to income of the deceased.

23. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 discloses that the deceased

is a Post-Graduate and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by

working as an Accountant in different offices at Hyderabad. She

also did short term Vocational course at Govt. of A.P.State Institute

of Vocational Education, Vignan, ICSS Vocational Institute,

Mahabubnagar and was also a LIC policy holder paying monthly

premium amount of Rs.35,383/- which was started before the

accident. Further, the certificates under Exs.A19 & A20 would

reveal that the deceased had acquired knowledge in Tally Financial

Accounting Program and Electronic Data processing in addition to

her Post -Graduation and had chances of securing Government

job. Hence, the learned Tribunal, after considering all the above

aspects, assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/-. This

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to

interfere with the same.

24. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the contention

of the learned counsel for appellants/claim petitioners in

M.A.C.M.A.No.1672 of 2018 that the learned Tribunal failed to

award future prospects to the income of the deceased.

25. This Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

Pranay Sethi 1, is inclined to add 40% towards future prospects to

the income of the deceased for the deceased being 28 years old at

the time of accident. Upon such addition, the future monthly

income comes to Rs.14,000/-. Since the number of dependents are

three, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased, then her net monthly income would be Rs.9,333/- and

the annual income would be Rs.1,11,996/- . Since the deceased

was aged 28 years, the relevant multiplier as per the decision of

Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, is

'17' and after applying the said multiplier, the total loss of

dependency comes to Rs.19,03,932/-.

(2017 (6) 170 SC)

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

26. It is also contended by learned counsel for the claimants that

the learned Tribunal failed to award amounts under conventional

Heads by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

27. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and a

sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. This Court

finds the said amounts to be meager and is inclined to interfere

with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award an

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

estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses based on the

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

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

28. It is also contended by the learned counsel for claimants that

the learned Tribunal failed to consider Medical Bills filed under

Exs.A11 to A13 and also failed to consider the evidence of PW3

who deposed about the payment made towards treatment of the

deceased.

29. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Tribunal

observed at Page No.13 that evidence of PW3 cannot be considered

as he is not an Orthopaedician and that the surgeries will be done

under Arogyasree. A perusal of Exs.A11 to A12 does not disclose

that the patient/deceased has obtained treatment at Apollo

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

Hospital under Arogyasree scheme. Further, a suggestion was

given to PW3 in the cross-examination that Exs.A11 & A12 were

covered under Arogyasree scheme, but the same was denied by

PW3. Though PW3 may not be an Orthopaedician, but certainly he

is rendering his services as a Deputy Medical Superintendent in

Apollo Hospital and as such, he will be the appropriate person to

depose as to whether the patient/deceased obtained treatment

under Arogyasree scheme or not. Thus, the evidence of PW3

coupled with Exs.A11 to A12 shall be considered while awarding

appropriate compensation.

30. Further, Ex.A13 are the bunch of original blood supply-cum-

delivery receipts (17 in number) for Rs.70,800/- issued by

Chiranjeevi Eye and Blood Bank and Sunshine Hospitals. Though

concerned officials of Chiranjeevi Eye and Blood Bank and

Sunshine Hospitals were not examined, it is to be seen that the

deceased has sustained grievous injuries and underwent treatment

for a considerable period of 23 days in two Hospitals, certainly, the

deceased would have required any amount of blood for her

recovery. Thus, the family members of the deceased shall be

compensated for the amount under Ex.A13. Thus in all, the

petitioners are entitled for a total compensation which is calculated

as under:-

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

S.No. Name of the Head Awarded by Awarded by the Tribunal this Court.

1. Income of the Rs.10,000/- -

deceased

2. Amount arrived after - Rs.14,000/-

addition of future prospects @ 40%

3. Income arrived after Rs.6,667/- Rs.9,333/-

                 deduction of 1/3rd
                 towards     personal
                 expenses

      4.         Loss    of  earnings Rs.13,60,068/- Rs.19,03,932/-
                 after       applying
                 relevant multiplier.

      5.         Conventional heads          Rs.26,500/-        Rs.77,000/-

      6.         Medical          bills             -           Rs.6,70,000/-
                 incurred

      7.         Amount incurred for                -           Rs.70,800/-
                 supply of blood to
                 the deceased.

      7.         TOTAL                       Rs.13,86,568/- Rs.27,21,732/-
                 COMPENSATION


31.        It   is   also   contended      by     the    learned       counsel           for

appellant/Insurance Company that the Tribunal erred in awarding

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

deposit. This Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2, interfere

2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1569 and 1672 of 2018

with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award interest @

7.5% per annum amount from the date of petition till the date of

realization.

32. As far as liability is concerned, since Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance

Policy was in force as on the date of accident, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly fixed the liability