Telangana High Court
Sbi General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Pentu Lahari,Kavitha And 4 Others on 27 January, 2025
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.614 of 2018
JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal- cum- I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, in
M.V.O.P.No.480 of 2014, dated 14.09.2017, the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the
present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the
order of the learned Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are
the wife, son and parents of Late Pentu Naveen Kumar (hereinafter
be referred as the deceased) filed a petition under Section 166(1)(c)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 10.09.2014. It is stated by the
petitioners that on 10.09.2014, when the deceased was going on
his motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-R-2011 from Balkonda Village to
Armoor side and when reached Mother Therissa School, which is in
the limits of Balkonda Village at about 11.40 a.m., a lorry bearing
No.HR-38-S-6729 which was driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the vehicle and
dashed the motor-bike of the deceased from behind, due to which
MGP,J
the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and the lorry ran over
the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple
fractures and crush injuries to Head, fracture to right shoulder
and other multiple and grievous injuries all over the body and died
on the spot.
4. Based on a complaint given by the de-facto complainant/wife
of the deceased, Police of Balkonda Police Station registered a case
in Crime No.201 of 2014under Section 304-A IPC against the driver
of crime Lorry bearing No.HR-38-S-6729. It is stated by the
petitioners that they incurred more than a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and for performing funeral
rites of the deceased and due to sudden and untimely death of the
deceased, they became destitute and lost their source of income.
Hence filed claim petition seeking compensation against the
respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of crime
Lorry bearing No.HR-38-S-6729.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/owner of the crime
lorry filed his counter contending the averments made in the claim
petition which includes, rash and negligent driving on part of the
driver of crime lorry, receiving injuries by the deceased, death of
the deceased on the spot and further contended that the subject
crime lorry was insured with respondent No.2 and if any
compensation is awarded to the petitioners, the respondent No.2
MGP,J
shall be held liable for payment of the same and that the claim of
compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the
claim against it.
6. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its written
statement denying the averments made in the claim petition
including, age, avocation and income of the deceased and
contended that the claim petition is not maintainable for non-
joinder of driver of alleged crime vehicle as necessary party. It also
contended that the concerned Police failed to comply the statutory
provisions as required under Section 158(6) of M.V.Act and that
the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to
dismiss the claim against it.
7. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned
Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial: -
(i) Whether on 10.09.2014 at about 11.40 a.m. in front of
Mother Therisa School in the limits of Balkonda Shivar,
Madhapur, accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of Lorry bearing No.HR-38-S-6729 by its driver?
(ii) Whether Pentu Naveen Kumar received injuries in that
accident and died of the injuries?
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so,
to what amount and from which respondent?
(iv) To what relief?
MGP,J
8. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3
were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of
respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy
of Insurance policy was marked with consent.
9. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the
claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.12,95,000/- along
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of deposit payable by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and
severally. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking
to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.
10. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
for the Appellant/Insurance Company, Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri L.Dayaker Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
11. The contentions of the learned counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company as stated in the grounds of Appeal
are that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the notional
income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500 instead of Rs.7,500/- in the
absence of documentary proof showing the income of the deceased.
He also contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have
awarded amounts under Non-Pecuniary Damages by following the
MGP,J
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi 1.
12. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents/claimants
contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the
aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation and interference of
this Court is unwarranted.
13. After hearing both sides, the point that emerges for
determination is,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal
requires interference of this Court?
POINT:-
14. As seen from the grounds of Appeal, there is no dispute
regarding the occurrence of accident and death of the deceased.
Hence, this Court is not inclined to once again delve into the said
aspects. The only aspect that has to be dealt with in the present
Appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.
15. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal ought
to have taken the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500
instead of Rs.7,500/- in the absence of documentary proof showing
the income of the deceased.
2017 (6) 170 SC
MGP,J
16. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that though the
petitioners stated that the deceased used to work as Agent of
Reliance Insurance Company apart from doing Agriculture in his
land to an extent of Ac.10.00 by raising paddy, turmeric, maize
and other commercial produces and earn more than a sum of
Rs.40,000/- per month, but they failed to produce any substantial
piece of evidence showing the same except filing Ex.A7 pattedar
pass book which do not disclose about any income. Hence, in the
absence of income proof, the learned Tribunal presumed the
earnings of the deceased to be Rs.7,500/- per month, deducted
1/4th towards personal expenses, applied relevant multiplier and
calculated loss of earnings which ultimately arrived at
Rs.12,15,000/-. This Court do not find any reason to interfere
with the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal as the same
appears to be reasonable by considering the date of accident and
depending upon the different types of cultivation made in the land
by the deceased.
17. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for
appellant/Insurance is with regard to awarding excess amounts
under the Head of Non-pecuniary damages.
18. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Tribunal
awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, an
amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and an amount
MGP,J
of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation. Whereas, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay
Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 2700) fixed reasonable figures on
conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively which in all comes to Rs.70,000/- (which shall carry
10% enhancement for every three years). Hence, this Court by
relying upon the said judgment is inclined to interfere with the
finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby reduce the amounts
awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses as
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. However, the amount awarded
towards transport expenses shall remain same.
19. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is
partly-allowed by reducing the amounts awarded under the Head
of loss of consortium and funeral expenses i.e., from Rs.75,000/-
to Rs.55,000/- . Except the said finding, the findings arrived by
the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain same. There shall be
no order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.27.01.2025
ysk
