Telangana High Court

M/S.United India Insuance Co Ltd vs Kavitha Kalirwana And 6 Ors on 3 January, 2025

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N. Tukaramji

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.2264 OF 2006
                               AND
                    M.A.C.M.A.No.497 OF 2012


COMMON JUDGMENT:

I have heard Mr.K.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the

appellant/insurer in MACMA No.2264 of 2006 and for

respondents in MACMA No.497 of 2012; and Mr.Subbagari

Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claim

petitioners in MACMA No.497 of 2012 and for respondents in

MACMA No.2264 of 2006.

2. The M.A.C.M.A.No.2264 of 2006 has been filed by the

insurer/respondent No.3 contesting the liability and quantum of

compensation awarded in the decree and judgment dated

26.06.2006 in MVOP No.26 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.497 of 2012 has been filed by the claim

petitioners aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded

in the self same decree and judgment.

2 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006

4. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to with

their rank before the tribunal.

5. The case of the petitioners in brief is that on 31.07.2003 at

about 11.30 p.m. while the Balbir Singh/deceased was

proceeding on scooter bearing No. AP-10H-7179 near Rekulabavi

on N.H.7, one DCM bearing No.AP-9V 1667 (for short, 'DCM

Van') came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and

dashed the scooter, which resulted in his instantaneous death.

6. The petitioners by pleading that the deceased was aged

about 30 years and as supervisor used to earn Rs.6,000/- per

month and his death affected their support and dependency,

prayed for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The tribunal after

considering the oral and documentary evidence awarded

compensation of Rs.4,33,000/- with proportionate costs and

interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the

date of realization against the owners and the insurer of the DCM

Van/respondents 1 to 3.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that

though the specific pleading that the deceased was supervisor in

Mahalakshmi Profiles at Kalakal, Medchal and used to earn 3 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006

Rs.6,000/- per month which has been substantiated by the

evidence of employer/PW-2, but the tribunal erroneously

restricted the salary at Rs.3,000/- per month. Further future

prospects have not been accounted and the amounts granted

under conventional heads are improper. He further pleaded that

the insurer/respondent No.3 in the cross examination of the

witness failed to make out any fact or circumstance to prove false

implication of the vehicle and the evidence placed by the

petitioners remained undisturbed in the cross examination. Thus

prayed for reassessment and for granting just compensation.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

insurer/respondent No.3 would submit that as per the first

information report/Ex.A-1 the accident was caused by unknown

vehicle. After one month the crime vehicle and the eyewitness

were brought on to record to reap undue advantage. Further to

prove existence of valid driving licence and the mechanical

defects, if any, the petitioners should have examined the Motor

Vehicle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector of Police/Investigating

Officer. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal should

have held that the crime vehicle has been planted for the purpose

of petition. Further though there is no conclusive evidence 4 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006

proving the occupation and income, the tribunal had assessed the

excessive compensation. Thus prayed for interference and to

exonerate the insurer/respondent No.3.

9. I have carefully considered the rival pleadings and the

materials on record.

10. In regard to liability, the insurer's contention is that the

crime vehicle has been planted. Nonetheless the petitioners got

examined eyewitness/PW-3 and placed the charge sheet/Ex.A-2

wherein the police after due investigation had concluded the

involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident. In the cross

examination of eyewitness/PW-3 no material has been elicited. In

such position, the preliminary burden on the part of the petitioners

shall be taken as discharged and if the adversary still contests the

fact, onus shifts on that party to rebut and prove the asserted fact.

In the present case though the insurer/respondent No.3

participated in the trial proceedings, for the reasons best known to

them maintained silence, though they got an opportunity to

summon the relevant witnesses. Therefore the contention that the

crime vehicle was planted remains unsubstantiated and in view of 5 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006

the positive evidence placed by the petitioners, the conclusion

drawn by the tribunal is found proper.

11. The age and occupation of the deceased are not in dispute.

So far as compensation, the petitioners claimed that the

deceased was supervisor in Mahalakshmi Profiles, Kalakal,

Medchal and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. To prove, the

petitioners got examined employer/PW-2 and marked the salary

certificate/Ex.A-4. The oral and documentary evidence are

proving that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month.

The Tribunal simply observed that it is inclined to take Rs.3,000/-

per month as salary of the deceased, without assigning any

reason. As the observation of the tribunal is against the evidence

on record, Rs.6,000/- shall be taken as monthly income of the

deceased.

12. In regard to quantum of compensation, basing on the

petitioners' claim and the entries in post mortem report/Ex.A-3

the age of the deceased can be concluded as 30 years.

13. Having regard to the age and regular occupation of the

deceased as per the directives in National Insurance Company 6 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006

Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, 50% of the income has to be

added towards future prospects which would make the monthly

income at Rs.9,000/- and annual income at Rs.1,08,000/-.

Counting the dependants if 1/4th income of the deceased is

deducted towards personal expenses, his contribution to the

family would be of Rs.81,000/-. This multiplicand if multiplied with

the relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased, as prescribed

in the judgment of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another 2 i.e. 17, the total comes to

Rs.13,77,000/-. This amount would be the compensation for loss

of dependency.

14. In addition, as per the dictum of the Constitutional Bench of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and United

India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder

Kaur and others 3 the petitioner No. 1 is entitled for spousal,

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for parental and petitioner

Nos.4 and 5 are entitled for filial consortium at Rs.48,400/- each

and also Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-

towards funeral expenses.

(2017) 16 SCC 860

2009 ACJ 1298

2021(11) SCC 780 7 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006

15. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for compensation as

under:

            Description                          Amount awarded

                                                   (in rupees)

Loss of dependency                                      13,77,000.00

Spousal consortium to petitioner No.1                       48,400.00
Rs.48,400/-

Parental consortium @ Rs.48,400/- each                      96,800.00


Filial consortium @ Rs.48,400/- each to                     96,800.00


Loss of estate                                              18,150.00

Funeral expenses                                            18,150.00

                 TOTAL                                 Rs.16,55,300/-

16. Resultantly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of

Rs.16,55,300/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs fifty five thousand and

three hundred only). The rate of interest and ratio of

apportionment among the petitioners shall remain as per the

impugned order. The respondent No.3/insurer is directed to

deposit the differential compensation amount within four weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8 NTR,J MACMAs_497_2012&2264_2006

17. Accordingly, the Award dated 26.06.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.

26 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts,

Secunderabad stands modified.