Telangana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Vasam Sarangapani on 11 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1510 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company and Sri. B.Balaji, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 and 2-claim petitioners.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company aggrieved by the impugned award, dated 31.07.2024 in
M.V.O.P.No.58 of 2023 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Mahabubabad (for
short, 'Tribunal') and thereby, seeking to set aside the impugned
order.
3. Appellant herein is the respondent No.2/insurance company,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the claim petitioners 1 and 2,
respondent No.3 herein is the respondent No.1, who is the driver-
cum-owner of the crime vehicle, before the Tribunal. For
convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are
arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
4.1. On 10.04.2023 at about 01.00 p.m., while the deceased-
Vasam Varshith, aged 11 years, was returning to hostel along with
his friend on a cycle and when they reached near house of Kunuja
Venkanna on CC Road, a Tractor bearing registration No.TS-24-
HTR-3347 (hereinafter referred to as 'crime vehicle'), came at high
speed in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the bicycle, as a result, they fell down and
sustained injuries and the deceased died on the spot. The Police,
Gudur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.56/2023 under
Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime
vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 and filed charge sheet against him.
5. The claim petitioners i.e., the parents of the deceased filed
claim petition against the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and
insurance company under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
along with interest from the date of the accident till the date of
realization.
6. The claimants averred that the deceased was aged about 11
years as on the date of accident; that he was hale and healthy and
was studying 5th class in Tribal Welfare School at Matwada village;
that he is very sharp in the education and he was actively
participated in the school games; that he has got bright future and
due to untimely death of their son, they are put to great hardship
and suffered mental agony and lost love and affection.
7. Respondent No.1, who is the driver-cum-owner of the crime
vehicle, filed counter denying the petition averments and further
contended that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the
part of the cyclist and there was no negligence on the part of
respondent No.1; that the crime vehicle was insured with the
respondent no.2-insurance company and therefore, 2nd respondent
is liable to pay compensation.
8. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter
denying the allegations of the claim petitioners with respect to the
manner of occurrence of accident and the age of the deceased and
further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not
qualified for holding driving licence; that respondent no.1 did not
inform to the insurance company about the accident and did not
furnish the particulars of the deceased and that the claim of
compensation is excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated and finally,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
9. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the deceased-Vasam Varshith died in motor vehicle
accident ? If so, whether the accident was occurred due to rash
and negligent driving by the driver of tractor bearing No.TS-24-
HTR-3347 ?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation ? If
so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected ?
3) To what relief?
10. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claim
petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were
marked. On behalf of the 2rd respondent-insurance company, RW.1
was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
11. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and
evidence placed on record, has come to conclusion that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime
vehicle by its driver and awarded a sum of Rs.8,96,000/- towards
compensation with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
the petition till the date of realization, payable by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
12. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned Standing
Counsel for insurance company submitted that Tribunal has failed
to consider that the deceased was a minor, aged 11 years, and non-
earning member and thus, erroneously considered the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.60,000/- per annum and further,
added future prospects of 40% of the said income and awarded
exorbitant compensation and finally, prayed to allow the appeal by
modifying the award passed by the Tribunal. In support of his
contention, learned Standing Counsel for appellant placed reliance
on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu
Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto and others 1.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claim
petitioners submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just
compensation and in this Appeal, no grounds are made out to
(2023) 1 SCC 204
interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed the
Court to dismiss the appeal.
Consideration :
14. It is not in dispute that the deceased-Vasan Varshith died in
a fatal road accident that occurred on 10.04.2023 at the young age
of 11 years while he was returning to hostel along with his friend
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.
15. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
appellant is that Tribunal erred in awarding compensation without
appreciating the fact that the deceased is a non-earning member
since was aged only 11 years at the time of the accident. He further
contended that as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena
Devi (supra), the claim petitioners are entitled to a total
compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- in respect of the
death of a child aged 12 years in a road accident and therefore,
prayed to modify the impugned award to the above extent.
16. Perusal of the record, particularly Ex.A7-CC of Study,
Conduct and Date of Birth Certificate of the deceased goes to show
that the deceased was aged about 11 years as on the date of the
accident. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary
evidence and also various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
relied upon by the learned counsel for claimants before it, had
awarded total compensation of Rs.8,96,000/-, which includes
conventional heads i.e., loss of love and affection, loss of estate,
and funeral expenses.
17. In Meena Devi's case (supra) relied upon by the learned
counsel for appellant, the Hon'ble Apex Court, by referring to the
various decisions, held as under:
"13. Thereafter in Kishan Gopal [KishanGopal v. Lala, (2014) 1
SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] , a
child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on
19-7-1992, this Court made departure from the II Schedule of the
MV Act and accepted the notional income of Rs.30,000 in place of
Rs.15,000 applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come
down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs
15,000 was fixed in II Schedule of the MV Act. However accepting
the notional income as Rs.30,000 and as per the age of the
parents i.e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated
applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs.4,50,000 and a sum of Rs
50,000 was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total
sum of compensation of Rs.5,00,000.
14. Recently in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu [Kurvan
Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC
(Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , wherein a child aged about 7
years died in a road accident took place on 6-9-2004, this Court
taking notional income as Rs. 25,000, applying the multiplier of 15,
calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.3,75,000 and adding Rs
55,000 in conventional heads, awarded Rs.4,70,000.
15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases
of child death, the notional income of Rs 15,000 as specified in the
IInd Schedule of the MV Act has been enhanced on account of
devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date
on which the IInd Schedule of the MV Act was introduced and the
said notional income was treated as Rs 30,000 in Kishan Gopal
[Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] and Rs 25,000 in Kurvan Ansari [Kurvan
Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC
(Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] in age group of 10 and 7 years
respectively.
16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age
of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down
in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1
SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] are aptly applicable to the
facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother
of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was a brilliant student
and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional
earning Rs 30,000 including future prospect and applying the
multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma
[Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.4,50,000 and if we add Rs 50,000 in conventional heads, then the
total sum of compensation comes to Rs 5,00,000. ......."
18. In considered opinion of this Court, the issue involved and
facts and circumstances of above case are similar to that of
present case and therefore, the above decision squarely applies to
the present case. Thus, considering the age of the child in the
present case i.e. 11 years, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the
facts of the present case. Therefore, in considered view of this
Court, the notional income of the deceased, who is non-earning
member, can be taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum which includes
future prospects in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Meena Devi's case (supra). Further, taking the young age of the
parents namely, the mother who was about 30 years old, at the
time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in Sarla
Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another 2, multiplier of 17 is applicable to present case. Thus, the
loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,10,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 17) and
if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under conventional heads, total
compensation comes to Rs.5,60,000/-, which is just and
reasonable. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Tribunal erred
(2009) 6 SCC 121
in adding 40% of the notional income of the deceased towards
future prospects.
19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and legal position,
respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants are entitled to the following
amounts:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income including future Rs.30,000/- p.a.
prospects
3 Loss of dependency (Rs.5,10,000/-
(Rs.30,000/- x 17)
4 Conventional heads Rs. 50,000/-
Total compensation awarded: Rs.5,60,000/-
20. Accordingly, this Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
Award passed by the Tribunal is modified, reducing the
compensation from Rs.8,96,000/- to Rs.5,60,000/- with interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date
of realization. The appellant-insurance company and the
respondent No.3 herein Are directed to deposit the said
compensation amount i.e., Rs.5,60,000/- together with interest at
the rate of 7.5% within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, respondent Nos.1
and 2 herein are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation
amount as per the apportionment determined by the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________________
[[
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date:11.06.2025
Kkm
