Telangana High Court

Iffcotokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bobbala , Bobbili Dhanamma on 12 June, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
       M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 2020 & X-OBJ No.33 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 202 is filed by the Insurance

Company and Cross Objection is filed by the claimants against

the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-Prl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

(hereinafter referred to 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2017,

dated 13.01.2020.

2. Heard K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in

MAMCA -Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and

Sri Bandamidi Swamy, learned counsel for the appellants in

Cross objection. Perused the material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants

earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2017 under Section 166 of the

M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the

deceased i.e., Husband of the appellant No.1, who died in the

accident alleged to have occurred due to rash and negligent

driving by the driver of the harvester bearing registration No.AP-

29-BH-2259. It is contended that, on 06.05.2017 at about 09.00

a.m., the deceased went to his agricultural land to harvest the

paddy. The driver of harvester drove the vehicle in rash and

negligent manner in rash, and high passed dashed the deceased

due to which, the deceased fell down and one tyre of the

harvester ran over the body of the deceased, as a result,

deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The

Police registered a case, vide Crime No.60/2017, against the

lorry driver under Section 304-A of IPC. The contention of the

claimants before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident

the deceased was aged about 46 years and was earning

Rs.20,000/- per month by doing Agricultural work and due to

untimely death of the deceased, the petitioner have become

destitute and lost their dependency for which claimants claimed

Rs.20,00,000/-, as compensation.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1, who is

owner-cum-driver of the offender vehicle filed counter-affidavit,

denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including

the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and

income of the deceased, however submitted that he being owner

of the harvester and also admitted that the harvester insured

with respondent No.2, as such he claimed that respondent No.2

is liable to pay compensation, if any. Respondent No.2 has also

filed counter-affidavit and contended that there was a violation

of mandatory provisions under Section 143 (c) of M.V.Act, since

the respondent No.1 failed to furnish the particulars of the policy

date, time, place of accident, particulars of injury and name of

the driver and driving license particulars and also denied the

averments made in the claim petition and further contended that

the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the

claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which

reads as under:

i) Whether the accident that occurred on 06.05.2017 at about 09.00 am, at agriculture land of the Sitharam Reddy near Pullemla Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of harvester bearing No.AP-29-BH-2259, by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, what quantum and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and

going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the

parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and

granted compensation of Rs.19,90,000/- along with interest @

7.5% per annum.

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation

amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal

and cross appeal are filed by both the claimants and

respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is no

dispute with regard to accident, death of the deceased and the

injuries sustained by the deceased. In cross Examination, PW1

& PW2 were examined and Exhibits A.1 to A.10 were marked.

Learned counsel further contended that PW1 is the wife of the

deceased narrated the whole incident, but she is not eye-

witness. PW2-Sri P.Venkat Reddy, who is the eye-witness to the

accident and he deposed that the deceased died due to rash ad

negligent driving by the driver of harvester.

10. Learned counsel for the cross objectors submits that the

deceased was agriculturist and business-man and had income of

Rs.20,000/- per month and the deceased was owner of Ac.4-00

gts of land which is in possession of the petitioners. Ex.A6 shows

that the deceased was owner of Ac.4-00 gts of land in Pullemla

Village, Chandur Mandal. Ex.A10 is the purchase voucher

showing that the deceased sold paddy to Telangana State FSCS,

Chandur, Nalgonda District. Ex.A10 is the receipt issued by the

Agriculture Market Committee, Chandur, Nalgonda District

showing purchase of paddy for an amount of Rs.1,21,396.

Ex.A9 is the sale receipt of one crop yielded for an amount of

Rs.1,21,680/-. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact

that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of

harvester, but without considering the evidence in proper

manner with regard to income of the deceased, the learned

Tribunal has fixed the deceased's income at Rs.2,40,000/- per

annum and also not awarded just compensation under the

various head as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others 1.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

submits that that the land owned by the deceased is inherited

and is till in possession of the claimants, as admitted by the PW1

in her cross examination and therefore the normal rule of

1 2017 ACJ 2700

deprivation of income is not applicable in the cases of

agricultural income as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur & others 2 and

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Charlie & others 3

and further contended that in case of death of an agriculturist,

the legal heirs are only entitled for supervisory expenses and the

income of the deceased is to be taken while estimating the future

loss of dependency. Learned counsel for the appellant further

contended that the Tribunal has taken the income of the

deceased as Rs.1,21,680/-for one crop yield relying upon the

Ex.A9 and in the absence of any pleading and evidence to show

that the deceased was raising two crops per annum in his land

to compensate annual income of Rs.2,40,000/- and further

contended that the Tribunal has taken multiplier as '12' instead

of '11', as the age of the deceased was 52 years.

12. Admittedly, both the parties have filed appeal and cross

appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As

such, there is dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age

and income of the deceased. Therefore, the points which arose

2003 ACJ 1800

2005 ACJ 1131

before this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are

that:

i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased.

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?

Point No.(1):

13. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on

06.05.2017. The deceased was agriculturist and was owner of

agriculture land to an extnt of Ac.4-00 gts and the Ex.A6, A7,

A10 shows that deceased was raising crop on his agriculture

land and according to Ex.A9 sale receipts of one crop is yielded

Rs.1,21,680. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to look

down the law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in similar cases,

whether the claimants can claim compensation for loss of income

or other operational expenses on account of death of the

deceased who was having agriculture land.

14. In State Of Haryana And Another vs Jasbir Kaur &

Ors 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the

deceased was an agriculturist, and the land continues to be

cultivated by the family, compensation should be limited to

AIR 2003 SC 3696

supervisory charge. The Court stated in the order, which reads

as:

"...The land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered."

15. In M.G.Bros Lorry Service, Madras and another Vs.

S.Andalammal and others 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

held which reads as follows:

"....The income from agriculture, house property and from the investments cannot be taken into account for determining the loss of income, for, those are sources which still continued to exist even after the death of Sanjeevi Mudaliar. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any loss from those three sources".

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken the similar view

in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs.Charlie 6 and New

India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Kayalvizhi and others 7.

1982 ACJ (Supp.) 408

2005 ACJ 1131

2010 ACJ 2530

17. Hence considering the above judgments, it can be safely

arrived that it is well established principle that claimants are

entitled to claim only supervisory charges in respect of

agricultural land, and not compensation for notional income or

operational losses and the Supreme Court had laid principles in

the above judgment that in rationale that the agricultural land

remains with the legal heirs, who can continue its cultivation,

thereby mitigating the loss of income.

Point No.2:

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the opinion that claimants may be required to engage

person to look after the agriculture due to sudden demise of the

deceased. Therefore, a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month could be

fixed as supervisory charges, therefore, the deceased income can

be notionally taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. Apart from that, as

per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 8

and considering the age of the deceased as 52 years as per

Ex.B1-Aadhar Card of the deceased, additional 10% of the

income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly

8 2017 ACJ 2700

income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the

deceased would come to Rs.9,900/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.900/-). The

annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,18,800/-

(Rs.9,900/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to be deducted

towards the personal expenses of the deceased as there are four

dependants in number. Then the actual annual income would

come to Rs.89,100/- (Rs.1,18,800/- (-) Rs.29,700/-) for

assessing the compensation.

19. As per the column No.4 of Table prescribed fixed in the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation 9, and considering the age of the

deceased as 52 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for

the deceased's age is '11'. Thus, the total loss of dependency to

the petitioner would come to Rs.9,80,100/- (89,100/- x 11).

20. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to

Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate

and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral

expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

21. Further, considering the appellant No.1 being the wife of

deceased, appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/-

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium' as per Pranay

Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

22. Appellant Nos.2, & 3 being children of the deceased, the

appellant Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation to a sum of

Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of 'loss of parental

consortium', as per Magma General Insurance Company

Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram 10

23. Appellant No.4 being the mother of the deceased, the

appellant No.4 is entitled for compensation to a sum of

Rs.48,400 under the head of 'loss of filial consortium' as per

Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

24. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on

record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the above cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants

are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and

recalculated as above and given in the below table for easy

reference.

25. Considering the above assessment made by this Court,

appellants would be entitled to as follows:

2018 (18) SCC 130

i) Annual Income (of the deceased) Rs.9,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,08,000/-

ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X 10%) = Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.10,800/- = Rs.1,18,800/-

iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,18,800/- (-) Rs.29,700/- = Rs.89,100/-

iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.89,100/- x 9 = Rs.8,01,900/-

v) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal consortium + loss of filal consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.2,29,900/-

Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.48,400 + Rs.96,800 =

Total Rs.10,31,800/-

26. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the

compensation of Rs.10,31,800/- as against the awarded

amount of Rs.19,90,000/- by the learned Tribunal.

27. Hence, Point Nos.1 is answered is favor of appellant and

Point No.2 is answered against the claimants. Accordingly, the

M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part and Cross objection is dismissed.

The claimants are entitled for an compensation of Rs.

10,31,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty One Thousand and Eight

Hundred rupees only) with interest at the rate @ 7.5 % p.a. from

the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents