Telangana High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Mididoddi Laxmi And 4 Others on 26 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.239 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance company and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. Perused
the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance
company aggrieved by the award dated 31.10.2022 passed by
the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum- II Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar (for short 'the
Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.244of 2016.
3. The claim petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3
seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of
one Mididoddi Anil @ Anil Kumar in a road traffic accident
which occurred on 18.12.2015 in the morning hours when the
deceased went to Huzurabad on his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle
bearing No.TS-02-EF-3559. When the deceased was returning
home, at about 10.10 hours, when the vehicle reached Jyothi
Rice Mill on the outskirts of Bornapalli village, one school bus
bearing No.AP-15-TB-7790 driven by respondent No.4 in rash
and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle in opposite
direction casing death of the deceased on the spot.
4. As per facts deposed by respondents/claimants, the
deceased was aged about 23 years and had income of
Rs.10,000/- per month by running tuitions and supplying milk
from the buffaloes.
5. Upon examining the evidence adduced by the parties,
the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,33,200/-
with interest at 7.5% per annum and directed the appellant and
respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein to pay the said compensation
jointly and severally. The same is challenged by the appellant
herein questioning its liability and quantum of the
compensation.
6. According to the appellant, the Tribunal arrived at
erroneous conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of respondent No.4. Further, the claim
petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the
motorcycle bearing No. No.TS-02-EF-3559, which was driven by
the deceased at the time of accident. Further, the quantum of
compensation awarded is questioned by the appellant as there
is no income proof of the deceased earning Rs.10,000/- per
month from tuitions. On the basis of aforementioned grounds,
the appellant challenged the impugned award.
7. The entire police record marked under Exs.A1 to A5, i.e.
certified copies of FIR, Inquest report, MVI report, PME report
and charge sheet disclose that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e.
Swaraj Mazda bearing No.AP-15-TB-7790 which was used as
school bus by Mathru Sri Instituions. Further, the oral evidence
of PW1 and PW2 also points at the negligence of the driver of
the Swaraj Mazda but not the deceased. Even assuming for a
moment that there is negligence on the part of the deceased as
well, in case of death and when there is more than one vehicle
involved, the claimants are entitled to proceed against the owner
and insurer of all the vehicles involved or any one of the vehicle
involved. When the police record shows that the accident is
caused by the respondent No.4 who was driving the crime
vehicle, when the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are on
record, there can be no challenge to the maintainability of the
claim petition for non-joinder of the driver and insurer of
motorcycle which the deceased was driving.
8. With respect to income of the deceased, PW1 i.e. mother
of the deceased deposed that his son had income of Rs.10,000/-
per month from tuitions and milk business. Whereas the FIR
registered based on the complaint filed by the father of the
deceased shows that the deceased was sitting idle at home after
completing his degree. Since the deceased was a degree holder,
the notional income could have been taken more than that of a
daily wage labour. In the absence of evidence, there are no
grounds to take income at Rs.11,000/- per month more so
when PW1 herself deposed that her son earned Rs.10,000/- per
month. Hence, the notional monthly income is taken at
10,000/- per month instead of Rs.11,000/- for grant of
compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
9. Considering the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- per
month and age as 23 years, as per judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others 1, if future prospects at 40% i.e., Rs.4,000/- is
added to the monthly income, the net monthly income comes to
Rs.14,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/-). From the net annual
income of Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.14,000x12), the deceased being
bachelor, if 50% of annual income is deducted towards personal
(2017) 16 SCC 680
expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 would be Rs.84,000/-. If the said amount
is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier '18' as was rightly
taken by the Tribunal relying on Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation 2, the total compensation under the
head of 'loss of dependency' would be Rs.15,12,000/- instead
of Rs.16,63,200/-.
10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards
consortium. However, in view of Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra),
the said finding is set aside and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are
granted Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of
estate. Further granted Rs.44,000/- each to appellant Nos.1
and 2 towards parental consortium and Rs.44,000/- to
respondent No.3 towards filial consortium.
11. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the
appellants are entitled to the following amounts under different
heads:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.15,12,000
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
(2)Funeral expenses and Rs.33,000
Loss of Estate
(3)Loss of parental consortium Rs.88,000 for respondent
(4)Loss of filial consortium Rs.44,000 for respondent No.3
Total compensation awarded Rs.16,77,000/-
12. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed decreasing the compensation amount awarded
by the Tribunal from Rs.17,33,200/- to Rs.16,77,000/- as
hereunder:
a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
b) The appellant and respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall deposit
the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit,
respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to withdraw the entire
amount in proportion to their shares awarded by the
Tribunal, without furnishing the security.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal,
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 26.06.2025
gvl
