Telangana High Court

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Munjam Aduku on 27 June, 2025

                                  1


      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.716 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 20.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.260 of 2017

passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V

Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on

16.03.2017 the deceased and her family members were waiting for

bus at Mothuguda Village bus stand, and in the mean time, one

Mahindra Bolero Vehicle bearing No.TS-01-UB-4302 driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the

deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous

injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital,

Asifabad and from there she was shifted to Pulse Hospital,

Mancherial for better treatment on 17.03.2017 and her left leg

above the knee was amputated. Subsequently on 20.03.2017 she

died while undergoing treatment. The family members of the

deceased sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte.

5. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter denying the

averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further

contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the

deceased, that the deceased was crossing the road without

observing the vehicular traffic negligently and thus met with the

accident. It is further contended that the driver of the offending

vehicle was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the

accident and that their company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal

has framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether accident occurred on 16.03.2017 at 21:30 hours near Muthuda Village bus stand, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Mahindra Bolero Vehicle No.TS-01-UB-4302?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2

and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the respondents RW1

was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.4,94,028/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present

appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned

counsel for the Insurance Company. No representation on behalf of

the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that their

company has not issued policy to the alleged crime vehicle and

that the policy marked under Ex.B1 is issued to some other vehicle

i.e., Tata Indica bearing No.KA-05-AE-2005. The crime vehicle as

per the charge sheet is Bolero bearing No.TS-01-UB-4302 and that

the policy does not cover the crime vehicle as on the date of the

accident and hence, their company is not liable to pay any

compensation. It is his further contention that they could prove

their case before the Tribunal through the evidence of RW1 and

Ex.B1 to B5. He further submitted that Ex.A3/MVI report also

discloses the crime vehicle/Bolero pick up bearing No.TS-01-UB-

4302. The counsel has further argued that the Tribunal has

arrived at huge amount of compensation based on assumptions

and also that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum

which is very high and prayed to reduce the same to 6% per

annum in case if this Court fixes liability on their company. It is

further submitted that the Tribunal has granted an amount of

Rs.80,000/- under parental consortium and has also awarded

Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of love and affection which is ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

excessive. He therefore submitted that the Order and Decree of the

Tribunal is not tenable in the eye of law and hence, prayed to set

aside the same by allowing this appeal. He therefore, prayed to

exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether the crime vehicle had valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident? If so, whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief?

12. POINT NO.1:

a) The appellant counsel has contended that their company has

not issued any policy under Ex.B1 to the crime vehicle i.e., Bolero

pick up bearing No.TS-01-UB-4302. A perusal of Ex.B1 reveals

that it is issued to Tata Indica bearing No.KA-05-AE-2005 and is

valid from 28.08.2015 to 27.08.2016, thus, it is not issued to the

crime vehicle.

b) Ex.B2 is also filed by the Insurance Company through RW1

bearing Policy No.55270031156360062867. A perusal of Ex.B2

reveals that it also bears the same policy number issued by

National Insurance Company to Mahindra and Mahindra Alpha ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

Vehicle bearing No.TS-01-UB-4302. The crime record that is the

charge sheet reveals the number of crime vehicle as TS-01-UB-

4302.

c) The evidence of RW1 reveals that he is the Senior Branch

Manager of National Insurance Company. His contention is that

the accident vehicle i.e., Mahindra Bolero bearing No.TS-01-UB-

4302 is not insured by their company and as such, their company

is not liable to pay any compensation.

d) In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion given by

the claimants counsel that the crime vehicle is insured with their

company and that their company is liable to pay compensation.

Since the number of the vehicle as mentioned in the charge sheet

is the same as mentioned in Ex.B2/the Insurance Policy issued by

the appellant herein and there is no explanation from the

Insurance Company as to how two policies were issued with the

same number.

e) It is their contention that they have served notices to the

owner of the Mahindra Bolero Vehicle bearing No.TS-01-UB-4302,

but the owner of the vehicle failed to produce the Original

Insurance Policy and failed to appear before the Court and further

they have filed a petition vide I.A.No.407 of 2019 to direct the

owner of the vehicle to produce the Original Insurance Policy which ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

was dismissed. In support of their contention, they have filed

Postal Receipt dated 04.02.2020 sent to the respondent

No.2/owner of the crime vehicle and the Office Copy of the notices

are also filed as Exs.B3 to B5. Thus the contention of the

Insurance Company is that, inspite of the notices issued to the

owner of the vehicle, he failed to produce the original policy and

thus, they are disputing the issuance of policy to the Mahindra

Bolero Vehicle involved in the accident. However, a perusal of the

number of the vehicle mentioned in the charge sheet is the same as

it is mentioned in Ex.B2/Policy issued by the appellant herein to

Mahindra and Mahindra Alpha Vehicle bearing No.TS-01-UB-4302.

f) Though the Insurance Company contends that Ex.B4/the

notice was issued through Registered Post through the owner of

the vehicle to produce the Original Insurance Policy, the Postal

Acknowledgment is not filed to prove that the owner of the vehicle

has received the notice. The Insurance Company has only filed the

Office Copy of notice and the Postal Receipt.

g) Further RW1 has admitted that they have not filed any

Postal Acknowledgment to show that respondent No.2/owner of the

vehicle was served notice under Ex.B4. Though he filed two

Insurance Policies under Ex.B1 and B2 bearing the same Policy

No.55270031156360062867, he did not offer any explanation as to ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

why two policies were issued on the same number. Though the

appellant counsel contends that it might be a fake policy and that

their company is not liable, it is not placed on record as to what

action was initiated while the Insurance Company with regard to

issuance of fake policy.

h) Ex.B2 bears the signature of authorized signatory and it

bears the seal of the company. In case if it disputes the

genuineness, then the company must have taken action and

nothing is placed on record to show that they have initiated any

action to prove the issuance of fake policy under their seal.

Therefore, it is held that the vehicle bearing No.TS-01-UB-4302

involved in the accident is insured with the appellant herein.

i) Thus, it is held that the contention of the appellant is not

tenable and therefore, it is held that the crime vehicle is insured

with their Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company

cannot be exonerated from its liability. Hence, it is held that the

appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:-

a) It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was

aged about 60 years and was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- by

selling vegetables. No proof can be expected in this regard.

ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

b) The Post Mortem Examination Report and Inquest Report

under Ex.A5 and A6 reveal the age of the deceased as 65 years.

Thus, the same is taken into consideration. Considering the age of

the deceased and the assertion of PW1, the Tribunal has assessed

the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month which is

found to be quite reasonable and has taken into consideration all

the other components while calculating the compensation and

arrived at a just and reasonable compensation. Thus, the annual

income comes to Rs.48,000/-. There shall be no addition towards

future prospects as the deceased is aged 65 years.

c) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore,

1/3rd deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

expenses and this would come up to Rs.32,000/- (Rs.48,000/- (-)

Rs.16,000/-).

d) The Post Mortem Examination Report filed under Ex.A4

reveals the age of the deceased as '65' years. The multiplier should

be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased as per column

No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation 1, the deceased being aged '65' years, the appropriate

multiplier is '7'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as

Rs.2,24,000/- (Rs.32,000 x 7).

2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

e) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss

of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and

the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.

f) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 2, the Apex Court has elaborately

discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has

further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children

of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore,

in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each

towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount

under this head would be Rs.1,45,200/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.

Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded.

g) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following

compensation amounts:-

1. Compensation under the head of loss of Rs.2,24,000/-

dependency

2. Compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.1,45,200/-

3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-

4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-

                         Total                                                     Rs.4,05,500/-





    (2018) 18 SCC 130
                                                                    ETD,J
                                                      MACMA No.716_2021


k)     Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is calculated as Rs.4,05,500 /- while the Tribunal has

granted Rs.4,94,028/- Hence, it is held that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced.

Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

a) In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 & 2, the order

and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the

compensation from Rs.4,94,028/- to 4,05,500/-.

b) The interest granted by the Tribunal is 9%. The appellant

counsel has contended that it is too high and prayed to reduce the

rate of interest to 6%.

c) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and

Another 3; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted

interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of

compensation.

d) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath

Suresh and Others 4; and National Insurance Company Limited

Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 5; also interest @ 7.5%

per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.

2022 SCC Online TS 606

2023 SCC Online TS 1095

2023 SCC Online TS 1170 ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

e) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam

Lingaiah 6; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9%

per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

f) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 7; has granted

7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till

realization.

g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court

has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the

compensation that is awarded in such cases. Hence, in the present

case, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to that of

7.5% per annum.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the

compensation from Rs.4,94,028/- to 4,05,500/- and the rate of

interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim

petition till realization. The Insurance Company has already

2024 SCC Online TS 915

2024 SCC Online TS 2050 ETD,J MACMA No.716_2021

deposited 50% of the decreetal amount awarded by the Tribunal

which is withdrawn by the respondents herein. Therefore, the

balance amount if any, is to be deposited by the Insurance

Company within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are

entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any

security. No costs.