Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Mulukalla Anasuya And 3 Ors on 7 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2607 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 21.03.2014
passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal
- cum - Principal District Judge, at Adilabad (for short 'the
Tribunal'), in M.V.O.P.No.431 of 2008 the respondent No.2/
Insurance Company in the said O.P. preferred the present
Appeal to set-aside the Award of the learned Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that initially, petitioners
have filed a petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- along
with interest @ 18% per annum against the respondents on
account of the death of Mulukalla Vishal Kumar (hereinafter
referred as 'the deceased') in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on the intervening night of 12/13-07-2008. The
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and
petitioner No.3 is the unmarried sister of the deceased.
MGP,J
4. It is stated by the petitioners that on the intervening night
of 12/13-07-2008 at about 01.30 hours after completion of his
work, the deceased along with his friend G.Venkata Prasad were
proceeding towards Mehdipatnam on motorcycle bearing
registration No.AP 28 CA 5286 and when they reached near
Telecomnagar, near Urdu University, all of sudden one Tempo
bearing registration No.AP 23 W0195 came in a opposite
direction driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at
high speed and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which
the deceased and his friend fell down and received grievous
injuries and whereas, the deceased died on the spot.
5. A case in Crime No.181 of 2008 of Raidurgudam
(Cyberabad) Police Station was registered under Section 304-A
of IPC and filed charge sheet against the driver of Tempo
bearing registration No.AP 23 W0195.
6. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to the accident,
the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 23 years and used to
work as Mechanical Supervisor in L & T Company and used to
earn an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to sudden
death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner
and were put to mental shock and became destitute. Hence, the
petitioners filed claim petition seeking compensation against the
MGP,J
Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are owner and insurer of subject
Tempo bearing registration No.AP-23-W0195.
7. Respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the Tempo bearing No.AP-
23-W0195 remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal.
8. Respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the crime vehicle,
filed his counter denying the averments made in the claim
petition including, age, avocation, income of the deceased,
manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending vehicle and contended that the compensation
claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss
the claim petition against it.
9. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal framed the following issues for conducting
trial:-
1. Whether the deceased died in the accident
occurred on 12.07.2008 due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Temp bearing No.AP-23-
W-0195?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled for
compensation as claimed in the petition, if so, to
what extent and against whom?
3. To what relief?
MGP,J
10. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners,
PWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On
behalf of Respondent/Insurance Company no oral or
documentary evidence was adduced.
11. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on
behalf of both the sides, the learned Tribunal partly-allowed the
claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.16,85,000/-
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition
till the date of deposit payable by both the respondent Nos.1 & 2
jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said finding, the present
Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, who is arrayed as
respondent No.2 in the O.P.
12. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar,
learned Standing Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company as
well as Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 3/claimants. Perused the record.
13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company is that respondents-claimants
are majors and not dependants of the deceased and they are not
entitled for any compensation; the learned Tribunal has erred in
taking income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, as no
MGP,J
income proof was filed; hence, prayed to allow the Appeal by
setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants argued that the learned Tribunal after
considering all the aspects, rightly awarded reasonable
compensation for which interference of this Court is
unwarranted.
15. Now the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the Award passed by the learned
Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
16. POINT:- A perusal of the record discloses that petitioner
No.1 being the wife of the deceased reiterated the contents of
the claim petition and deposed about the manner of the
accident. As PW.1 is not an eyewitness to the accident, she got
examined PW.2, who is an eye witness to the accident. PW2
deposed about the manner of the accident. Apart from relying
upon the evidence of PW.2, the petitioner filed documents under
Exs.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R, Ex.A.2 is the charge sheet,
which clearly discloses that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Tempo. Considering the same, the
learned Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in favour of the
petitioner stating that the accident occurred due to rash and
MGP,J
negligent driving of the Tempo bearing No.AP-23-W0195. Apart
from Exs.A1 and A2, the petitioner has also relied upon
Ex.A3/inquest report, Ex.A4/PME report, which discloses that
deceased died in the accident. Ex.A5 is the degree certificate,
Ex.A6 is the SCC certificate and Ex.A7 is the certified copy of
intermediate certificate of the deceased. These documents
disclose the educational qualifications of the deceased. The
petitioners relied upon Ex.A9 Salary Certificate issued by the
employer of the deceased to establish that the deceased was
working as Mechanical Supervisor in L & T Company and
earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month.
17. Now coming to the compensation amount, as per the
petitioners the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.15,000/-
per month, taking the same into consideration and also
considering the deceased is a Bachelor, the learned Tribunal
has deducted 50% from the income of the deceased towards
personal expenses, hence, the annual income of the deceased
after deducting personal expenses will be Rs.90,000/-
(Rs.7,500/- x 12 months). As per the date of birth certificate,
the deceased was aged around 24 years and suitable multiplier
is '18' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma v.
MGP,J
Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.16,20,000/-
(Rs.90,000/- x 18) towards loss of dependency. The learned
Tribunal has also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation charges and in all the petitioners were awarded
Rs.16,85,000/-. Thus, this Court feels that the learned Tribunal
has awarded just and reasonable amount and hence,
interference of this Court is unwarranted. However, except
raising certain pleas in the grounds of appeal, the Insurance
Company has not produced any material to substantiate their
contentions. In such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly
awarded the compensation amount, for which interference of
this Court is unwarranted. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.07.03.2025
mmr
2009 (6) SCC 121
