Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insruance Co Ltd., vs U Shashidharand 4 Others on 13 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.636 of 2019
and
Cross Objections No.32 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company and Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy,
learned counsel for the 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 passed by the learned Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl. Chief Judge, City
Civil Court at Hyderabad, (for short 'the Tribunal') in
M.V.O.P.No.1135 of 2011, dated 31.07.2014,wherein, the claim
petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants was allowed
granting compensation of Rs.17,48,511/- as against the claim of
Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. The claim petition was filed by the claimants following death
of one U. Sridevi in an accident which occurred on 01.12.2010
at 4 a.m., when the claimants along with the deceased Sridevi were
travelling in Tata Qualis bearing No.AP 09 AJ 3132 from Tirupati to
Hyderabad, near the limits of Addakula Village of Mahaboobnagar
District. At that time, the driver of the Qualis has driven the vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bridge on NH-7 to
avoid collision with another vehicle and thereby, the accident took
place resulting in death of U. Sridevi.
4. The appellant/Insurance Company challenged the award on
the ground that driver of the vehicle in order to avoid head on
collision with another vehicle dashed the bridge on NH-7 and
therefore, there is no negligence on his part, consequently, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The second
ground urged is that the income of the deceased was taken as
Rs.6,000/- per month in the absence of evidence and there is error
in granting bills for Rs.6,59,511/- under Exs.A10, A11 and A13 on
the basis of oral evidence of PW4 who deposed that Ex.A13 final bill
was issued for a sum of Rs.5,41,171.97ps. after deducting
Rs.1,85,000/- which was paid by Star Health Pvt. Ltd. Further, the
appellant urged that applying multiplier '16' by taking age of the
deceased as 32 years is erroneous and the same has to be '14' on
the basis of age of claimant No.1 who is the husband of the
deceased. Lastly, it is claimed that the Tribunal erred in awarding
Rs.17,48,511/-, which is more than the compensation claimed and
awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum when the Hon'ble Supreme
Court awarded only 6% per annum in its judgment in Smt. Sarla
Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1.
5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimant Nos.1 to 3 filed Cross
Objections challenging the award for taking income of the deceased
at Rs.6,000/- per month when she was running Beauty Parlor at
Karmanghat, Hyderabad and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month
as per Ex.A18 certificate. Further, it is urged that the Tribunal
failed to consider future prospects at 40%. Lastly, it is claimed that
interest ought to have been awarded at 9% instead of 7.5%. In the
cause title of Cross Objections, the claimant No.4 is shown as
respondent No.3 - U. Vijaya (died).
6. During arguments in appeal, it is fairly conceded by the
learned counsel for the claimants that Rs.1,85,000/- has been paid
by Star Health Pvt. Ltd. and to such extent, the said amount has to
be deducted from the compensation awarded. The factum of
payment of Rs.1,85,000/- is proven by the oral evidence of PW4
who is examined by the claimants themselves. Therefore, the said
amount has to be deducted from the compensation amount granted
by the Tribunal.
(2009) ACJ 1298
7. According to the appellant, there is no negligence on the part
of the driver of the Qualis as he has dashed the vehicle to the
bridge in order to avoid head on collision with another vehicle.
Claimant No.1 as PW1 does not reveal any such occasion about the
driver dashing the Qualis to the bridge in order to avoid head on
collision with another vehicle. While so, FIR registered by the police
marked under Ex.A1 clearly shows that the driver of the car has
driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bridge. The
said manner of occurrence of accident is also reflected in the
charge sheet marked under Ex.A2. In the absence of oral and
documentary evidence to support the contention of the appellant
about there being no rash and negligent driving on the part of the
driver of the Qualis, the said contention cannot be countenanced.
Hence, no interference can be made with the finding of the Tribunal
on that ground.
8. With respect to multiplier on the basis of the surviving
dependents is no longer good law and the same has to be
determined on the basis of age of the deceased. As such, no
interference can be made with the award on said ground. Lastly,
there is no precedent about fixing the interest payable on the
compensation awarded. It is for the Tribunal to decide the
percentage of interest as per the circumstances of each case and
therefore, grant of interest at 7.5% per annum also cannot be
interfered with. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the appellant
are answered.
9. Coming to the Cross Objections, the main ground raised is
about the income of the deceased as to whether it is Rs.6,000/- per
month or is to be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. According to the
learned counsel for the appellant, the income taken is appropriate
as the avocation of the deceased according to inquest report is
shown to be that of a house wife who has no income. Per contra,
the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would argue
that the details in the inquest report are filled up randomly without
any verification and that Exs.A18, A19/certificates and
Ex.A20/Photographs show that the deceased was a skilled
beautician. Referring the said exhibits, learned counsel for the
appellant would argue that anybody can produce such certificates
without authentication and the photographs cannot be proven to be
those of the beauty parlor run by the deceased. Further, the details
of inquest report were filled up by the concerned police officials by
making enquiry with the family members of the deceased.
Therefore, it cannot be readily ruled out that the contents of
inquest report are false as compared to the contents of Ex.A18, A19
and A20. The inquest report filed by the claimants clearly shows
that the family members of the deceased who were examined before
the police stated the avocation of the deceased as a house wife.
Therefore, the notional income that was taken by the Tribunal at
Rs.6,000/- per month as a house wife is reasonable.
10. In view of the above discussion, the MACMA No.636 of 2019
filed by the appellant/Insurance company is allowed in part by
reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.17,48,511/- to Rs.15,63,511/- (Rs.17,48,511/- minus
Rs.1,85,000/-, maintaining the rate of interest at 7.5% p.a as
granted by the Tribunal. The Cross Objections No.32 of 2022 filed
by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants is dismissed. The
respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay the compensation amount within
a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment by
deducting the amount, if any, paid. On such deposit, claimants are
entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
Insofar as entitlement of claimant No.4 is concerned, the same
shall be disbursed among claimant Nos.1 to 3 equally. If the deficit
Court fee is already deposited by the claimants for the
compensation amount granted by the Tribunal, the difference
Court fee shall be refunded to the claimants, after proper
calculation and under proper acknowledgement.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 13.03.2025
gvl
