Telangana High Court

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shaik Satha Bee on 17 March, 2025

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                      M.A.C.M.A.NO.1461 OF 2024

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri V.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for appellant-insurance

company and Sri Uma Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 to 4/claim petitioners.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance

Company aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 29.11.2023 in

M.V.O.P.No.103 of 2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Bhadradri Kothagudem (for

short, 'Tribunal') and thereby, seeking to set aside the impugned order.

3. The appellant herein is the respondent No.3-insurance company,

respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the claim petitioners, respondent No.5

herein is the respondent No.1-driver of the crime vehicle and

respondent No.6 herein is the respondent No.2-owner of the crime

vehicle before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4.1. On 18.06.2020, while the deceased i.e., Shaik Myboobe @

Maibooba was returning from Bazaar to her house on foot and when

she reached Kukkala Prasad's house, Lingam Banjara village, the driver LNA,J

of Bolero Truck bearing registration No.TS-28-T-3069 (hereinafter

referred to crime vehicle), while reversing the vehicle, drove it in rash

and negligent manner and hit the deceased, as a result, he fell down on

CC road, received bleeding injuries all over the body, and was shifted to

Government Hospital, Khammam, and while undergoing treatment, he

succumbed to the injuries. The Police registered a case in Crime No.113

of 2020 under Sections 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle

and filed charge sheet.

4.2. The claim petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of

M.V.Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest.

4.3. The claimants claimed that the deceased was aged about 60 years

as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.20,000/-

per month by doing vegetable business and contributing the same to

her family members. Due to sudden death of deceased, the claimants

lost their source of maintenance.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner of the crime

vehicle remained ex parte.

6. The respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter denying

the allegations i.e., the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning LNA,J

capacity, and further averred that the deceased was crossing the road

without observing the vehicle and thereby contributing to the accident

and finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i) Whether the deceased-Shaik Myboobe @ Maibooba died in the motor vehicle accident, that took place on 18.06.2020 ? If so, whether accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero Max Truck bearing No.TS-28-T-

3069 ?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation ? if so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected ?

iii) To what relief?

8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants,

P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf

of respondent No.3-Insurance Company, no witness was examined, but

insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of evidence and material

placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to

rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and awarded

compensation of Rs.9,85,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent

Nos.1 to 3 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said

compensation.

LNA,J

10. During the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant-

insurance company contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the

evidence on record and erroneously awarded the huge compensation.

He further contended the Tribunal ought to have considered the income

of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month, instead of

Rs.15,000/- per annum, basing on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court

in Ramachandrappa's case. He further contended that the Tribunal erred

in adding 25% of the income of the deceased as future prospects since as

per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Seti's case, no future

prospects can be added for the age group of persons, who are aged

above 60 years. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have

granted 6% interest instead of 7.5%.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claim petitioners would submit

that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed, the

Hon'ble Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation and no

grounds are made out by the appellant-insurance company to interfere

with the said finding of the Tribunal and, therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.

Consideration :

12. Insofar as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, the

Tribunal considering the profession of the deceased as vegetable vendor LNA,J

and that she was also running a kirana shop, had assessed the income of

the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. It is pertinent to mention that

the claimants have not placed any material on record in proof of

avocation and income of the deceased and, therefore, the Tribunal erred

in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. In

the light of facts and circumstances of the case, cost of living and also

considering the age and avocation claimed by the claimants, monthly

income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.6,500/- and therefore, the

same needs to be modified to the above extent.

13. Insofar as award of future prospects, as per the decision of

National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, no future

prospects can be awarded where the deceased is aged beyond 60 years.

However, the Tribunal erroneously awarded 25% towards future

prospects of the deceased and the same needs to be set aside. However,

the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no

interfere with regard to interest.

14. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant

that the married daughters are not the dependents of the deceased and

therefore, the dependents of the deceased are only two in number

i.e., daughter-in-law and the grand-daughter, who is physically

(2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J

handicapped. Thus, one-third of income of deceased be deducted

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. However,

without considering the same, the Tribunal erred in deducting 40% of

the income of the deceased.

15. In Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the married daughter is not

dependent on deceased, being 'legal representative' of deceased, she is

entitled to compensation and therefore, the claim petition filed by the

married daughter of victim/deceased is maintainable.

16. In view of the above decision, the contention of the learned

counsel for appellant that married daughters are not entitled for

compensation is untenable and same is rejected.

17. With regard to living expenses of the deceased is concerned, as

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and

living expenses of the deceased should be one-fourth where the number

of dependent family members is 4 to 6.

2007 (3) ALD 55 (SC)

(2009) 6 SCC 121 LNA,J

18. In view of the above decision, one-fourth of the income of the

deceased should be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.

Therefore, the Tribunal had erred in deducting 40% instead of one-

fourth income of the deceased towards her personal and living

expenses and the same is liable to be modified to that extent.

19. Perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the Tribunal has

not awarded consortium to the claim petitioners. With regard to award

of consortium, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), at

paragraph No.59.8 held that reasonable figures on conventional heads,

namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should

be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid

amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. In

view of the above decision, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/-

each towards consortium. The petitioners are also entitled to receive the

aforesaid amount with enhanced amount at the rate of 10% for every

three years. Thus, petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,76,000/-

(Rs.44,000/- x 4) towards consortium.

Conclusion:

20. In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated as

under:

LNA,J

Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded

1 Income Rs.6,500/- per month

2 Deduction towards personal Rs.1,625/- (i.e., one-fourth of Rs.6,500/-) expenses 3 Total monthly income Rs.4,875/- (i.e., Rs.6,500/- (-) Rs.1,625/-)

5 Loss of dependency Rs.4,09,500/- (i.e., Rs.4,875/- x 7 x 12)

6 Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,76,000/-