Telangana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs R.Padma And 3 Others on 18 March, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3082 OF 2012 and 760 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.06.2012
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
learned Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad
(hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.225 of
2008, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company preferred
MACMA No.3082 of 2012 to set aside the impugned order and
whereas the petitioners/claimants preferred MACMA No.760 of
2014 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal.
2. Since both the Appeals have been filed by either of the
parties against same impugned order arising out of the same
accident, this Court is inclined to adjudicate both the Appeals
by way of 'Common Judgment'
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are as under:
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
a) The petitioners, who are mother and sisters of 'K.R.Arun
Kumar' (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased') respectively,
filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act
claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased in the road traffic
accident. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death
of the deceased is that on 17.07.2008 the deceased along with
his father K.S. Ramesh Kumar and brother-in-law Chakrapani
from Sainikpuri was proceeding towards Rajendra Nagar in Auto
bearing registration No.AP 11 U 5752 and when they reached
near AOC Gate, a Tipper Lorry bearing registration AP 29 U
3435 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') came in rash
and negligent manner and dashed the auto in which deceased
along with his father and brother-in-law were proceeding. As a
result, the father of the deceased died on the spot and whereas
the deceased died in the hospital.
b) A case in Crime No.132 of 2008 of Tukaram Police Station
was registered against the driver of the lorry for the offences
under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The
deceased was working as auto driver and earning Rs.6,000/-
per month prior to the accident. The accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
thus, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and
insurer of the crime vehicle respectively.
5. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition
averments, the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and whereas
respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments
including the manner of the accident, age and income of the
deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the crime
vehicle had no valid driving license as on the date of accident
and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly
excessive.
6. In order to establish the claim before the learned
Tribunal, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were
marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, no oral
evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, RW1 was
examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order
awarding Rs.3,83,000/- as compensation to the petitioners.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company preferred MACMA No.3082 of 2012 to
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
set aside the impugned order and whereas the
petitioners/claimants preferred the MACMA No.760 of 2014
seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on
record including the grounds of Appeal.
9. There is no dispute that Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy
was subsistent as on the date of the accident.
10. The first and foremost contention of the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent No.2 is that the learned Tribunal
ought to have rejected the claim application on the ground that
the owner and insurer of the auto in which the deceased was
travelling were not made parties and should have held that
there is every possibility of making a separate claim by the
claimants against the owner and insurer of the auto.
11. It is to be observed that only when there is negligence on
the part of a vehicle in causing the accident, the insurer and
owner of such vehicle will be impleaded in the claim petition.
But in the instant case there is no such evidence to hold that
the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of driver
of auto in which the deceased was travelling. Moreover, the
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
learned Tribunal by relying on the evidence of PW2 (eyewitness)
and documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A7 i.e., FIR,
Charge-sheet, rough sketch, scene of offence panchanama,
inquest report, Motor Vehicle Inspector Report and postmortem
examination report answered issue No.1 holding that the
accident occurred due to the involvement of the tipper lorry
bearing No.AP 29 U 3435. Moreover, it is to be observed that
mere probability of filing another claim petition against the
driver of the auto cannot be a ground to implead the driver the
auto, more particularly when there is negligence on the part of
the driver of the auto in which the deceased was traveling even
as per the record. Hence, the above said contention of the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company holds no water.
12. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is that the driver of
the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving license at the
time of the accident.
13. In order to establish that the driver of the crime vehicle
was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident
the respondent No.2/Insurance Company got examined its
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
Assistant Manager as RW1 and documentary evidence under
Exs.B2 and B3. Ex.B2 is the notice issued to the owner of the
crime vehicle to submit necessary documents to establish that
the said driver was having valid driving license. Ex.B3 is the
postal acknowledgement. Ex.B4 is the ration card. These
documents do not establish that the driver of the crime vehicle
was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of
accident. If at all the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid
driving license, then certainly the concerned Police would have
registered case against the said driver not only under the
provisions of Indian Penal Code but also under the provisions of
Motor Vehicle Act for not holding valid and effective driving
license to drive the said crime vehicle. The only competent
authorities to ascertain on the issues relating to driving license
are the Road Transport Authorities. In the instant case, the
respondents failed to examine any of such Road Transport
Authorities to prove that the driver of the crime vehicle had no
effective and valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle at
the relevant point of time. In the absence of any such evidence,
mere issuance of notice to the owner of the crime vehicle by the
insurance company to produce relevant documents is not
sufficient material to establish that the driver of the crime
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
vehicle had no effective and valid driving license to drive the
crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. Hence, the above
contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance
Company is unsustainable.
14. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is that the learned
Tribunal failed to see that a claim under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicle Act should be in accordance with the second
schedule and the amount of compensation should not be on
presumptions.
15. It is settled law that once the Tribunal frames an issue
with regard to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle
and answers the said issue in favour of the claimant/s, it is
immaterial as to whether the petition was filed under Section
166 or 163 - A of the Motor Vehicle Act, to award just and fair
compensation to the claimants. Thus, the above contention of
the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is
untenable.
16. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company
argued that the learned Tribunal erred in taking income of the
deceased as Rs.54,000/- without any basis.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
17. The claimants alleged that the deceased was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month by driving the auto. There is absolutely
no doubt that the claimants have not filed any documentary
evidence to substantiate the same. In such circumstances, the
learned Tribunal by relying on the decision of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1 and also
relying on the driving license of the deceased under Ex.A10
considered the income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month.
Hence, the above said argument of the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is
untenable.
18. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the
learned Tribunal failed to consider future prospects of the
deceased.
19. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Tribunal
did not consider future prospects. Since the deceased was aged
below 40 years and self employed, he is entitled for future
prospects @ 40% as per the decision laid down in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2.
1 2011- SCC-5-536
2 2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
Thus, the monthly income of the deceased with future prospects
comes to Rs.6,300/- per annum (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-).
Since, the deceased is a bachelor, half of his income is required
to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and
thereby the annual income of the deceased after deducting
personal expenses comes to Rs.3,150/- (Rs.6,300/- -
Rs.3,150/-) and the annual income of the deceased comes to
Rs.37,800/- (3,150/- x 12 months).
20. Now coming to the multiplier, the learned Tribunal fixed
the multiplier as '14' by considering the age of the mother of the
deceased as 43 years. But it is settled law that even in case of
deceased, who is a bachelor, it is the age of the deceased
bachelor that has to be considered for arriving to relevant
multiplier but not the age of his parents. The appropriate
multiplier for the persons, who are aged between 21 to 25 years
would be "18", as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3. When the annual
salary of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is
multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to
3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.37,800/- x 18). Thus, the loss of dependency
on account of sudden demise of deceased is Rs.6,80,400/-.
21. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,500/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. However, as
per the principle laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 4, since the deceased is a
bachelor the claimants/petitioners are entitled to Rs.33,000/-
under the conventional heads i.e., loss of estate and funeral
expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.7,13,400/- (Rs.6,80,400/- + Rs.33,000/-).
22. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company failed to establish any of the grounds to set aside the
impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. Thus,
M.A.C.M.A.No.3082 of 2012 is devoid of merits and liable to be
dismissed. However, the claimants could establish that the
learned Tribunal failed to consider future prospects and
conventional heads while arriving to the quantum of
compensation, as such, the impugned order passed by the
4 2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.3082/2012 & 760/2014
learned Tribunal is liable to be modified only to the extent of
considering future prospects and conventional heads.
23. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.3082 of 2012 is dismissed
and whereas M.A.C.M.A. No.760 of 2014 is allowed in part by
enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,83,000/- to
Rs.7,13,400/-, which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. The
petitioner No.1, who is the mother of the deceased is awarded
Rs.5,00,000/- and remaining compensation of Rs.2,13,400/-
shall be shared equally by petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The
respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the
crime vehicle respectively are jointly and severally liable to
deposit the compensation amount within one month from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation
amount awarded to them with accrued interest without
furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 18.03.2025
AS
