Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Smt Bura Padma And 4 Others on 24 March, 2025
1
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.778 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by
the Order and Decree dated 03.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.469 of 2015
passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I
Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short "the trial Court").
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 is that on
13.07.2015 the deceased-B. Ram Murthy went to his friend's
house at Karimnagar and was returning home, and while he was
crossing the road by foot near Alphores Women PG College,
Karimnagar, at about 22:30 hours, the driver of Maruthi Car
bearing No.AP-09-AG-8028 has driven the said vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner at a high speed, proceeding from Jagityal
towards Karimnagar and dashed the petitioner at the edge of the
road, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe head
injuries and immediately he was shifted to Surya Hospital,
Karimnagar and from there to Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimnagar,
where the Doctors declared him as brought dead. Thus, the
petitioners who are the wife and children of the deceased have filed
a claim petition for Rs.30,00,000/-.
ETD,J
MACMA No.778_2021
4) The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed a counter
denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence
of the accident, the age and income of the deceased. They further
contended that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and
negligence of the car driver and that the driver of the car did not
hold a valid driving license and their company is not liable to pay
compensation. They contended that the deceased might have been
negligent while crossing the road.
6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-09-
AG-8028?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed
for and against whom?
3) To what relief?
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 4
and got marked Exs.A1 to A20. On behalf of the respondents no
oral evidence was adduced.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded
a compensation of Rs.26,38,526/- against claim of Rs.30,00,000/-.
ETD,J
MACMA No.778_2021
Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the
Insurance Company.
9. Heard the submission of Sri G. Purushotham Rao, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri Ram Chander Rao Vemuganti,
learned counsel for respondents.
10. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the
Tribunal has wrongly held that the Insurance Company is liable to
pay compensation and that PW1 was a pension holder and that
she is taking a monthly pension of Rs.950/- and that she has not
filed any document to show that the deceased used to earn even
after retirement. The counsel further argued that the avocation and
income of the deceased are not established and that the Tribunal
has wrongly calculated the income of the deceased and thus
arrived at a huge compensation and that their company is not
liable to pay the same. He further argued that the Tribunal has
failed to account for the negligence of the deceased and therefore,
prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal by allowing
this appeal.
11. The respondent counsel on the other hand has argued that
the Tribunal has passed a well justified order and prayed to uphold
the same.
ETD,J
MACMA No.778_2021
12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the claimants are not entitled for any
compensation?
2. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court
need any interference?
3. To what relief?
13. POINT NO.1:
a) The grievance of the appellants is with regard to the
quantum of compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal. It is
asserted by the petitioners that the deceased was a pensioner, the
said fact is also not disputed by the Insurance Company. Their
only contention is that the wife of deceased is drawing a pension of
Rs.950/- per month, and has thereby calculated the actual annual
income to be Rs.11,400/- for computation of compensation
amount.
b) The petitioner has filed Income Tax Returns under Exs.A10
to 19 and a Letter issued by the Regional Commissioner,
Godavarikhani is filed under Ex.A7. A Memo is issued by the
Singareni Collieries under Ex.A8. It is the case of PW1 that her
husband took retirement in the year 2007 and was getting a
pension of Rs.19,056/- per annum and thereafter, he joined a
Private Granite Polishing Industry known as Ganapathi Polishing
ETD,J
MACMA No.778_2021
Industries and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/- till his
death, and he was also working as a Commission Agent in dealing
with the business between the industries and the Foreign Traders
and was getting a commission of Rs.2,46,756/- per annum.
c) Ex.A8 is the application for Voluntary Retirement. A perusal
of Ex.A9 shows that his voluntary retirement was accepted by the
Singareni Collieries Company Limited. A perusal of Income Tax
Returns under Exs.A10 to 14 shows the assessment for the years
2011-2012 to 2015-2016 and he has also filed a Bank Statement
under Ex.A15. A perusal of Ex.A15 discloses that the deceased
used to hold a Current Account bearing No.043805500191.
d) PW3 is the Deputy Manager of ICICI Bank, his evidence
reveals that the deceased was having Current Account in their
Branch and that some of the transactions are Inter-State
transactions and that their Bank issued Ex.A15. A perusal of
Ex.A15 reveals the daily transactions made by the petitioner. Thus,
it is proved that he used to hold a Current Account which discloses
that he used to do business after his retirement.
e) PW4/Inspector of Income tax is also examined in this case
and his evidence reveals that Exs.A11 to A14 are issued by them
and the originals of Income Tax Returns are produced by PW4 and
the copies of the said documents are marked as Exs.A16 to A19.
ETD,J
MACMA No.778_2021
Ex.A20 is the Covering Letter. Nothing much was elicited during
his cross examination to discredit his evidence. By considering the
entire evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased
i.e., the oral evidence of PW3 and 4 and also the documentary
evidence under Exs.A7 to A20, the Tribunal has rightly assessed
the income of the deceased as Rs.3,29,775/- per annum, and has
applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1,
since the petitioners were four in number, 1/4th deduction was
made and addition of future prospects was also considered by the
Tribunal to be 10%, since the deceased was aged '52' years, has
rightly calculated the amount towards future prospects.
f) With regard to consortium also, as per the dicta laid down in
Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram and Others 2, the Tribunal has rightly granted
Rs.40,000/- to each of the petitioners towards consortium i.e.,
Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards spoual consortium and
Rs.40,000/- each to the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 towards parental
consortium. It has also awarded the funeral expenses of
Rs.15,000/- and also loss of estate to an extent of Rs.15,000/-.
Therefore, the assessment made by the Tribunal with regard to the
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.778_2021
compensation is found to be justified as perused in the light of the
evidence on record.
Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.2:
In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the
order and decree of the Tribunal does not need any interference
and the same is upheld.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. Point No.3:-
In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order
and Decree dated 03.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.469 of 2015 passed by
the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional
District Judge, Karimnagar. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 24 .03.2025
ds
