Telangana High Court

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Y.Adilaxmi And 8 Others on 25 March, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1785 OF 2013

                                  AND
                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1340 OF 2019


COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1785 of 2013, filed by the

appellant/Insurance Company challenging the compensation

awarded and M.A.C.M.A.No.1340 of 2019 filed by claim petitioners

seeking for enhancement of compensation, both are directed

against the very same Award dated 31.10.2012 passed in

O.P.No.21 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy

District (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioners, who

are the wife, children and mother of the deceased-Y.Subba Rao,

filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

Rules 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules read with Section 140 of M.V.Act

claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- which was subsequently

enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- as per orders in I.A.2 of 2013, dated

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1785 of 2013 and 1340 of 2019

15.07.2024, for the death of the deceased in a road accident that

occurred on 02.11.2001. Subsequently, It is stated by the

petitioners that on 02.11.2001, when the deceased started by walk

from his office at Begumpet Air force station in order to go to home

and when he was crossing the road near Ferozguda cross-roads at

about 4.30 P.M., one tanker lorry bearing No.AP-31-V-978 which

came in a rash and negligent manner from Balanagar side to

Bowenpally side, dashed the deceased which resulted into his

instantaneous death.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Balanagar Police Station

registered a case in Crime No.336 of 2001 under Section 304-A

IPC.

5. It is stated by the petitioners that due to untimely death of

the deceased, they lost their sole bread winner and were put to

severe hardship and mental agony. Hence, filed claim petition

seeking compensation against the respondents 1 & 2 who are the

owner and insurer of crime vehicle.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/owner of lorry bearing

No.AP-31-V-978 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2/Insurance

Company filed its counter denying the age and earnings of the

deceased. It also contended that the driver of offending vehicle was

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1785 of 2013 and 1340 of 2019

not having valid and subsisting driving license as on the date of

accident. Respondent No.3, who got added as one of the parties as

per orders in I.A.No.199 of 2006, dated 28.03.2006, filed its

counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and

contended that as they received amended copy of main O.P. on

15.05.2006, therefore, if any liability is imposed upon it, it shall

commence from that date and that the claim of compensation is

excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had

framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP- 31-V-978?

(ii) Whether the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and there is any violation of policy conditions/

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

8. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3

were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of

respondent No.2/Insurance Company, RW1 was examined and

Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1785 of 2013 and 1340 of 2019

9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition

by awarding compensation of Rs.7,34,748/- along with interest @

7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit

payable by respondent Nos.1 & 3 jointly and severally. Challenging

the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance

Company and claimants respectively.

10. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.1785 of 2013, Sri

V.Satyam reddy, learned counsel for respondents/claimants and

Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent

No.2/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.a.1340 of 2019. Perused the

record including the grounds of Appeal.

11. The main contention of the learned counsel for

appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.1785 of 2013 is

that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating respondent

No.9/New India Assurance Company Ltd. and failed to consider

the Carriers Legal Liability policy issued by it and therefore

requested to apportion the liability in paying compensation upon

two insurance companies.

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1785 of 2013 and 1340 of 2019

12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent

No.2/New India Assurance Company contended that as the policy

issued is a Carriers Legal Liability policy which has to be insured

comprehensively under M.V.Act to claim compensation, hence, the

learned Tribunal, considering the same, had rightly exempted them

from paying compensation. Further, learned counsel for claimants

in M.A.C.M.A.No.1340 of 2019 contended that the learned Tribunal

ought to have taken monthly income of the deceased @ 7,000/-

and ought to have awarded future prospects and ought to have

awarded more compensation and therefore prayed to allow the

Appeal by enhancing the compensation.

13. Now the points that emerges for determination are,

1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

2. Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

POINTS:-

14. Since the contentions in both the connected Appeals are with

regard to liability aspect and quantum of compensation, this Court

do not find any necessity to discuss the aspects of rash and

negligence on part of crime vehicle and death of the deceased.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA.1785 of 2013

contended that the learned Tribunal ought not to have exonerated

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1785 of 2013 and 1340 of 2019

respondent No.9/New India Assurance company from its liability in

paying compensation and ought to have considered the Carriers

Legal Liability policy issued by it.

16. It is pertinent to mention that respondent No.1/owner of the

offending vehicle registered his vehicle with respondent No.2 under

Ex.B3-Insurance policy. A perusal of Ex.B3/Insurance policy

shows that it is Carriers Legal Liability policy and the conditions

and clauses enclosed along with the said policy clearly stipulates

that the vehicle insured under Carriers Legal Liability policy must

be insured comprehensively under Motor policy. Since the

respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle, without informing

about Carriers Legal Liability policy, obtained insurance policy

under M.V.Act from respondent No.3, who issued M.V.Act policy to

the offending vehicle which policy is in force as on the date of

accident, hence, respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation.

17. A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the impugned

judgment shows that the learned Tribunal, considering the salary

certificate, fixed income of the deceased @ Rs.6,177/- per month,

deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses by considering the

number of dependants as 5 as two of them died out of total 7;

applied relevant multiplier and calculated loss of earnings @

Rs.7,22,748/- without granting future prospects.

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1785 of 2013 and 1340 of 2019

18. This Court, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranay Sethi 1 ,

hereby add 15% towards future prospects to the income of the

deceased by considering the age of the deceased as 51 years and

occupation as permanent in nature. Upon addition of the same,

the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,104/-.

Since learned counsel for respondents submitted that respondent

Nos.1 to 3 were expired and filed a memo to that effect, hence,

considering the number of dependants as 2, hereby deduct 1/3rd

amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

Therefore, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.4,736/- and the annual income comes to Rs.56,832/-. After

applying multiplier '11', the total loss of future earnings would

come to Rs.6,25,152/-.

19. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-

towards transport, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/-

towards loss of consortium which this Court finds it to be meager

and hereby enhance the same to Rs.77,000/- by relying upon the

Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 2700).

Further, considering the fact that appellant/claimant No.6 being

(2017 (6) 170 SC)

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1785 of 2013 and 1340 of 2019

minor, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court

in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @

Chuhru Ram and others 2 hereby inclined to grant a sum of

Rs.40,000/- under parental consortium. Thus, in all, the

appellants are entitled for a total compensation as indicated

under:-

S.No.       Name of the Head       Amount            Amount
                                   awarded        by awarded     by
                                   Tribunal          this Court.
1           Monthly income         Rs.6,177/-        -

2           Addition of 15%                 -           Rs.7,104/-
            towards       future
            prospects
3           Deduction towards      Rs.4,633/-           Rs.4,736/-
            personal expenses.     (deducted1/4th)      (deducted1/3rd)
4           Amount       arrived   Rs.7,22,748/-        Rs.6,25,152/-

after application of (multiplier is 13) (multiplier is 11) Multiplier 5 Conventional Rs.12,000/- Rs.77,000/-

Heads

6. Parental - Rs.40,000/-

            consortium        to
            minor child
7           TOTAL                  Rs.7,34,748/-        Rs.7,42,152/-
            COMPENSATION

20. As far as interest is concerned, this Court, by relying upon

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.

(2018) 18 SCC 130

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1785 of 2013 and 1340 of 2019

Rajbir Singh and others 3 enhances the rate of interest awarded

by the Tribunal from 7% to 7.5% per annum.

21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1785 of 2013 is dismissed and

M.A.C.M.A.No.1340 of 2019 is partly-allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.7,34,748/- to Rs.7,42,152/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5%

p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by

respondents Nos.1 & 3 jointly and severally. The respondents 1