Ifficotokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hetchu Bhadraiah And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3545 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ifficotokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hetchu Bhadraiah And 4 Others on 28 March, 2025

                                1



   THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
             M.A.C.M.A.NO.757 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved

by the Order and Decree dated 16.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.872 of

2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-I Additional District Judge, at Khammam (for short "the

Tribunal").

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

25.03.2017, the deceased-Hetchu Rama Rao went to attend the

coolie work at Khammam and after completion of the work he

was returning to Kotha Linganna in an auto bearing No. TS-04-

UA-0572 and when he reached Manchukonda outskirts, the

driver of the Auto drove the same at high speed in rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrians Gundeti

Sitaramulu, Karumanchi Pullaiah and that he lost control and

dashed against a tree, as a result the deceased who was sitting

in the auto sustained grievous injuries to head, hands, legs and

other parts of the body and the other occupants of the auto also

sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the

Government Hospital, Khammam and after giving first aid, as ETD,J MACMA No.757_2021

the condition of the deceased was serious, he was shifted to

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and

that on 26.03.2017 at 2.30 p.m the deceased died while

undergoing treatment. The parents and children of the

deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. Owner of the auto remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. The Insurance Company has filed counter affidavit

denying the averments of the petition regarding occurrence of

the accident, the age, income and avocation of the deceased and

further contended that the auto driver did not have valid driving

license at the time of accident and that the insurance company

is not liable to pay any compensation and the compensation

claimed by the claimants is excessive.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the deceased-Hetchu Rama Rao died due to the injuies sustained in the Motor Vehicle accident on 25.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.TS-04-UA- 0572?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation amount with subsequent interest as claimed for from the respondent Nos.1 and 2?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, claimants got examined as P.Ws.1 and

2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents,

no evidence was adduced.

ETD,J MACMA No.757_2021

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted

an amount of Rs.15,93,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved

by the said order and decree dated 16.09.2021, the present

appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company and Sri Srinivasa Rao. V and

Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company

has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant

amount and has granted more compensation than that claimed

by the petitioners. He further submitted that the Tribunal has

taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- in the absence

of any evidence and also taken wrong multiplier and thus

awarded huge amount towards compensation and prayed to

reduce the compensation which is granted by the Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted

that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be

very low as Rs.10,000/- per month and that claimants are

entitled for more compensation, though they have not filed any

cross objections and thus prayed to enhance the quantum of

compensation granted by the Tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.757_2021

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames

the following points for determination:-

1. Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:-

a) It is asserted by P.W.1 that the deceased used to work as

Hamali and that he used to earn Rs.500/- per day but no proof

was submitted in this regard. Learned counsel for the

Insurance Company relied upon the judgment passed by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager,

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1,

wherein the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any

proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month

can be safely taken.

b) Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants relied

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kunta Devi &

Ors v. Bhura Ram & Anr." 2 wherein it was held as follows:

"The MACT, at the first instance, while considering the claim, has reckoned the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month in the absence of evidence to establish the same. The High Court has reckoned it at Rs.6,000/- per month. In a matter where there can be no serious dispute with regard to the avocation of the

(2011) 12 SCC 236

2023 Law Suit (SC) 1215 ETD,J MACMA No.757_2021

deceased being a carpenter, who was undertaking the carpentry work in another State, we deem it appropriate that even in the year 2009, when the accident had taken place, it would be reasonable to reckon the daily income of the deceased at Rs.400/-. If the same is done, the monthly income of the deceased could be taken at Rs.12,000/-. 40% of the said amount i.e. Rs.4,800/- is to be added towards future prospects."

c) In the present case, the deceased is stated to be a Hamali.

No proof can be expected in this regard. But it is borne out by

record that the deceased was an able bodied person aged 47

years and was running a family of four (04) members. Thus on

a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the judgment placed by

learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, this Court is of

the opinion that income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal

as Rs.10,000/- per month appears to be justified. The post-

mortem report under Ex.A.3 discloses the age of the deceased as

47 years and thus the appropriate multiplier is '13'as per "Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3." The Tribunal has

considered the principles laid down in "National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 4" assessed the

compensation under various heads and has awarded an amount

of Rs.15,93,000/- and hence this Court is of the considered

2009 (6) SCC 121

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.757_2021

opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the amount

granted by the Tribunal as the same is found to be just and

reasonable. Hence Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point No.1, it is

held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal do not

need any interference and therefore, the same is upheld.

15. Point No.3:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 16.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.872 of 2017 passed

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional District Judge, at Khammam. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal,

shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 28.03.2025 Bw ETD,J MACMA No.757_2021

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

M.A.C.M.A.NO.757 OF 2021 Date: 28.03.2025.

Bw