Telangana High Court

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Varre Subhadra And 2 Others on 3 September, 2025

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                         M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under

Section 173 of the M.V.Act, against the Award and decree passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Additional District Judge),

Mahabubabad (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in

M.V.O.P.No.476 of 2014, dated 16.09.2019, wherein the Tribunal has

granted compensation of Rs.14,81,200/- to the respondent No.1 herein.

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

to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.476

of 2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 seeking

compensation for the death of the Varre Raju (hereinafter referred to as

'deceased') who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash

and negligent manner by the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA-

0999. It is contended that on 09.05.2006, the deceased was proceeding

on his motor bike bearing no.AP-36-L5200 towards Kurvai Village on

Warangal-Khammam highway, when the deceased reached near Hero

NNR,J

Honda showroom, a lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999 driven by

respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dash the deceased's

vehicle, as a result deceased received several injuries all over the body

and died on the spot. The Police registered a case, vide Crime No.96 of

2016 under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of

offending vehicle, wherein a charge sheet was also filed against driver of

the Crime Lorry and made him responsible for the accident. The

appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as

compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the claimant before the Tribunal, the deceased

was aged about 22 years and was working as Mechanic and used to

earn Rs.8,000/- per month, as on the date of accident. Due to the

sudden death of the deceased, the claimant lost her beloved son and all

the claimants lost their happiness and lost deceased's company and

there is no other person to take care of the claimant and the claimant

lost their dependency.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1-Driver of offending

vehicle and respondent No.2-Owner of the offending vehicle remained ex

parte. Respondent No.3 - National Insurance Company Limited, filed

NNR,J

counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition,

including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation

and income of the deceased and submitted that there was self

negligence on the part of the deceased, due to which, the said accident

occurred and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads

as under:

"1) Whether the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation amount, if so from whom and to what amount?

3) To what result ?"

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into

the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of

Rs.14,81,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the

learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance

NNR,J

Company on the ground that the claimant has claimed compensation

Rs.8,00,000/- but the Tribunal erroneously passed the exorbitant

award of Rs.14,81,200/- in the absence of any oral and documentary

evidence and the income of the deceased and also the interest portion

was taken on the higher side. Learned counsel further contended that

the deceased was bachelor and the Tribunal ought to have deducted the

personal expenses 50% instead of 1/3rd as per the settled principles of

law while computing the compensation, hence prayed this Court to set-

aside the Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal and allow the

present appeal.

9. Heard, Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant -

National Insurance Company Limited and None appeared for the

respondents. Perused the material on record.

10. The claimants have not filed cross-appeal against the Award and

decree passed by the Tribunal. As such, the claimants are satisfied with

the Award and decree and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that:

"i) Whether the Tribunal had rightly consider the claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Rules 989 and awarded just compensation.

NNR,J

ii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in factual aspects while passing the award"

Point No.1 & 2:

11. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on

09.05.2016, alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of

the driver of the lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999 and the petitioner lost

his son (deceased) in an unfortunate accident. The petitioner claim that

the deceased was working as Mechanic and was earning Rs.8,000/- per

month, however there is no other documentary proof to the same, such

as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the deceased

was earning Rs.8,000/- per month as claimed by the claimant. But

looking at the records available, it is evident that the deceased was aged

about 23 years who was hale and healthy. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State

of Bihar 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even when there is no proof

of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and

assessed by the Courts, considering the ground realities, hence the

compensation granted by the learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the

notional income of the deceased @ Rs.7,000/- per month looked to be

reasonable and on ground realities, as the deceased would have atleast

earned Rs.7,000/- per month by doing mechanic work or any odd job. In

1 2001(8) SCC 197

NNR,J

view of the above observation, this Court is of the opinion that Tribunal

has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month

which needs no interference.

12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that Tribunal

has awarded Rs.14,81,200/- against the claim petition of Rs.8,00,000/-

which is illegal and arbitrary and the Tribunal cannot grant

compensation more than claimant. In this regard, it is relevant to cite

authority in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others 2 wherein at

paragraph No.7, with respect to the provision of M.V.Act, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that

"..there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is that it should be 'Just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily

2002 n(8) Supreme 497

NNR,J

injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be."

13. In the light of the above judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh's case (cited above), the

Tribunals/Courts have the authority to award the compensation more

than the amount claimed by the claimants.

14. As far as personal deductions of the deceased are concerned, the

Tribunal in the Paragraph No.17 of the order has clearly stated that

"deceased is a bachelor and claimant mother is widow", however

the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses

of the deceased which is against the guidelines prescribed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation 3, wherein it has categorically discussed the said issue at

paragraph No.15 which reads as under:

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

NNR,J

"15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."

NNR,J

15. In the present case, the deceased was bachelor and the sole

claimant is depended on the deceased, accordingly, this Court is of the

opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of income

towards personal and living expenses instead of deducting 50% of

income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as per the

directions caused by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case

(cited supra).

16. After considering the contentions and rival contentions and overall

re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions.

This Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to modified

compensation and as recalculated as under:

17. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 4 and

considering the age of the deceased as 23 years which is not disputed by

both the parties, additional 40% of the income has to be added towards

future prospect to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the

monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,800/- (Rs.7,000/- +

4 2017 ACJ 2700

NNR,J

Rs.2,800/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to

Rs.1,17,600/- (Rs.9,800/- X 12), out of which, 50% has to be deducted

towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased was

bachelor. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.58,800/-

(Rs.1,17,600/- (-) Rs.58,800/-).

18. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 5, and

considering the age of the deceased as 23 years, the appropriate

multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '18'. Thus, the total loss

of dependency would come to Rs.10,58,400/- (Rs.58,800/- x 18).


                         Head        Amount arrived at by   Amount arrived at by
                                        the Tribunal            this Court

            Income of the deceased
                                       Rs.14,11,200/-         Rs.10,58,400/-

                Loss of Estate           Rs.15,000/-            Rs.15,000/-

              Loss of Consortium         Rs.40,000/-            Rs.40,000/-

               Funeral Expenses          Rs.15,000/-            Rs.15,000/-

                     Total              Rs.14,81,200-         Rs.11,28,400/-

19. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal

has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 9 % per annum and the same

needs no interference by this Court.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

NNR,J

20. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, by reducing the

compensation from Rs.14,81,200/- to Rs. 11,28,400/- with @ 9 % p.a.

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

respondents therein are directed to deposit the said amount together

with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already

deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a

copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned