Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Keloth Hussaini And 6 Others on 12 September, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.751 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by
the Order and Decree dated 13.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.544 of 2016
passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-
cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to
Atrocities Against Women-cum-VIII Additional District Judge,
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 petitioners before the tribunal is that on
31.08.2015 at about 2:00 p.m., the deceased and others were going
in an auto bearing No.AP-20X-9062 to their village from Korivi, and
when they reached near petrol pump, Korivi Road, the auto driver
has driven the auto in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two
wheeler bearing No.AP-36S-3215 in opposite direction, due to which
the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was
shifted to hospital and he died while undergoing treatment on
01.09.2015.
ETD,J
MACMA No.751_2021
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments
of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age,
avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that
the driver of the auto does not possess valid driving license and that
they are not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the
following issues for trial:-
"1. Whether the deceased-Keloth China @ Srinu died on 31.08.2015
while shifting to hospital, due to the accident occurred near Petrol
Pump, Korivi Road, Mahabubabad caused by the driver of auto
bearing No.AP-20X-9062, driven in rash and negligent manner
and dashed the two wheeler?
2. Whether the claim petitioners are entitled for compensation? If
so, how much and from whom?
3. To what relief?
7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PW1 and
Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was
examined and Exs.B1 to B6 and C1 to C5 were marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.16,82,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the
present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.
ETD,J
MACMA No.751_2021
9. Heard the submissions of Sri Rama Krishna Mallojhala,
learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. None
appeared on behalf of the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there
were 12 passengers in the crime vehicle. The charge sheet also
reveals the said fact that 12 passengers were travelling in the auto at
the time of accident. He further argued that the driver of the auto did
not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and
that the policy is limited liability policy and the company cannot be
made liable to pay more than six passengers and that so far, this is
the only appeal preferred against the cases arising out of the said
accident. He further prayed to limit the liability of the company to a
maximum number of six passengers. He further argued that the
deceased is a mason and thus, his income cannot be taken to be
more than Rs.8,000/- per month. He therefore, prayed to reduce the
amount of compensation.
11. In view of the above contentions, the points that arise for
consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-
1. Whether the compensation granted by the tribunal is just and
reasonable?
2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any
interference ?
3. To what relief ?
ETD,J
MACMA No.751_2021
12. Point No.1:
a) The appellant/insurer is aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation and that the fact of overload in the auto at the time of
accident has to be considered.
b) A perusal of Ex.A2/charge sheet reveals that there were 11
passengers, apart from the driver in the auto. A perusal of Ex.B1
shows that it is the 'liability only policy' issued to the auto bearing
No.AP-20X-9062, a three wheeler for not exceeding six passengers.
Thus, the contention of the appellant counsel is that the liability of
the company should be limited to the maximum number of six
passengers. A perusal of Ex.B5 i.e., the R.C of the vehicle shows the
seating capacity of the auto to be "4" apart from the driver. However,
since the policy is limited to a total number of six people, the same
can be covered by the insurance company. [
c) In the present case, the deceased was a passenger in the
auto. PW1 has asserted the same, saying that she is the wife of the
deceased and she was also travelling along with her husband in the
auto. She stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,000/- per
month by doing mason work. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis,
the tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be
Rs.8,000/- per month, which appears to be justified.
ETD,J
MACMA No.751_2021
d) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1, 25% of the income needs to
be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged '40'
years, adding 25% towards future prospects i.e., 8,000+2000 would
give Rs.10,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.10,000/- x 12 =
Rs.1,20,000/- per annum.
e) The number of claimants herein are four and therefore, 1/4th
deduction need to be made to his income towards personal
expenses and this would come up to Rs.90,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- (-)
Rs.30,000/-).
f) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the
deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation 2, the deceased being aged '40' years,
the appropriate multiplier is '15'. Therefore, the loss of dependency
is assessed as Rs.13,50,000/- (Rs.90,000 x 15).
g) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss
of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/-
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
2009 (6) SCC 121
ETD,J
MACMA No.751_2021
towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said
amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.
h) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3, the Apex Court has elaborately
discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has
further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of
the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in
the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each, hence,
the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.1,93,600/-
instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards
funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be
awarded.
i) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation
amounts:-
1. Compensation under the head of loss of Rs.13,50,000/-
dependency
2. Compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.1,93,600/-
to the petitioner
3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
Total Rs.15,79,900/-
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.751_2021
j) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled
is calculated as Rs.15,79,900 /- while the Tribunal has granted
Rs.16,82,000/- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal has to be reduced.
Hence, Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. Point No.2:-
In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, the order and
decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the
compensation from Rs.16,82,000/- to 15,79,900/-.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.3:-
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order
and Decree dated 13.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.544 of 2016 passed by
the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special
Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities
Against Women-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam, by
reducing the compensation from Rs.16,82,000/- to 15,79,900/-, and
the compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of claim petition till realization. It is pertinent to mention in this
regard that the insurance company is liable to pay only to a
maximum extent of six claims arising out of this accident. No costs.
ETD,J
MACMA No.751_2021
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 12.09.2025
ds
