Telangana High Court

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs P. Bala Krishnamma on 15 September, 2025

                                  1


      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                     M.A.C.M.A.NO.366 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 08.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.770 of 2018

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

XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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

14.08.2018 at about 00:30 hours, the deceased and other

passengers were going in an auto bearing No.AP-28-V-1433 from

Izzath Nagar towards Sriram Nagar and when they reached near

Aparna Towers, Madhapur, the driver of the auto did not notice a

Lorry bearing No.AP-31-X-4127 which was stationed in the middle of

the road during the night time and thus, dashed against it, as a result

the inmates of the auto sustained injuries and the deceased died on

the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte.

ETD,J MACMA No.366_2021

5. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments

of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age,

avocation and income of the decease. It is further contended that the

driver of the auto did not possess valid driving license as on the date

of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any

compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues for consideration:-

1. "Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom?

3. To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs.1 and 2

and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

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

compensation of Rs.21,94,960/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present

appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned

counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the

respondents.

ETD,J MACMA No.366_2021

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW2 has

deposed that the auto driver could not observe the lorry as no

precautions were observed by the lorry in parking it. No CDF is

marked in this case to elicit the contributory negligence of the auto.

He further argued that PW2 has clearly stated that the auto driver

has dashed against the lorry without observing it. He further argued

that no proof of earnings was filed by the petitioners and therefore,

notional income of Rs.4,500/- ought to have taken by the tribunal,

but the tribunal has awarded huge compensation. He further argued

that the petitioners stated that the deceased was working as a

painter, but no evidence is adduced in this regard. It is also pleaded

by the petitioners that the deceased was divorced and he has to be

treated as a bachelor and thus, 50% deduction has to be made in his

earnings. He further argued that the tribunal went wrong in awarding

compensation under the heads of love and affection also apart from

the compensation under loss of consortium. He therefore, prayed

that the admission of PW2 itself proves the contributory negligence

on part of the auto driver and thus, prayed this Court to attribute 50%

of the contributory negligence on the driver of the auto.

11. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for

consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

ETD,J MACMA No.366_2021

1. Whether the driver of the auto was rash and negligent in driving the auto bearing No.AP-28-V1433, contributing to the occurrence of the accident?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the tribunal is just and reasonable?

3. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference ?

4. To what relief ?

13. Point No.1:-

a) A perusal of the FIR under Ex.A1 and the charge sheet under

Ex.A2 reveals that the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-31-X-4127

is the accused.

b) The recitals of the charge sheet further reveal that the

deceased along with his relatives were returning from a function by

an auto bearing No.AP-28-V-1433 and when they reached in front of

the Plot No.43, JRR Residency, near Aparna Towers, the Lorry

bearing No.AP-31-X-4127 was parked on the main road in a

negligent manner by its driver without taking any precautions and

indicators due to which the driver of the auto dashed against the said

container lorry from behind, resulting in the accident and the death of

the deceased. PW2 was examined as an eye witness, he is the

driver of the auto and that when they reached Aparna Towers,

Madhapur, the lorry was parked in the middle of the road without

observing any precautions and without any indicators in a dark

place, due to which he could not visualize the same as it was dark

and dashed against the lorry.

ETD,J MACMA No.366_2021

c) In his cross examination, it is elicited that the accident spot

was dark and there were no street lights at the accident spot and it

was lightly drizzling and that he was at the speed of 30 to 50 kms per

hour. It is further elicited that there was no divider at the scene of

offence and that the lorry was stationed in the middle of the road

without switching on the indicators

d) PW2 is listed as LW7/Dara Raju the eye witness and injured

and he is the auto driver. Thus, the evidence of PW2 as discussed

supra coupled with Ex.A1 and A2 reveals that the lorry was parked in

the middle of the road without observing any precautions and without

switching on the indicator lights. Hence, the auto driver could not see

the lorry and thus, dashed against it. Therefore, it is held that the

accident occurred only due to the negligent parking of the Lorry

bearing No.AP-31-X-4127 and that there was no negligence on part

of the auto driver.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

a) The petitioners asserted that the deceased is a painter.

b) The appellants counsel has argued that there is no proof filed

in this regard. Admittedly, there is no proof filed with regard to the

earnings of the deceased, but PW1 who is the father of the

deceased has asserted that his son used to work as a painter under ETD,J MACMA No.366_2021

various builders and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. No other

witness is examined in this regard.

c) The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be

Rs.11,300/- by relying upon the wages of contract labour.

d) In Jeyarani & Another Vs. The Manager Bajaj Allianz

General; 1 the Apex Court has held that, in case of a mason, no

documentary evidence can be expected. However, taking into

consideration the avocation of the deceased and the year of the

accident being 2013, the monthly income of the deceased could be

reckoned at Rs.9,000/- and has also added future prospects. In the

present case the deceased is a painter as per the contention of the

petitioner. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, his income is

assessed to be Rs.9,000/- per month.

e) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 40% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 32

years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 9,000+3,600 would

give Rs.12,600/- per month, which comes to Rs.12,600/- x 12 =

Rs.1,51,200/- per annum.

Civil Appeal Nos.4310-4311 of 2023

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.366_2021

f) The number of claimants herein are two and therefore, 1/3rd

deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.1,51,200/- (-)

Rs.50,400/-).

g) 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 v.

Delhi Transport Corporation 3. The deceased being aged 32 years,

the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '16'. Therefore, the loss of

dependency is calculated as Rs.16,12,800/- (1,00800 x 16).

h) 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/-

towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said

amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.

i) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 4, 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 towards

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.366_2021

loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this

head would be Rs.96,800/- 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.

j) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation

amounts:

1. Compensation under the head of loss Rs.16,12,800/-

of dependency

2. Compensation towards loss of Rs.96,800/-

consortium

3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-

4. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-

expenses Total Rs.17,45,900/-

k) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled

is calculated as Rs.17,45,900 /- while the Tribunal has granted

Rs.21,94,960/- which is found to be excessive. Hence, it is held that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced.

Hence, Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 & 2, the order

and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the

compensation from Rs.21,94,960/- to 17,45,900/-.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.366_2021

15. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order

and Decree dated 08.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.770 of 2018 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVII Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, by reducing the

compensation from Rs.21,94,960/- to that of Rs.17,45,900/-, and the

compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of

delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant-Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said

amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective

shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs.