Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs A Padma 5 Others on 14 June, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3571 of 2014 and 994 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.3571 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.994 of 2015 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very same order and decree, dated 26.06.2013 passed in O.P.No.426 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one A. Jangaiah (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in an accident. It is stated that on 24.11.2010, while the deceased was proceeding from Jadcharla to Vangoor on DCM Van bearing No.AP 29 TQ 2 GSD, J Macma_3571_2014 and 994_2015 2054 and when the said Van reached near Boenpally Shivar, Midjil Mandal, one Lorry bearing No.AP 21 TT 18 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the DCM Van, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. On a complaint a case in Crime No.161 of 2010 has been registered against the driver of the Lorry. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry, the claimants filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the aforesaid auto, respectively.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed counter denying all the averments in the claim-petition including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further stated that the Lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and since the driver of the lorry was having valid driving licence at the time of accident, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation, if any, awarded by the Tribunal.
3
GSD, J Macma_3571_2014 and 994_2015
5. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments in the claim-petition including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 24/25-11-2010 was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.AP 21 TT 18 and whether the deceased A.Jangaiah died due to the said accident?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what quantum and whether crime vehicle was owned by first respondent and insured with second respondent and what is the liability of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 4
GSD, J Macma_3571_2014 and 994_2015
8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.7,76,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present Appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants respectively.
9. Heard and perused the record.
10. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the claimants is that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 the claimants are entitled future prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while driving the D.C.M. van and that the deceased 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 GSD, J Macma_3571_2014 and 994_2015 was not having valid driving licence to drive the DCM Van, as such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further submitted that the issue with regard to the future prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (1 supra) and as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 40% amount towards future prospects.
12. A perusal of the entire record, the Insurance Company has appointed an investigator and he filed report under Ex.B2. According to the Investigating Report, the investigator enquired the owner of the D.C.M. Van and came to know that the owner of the vehicle is not having documents of the vehicle and driving licence copy of the deceased. Except relying upon Ex.B2- Investigators report, the insurance company has not examined the owner of the vehicle or R.T.A. authorities or even the Investigator before the Tribunal to prove the fact that the deceased was not having any driving licence. Apart from this, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that according to the F.I.R. there was a head on collision of both the vehicles however, the learned Tribunal 6 GSD, J Macma_3571_2014 and 994_2015 has not taken into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the DCM Van (deceased). The Insurance Company has not filed the rough sketch of the spot where the accident had occurred and not examined any witness to show that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the DCM Van (deceased) in causing the accident and even the Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the offending vehicle also. In the absence of any evidence and basing on the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving the D.C.M. Van at the time of accident and accordingly, fastened the liability against the insurance company of the Lorry. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry.
13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order would show that after considering the evidence of P.W.3 the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Apart 7 GSD, J Macma_3571_2014 and 994_2015 from the same, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are five in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.5,250/- per month. As per Ex.A6 the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Adopting multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,250/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.11,48,000/-.
14. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 8 GSD, J Macma_3571_2014 and 994_2015 Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
15. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
16. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always 3 (2011) 10 SCC 756 4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 9 GSD, J Macma_3571_2014 and 994_2015 endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
17. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.3571 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.994 of 2015 filed by the claimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,76,000/- to Rs.11,48,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 14.06.2022 gkv