Telangana High Court
United India Ins Co Ltd, Hyderabad vs Smt.K.Muthyalamma, Hyderabad 6 Others on 31 October, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.191 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award dated 07.07.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.1059 of 2012, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein seeking compensation was allowed, awarding the compensation of Rs.22,26,600/- as against the claimed amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Perused the material on record.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased K. Amarnath Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.05.2012 at about 10:30 AM near Gandhi statue. Claimant No.1 is the mother, claimant Nos.2 to 5 are the sisters and claimant No.6 is the mother of the deceased. 2 According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased along with his friend was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No. AP 30 H 6820 from Samskruti College of Engineering and Technology towards Uppal and on his reaching near Gandhi statue, a lorry bearing No.AP 16 TT 3322, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle from behind, as a result of which the deceased fell from the motorcycle and received grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Matrix Hospital, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the same on the next day. On a complaint, Police, Uppal registered a case against the driver of the lorry in Cr. No.19 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and was altered to Section 304-A IPC. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 20 years and was studying First Year B.Tech., and he was having bright future and due to untimely death of the deceased in the accident, the claimants are put to lot of sufferance.
4. Respondent No.1-owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant-insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 3
5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants were entitled for a total compensation of Rs.22,26,600/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurer would contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-. For estimating the loss of dependency, the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/5th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses instead of one-half (50%), as the deceased was unmarried. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding the excess amounts towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. In support of his contentions and submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of this Court in the case of B. JAISOORYA AND OTHERS v. D. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND ANOTHER1.
1 2014 LawSuit (Hyd) 655 4
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 - claimants would contend that there is no error in the award passed by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the appellant - insurer is liable to pay the compensation so awarded. In order to substantiate their case, learned counsel for the respondents relying on the following decisions:
1. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Senthilkumar, (Madras) (DB)2.
2. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co.Ltd., Hyderabad v. Meka Pavan Kumar and another3.
3. B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore and another4.
4. United India Insurance Company Limited; Venkateswara College of Engineering v. Venkateswara College of Engineering; Vel Tech College of Engineering; United India Insurance Company Limited5.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for determination:
(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month who is a I-Year B.Tech., student?2
2021(1)T.N.M.A.C.805:2022 ACJ 418 3 2020(5) ALD 50 (AP) 4 2009 (6) ALD 684 (DB) 5 2018 LawSuit(Mad)1549 5
(ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/5th of income towards the personal expenses instead of 50% of the deceased?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.22,26,600/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum is just and proper?
9. The appellant has not disputed the accident that occurred on 03.05.2012 at about 10:30 AM while the deceased K. Amarnath Reddy along with his friend was proceeding on a motorcycle, a lorry bearing No. AP 16TT 3322 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from behind, as a result the deceased was shifted to the hospital and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. There is no dispute that the Tribunal has fixed the liability on appellant along with owner of the lorry jointly and severally to pay the compensation to the claimants.
10. Coming to the first question, it is apparent from the record that at the time of accident, the deceased K. Amarnath Reddy was prosecuting I-Year B.Tech., course. The Tribunal has fixed the income of Rs.12,000/- per month and computed the loss of 6 dependency. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the Judgment of this court in B. Jaisoorya's case (1 supra) and held that the income of the deceased would have been fixed at Rs.8,750/- per month. In the said case, the deceased was aged 21 years and studying final year Engineering.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied on Ramulamma's case (4 supra) wherein it is held that the income of an Engineering Graduate i.e., B.Tech., cannot be fixed less than Rs.12,000/- per month. In Bharti Axa General Insurance Company's case (3 supra) the claimant/injured was I- Year Engineering Student and the notional income of the claimant/injured was fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month. Similarly, in M/s. Reliance General Insurance's case (2 supra) the notional income of the deceased, who was a Engineering student, was fixed at Rs.18,000/- per month and awarded compensation. In another decision in United India Insurance Company's case (5 supra), the notional income of the deceased, who was a student pursuing III-Year Engineering Degree course, was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per month and compensation was awarded.
7
12. In view of the salary being earned by the Engineers, there cannot be any doubt to say that the deceased would have earned minimum Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. In this case, the deceased was pursuing I-Year B.Tech., course and nobody can say definitely how much he would have earned after completion of his Graduation course. But it would be more rational and reasonable to say that the deceased would have got some employment and earned, having acquired the technical qualification.
13. The main contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month and the same is on higher side. However, a perusal of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the claimants, the contention of the appellant appeared attractive. However, on reconsideration of the material on record, it is found that the deceased was a youngster aged '19' years, at the time of the accident and he was pursuing I-Year B.Tech., course. Therefore, while agreeing to the finding recorded by the Tribunal in 8 considering the possible earnings of the deceased on a notional scale of Rs.12,000/- per month, in my consideration opinion, it warrants interference.
14. So far as the second question is concerned, the deceased was a Bachelor. Out of the notional income of Rs.12,000/- computed by Tribunal one-half (50%) has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Even assuming the deceased got employment soon after completing the B.Tech., Engineering Degree course. If the same is deducted it comes to Rs.6,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x 50%), which may be contribution of the deceased to his family. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS6, 40% has to be added towards future prospects. If the same is applied, a sum of Rs.2,400/- (Rs.6,000/- x 40% ) has to be added to arrive at the notional income of the deceased i.e., Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + 2,400/-). By applying the multiplier '18', the total loss of earnings to the claimants due to the death of the deceased can be determined at Rs.18,14,400/- 6 2017 ACJ 2700 9 (Rs.8,400/- x 12 x 18). Thus, the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.18,14,400/- towards loss of dependency.
15. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is hereby set aside. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI's case, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses on conventional heads are, accordingly, awarded. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM7', I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- to each of the brother and sisters-claimant Nos.2 to 6 of the deceased towards filial consortium.
16. In the light of the afore mentioned discussion, coming to point No.3, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.20,84,400/- (Rs.18,14,400/- + 70,000/- + 2,00,000/-) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified, accordingly, 7 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 10
17. In the result, appeal is allowed-in-part. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 31.10.2022 Yvk