THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
MACMA No. 2264 OF 2013 AND MACMA No. 282 OF 2014
DATED: 21-01-2014 Between:
The Regional Office, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., situated at Surya Towers, Paradise Circle, Secunderabad and another … Appellants And T. Vijaya Laxmi and five others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
MACMA No. 2264 OF 2013 AND MACMA No. 282 OF 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta)
As both the appeals arise out of the common Award, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
M.A.C.M.A No. 2264 of 2013 is preferred by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 06-09-2010 passed in M.V.O.P No.516 of 2007 by the learned XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, whereas M.A.C.M.A.(SR) No. 48173 of 2013 is preferred by the claimants against the very same Award questioning the inadequacy of compensation.
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming a compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased T. Manik Reddy. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children and claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased T. Manik Reddy. It has been averred in the claim petition that on 04-05-2006 claimant Nos.1, 2 and 4 along with the deceased and the sister of claimant No.1 left to Tirupathi in a Maruthi Zen Car bearing No. AP 23G 9198 driven by Manik Reddy. The friends of Manik Reddy by names Mahender Reddy, Venkatram Reddy and Babu Goud also went along with the family of Manik Reddy in a Qualis vehicle on the same day. After having darshan while returning from Tirupathi to Hyderabad on 10-05-2006 at about 2.00 AM, when the car reached Sakalamandi Village outskirts near Jadcherla, Manabubnagar Drisctict, lorry bearing No. AP 4 T 5000 proceeding from Hyderabad to Kurnool being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner collided with the Maruthi Zen Car in which the family of Manik Reddy was travelling, due to which, Manik Reddy sustained severe injuries and died on the way to hospital at about 2.30 AM on 10/11/05-2006.
Police of Addakal Police Station, Mahabubnagar District registered a case in Crime No. 30 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the offending lorry.
According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident and was doing transport and real estate business and also having agricultural income. He was an income tax assessee with earnings of Rs.60,000/- per month by the date of accident. The driver, owner of the lorry and its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed by them.
Before the Tribunal, the owner and the driver of the lorry remained ex parte. The Insurance Company filed its counter denying the material allegations averred in the petition. The age, income and occupation of the deceased was denied. It was contended that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry but due to the negligent driving of the deceased and that both the drivers i.e., the driver of the lorry and the deceased were not having valid driving licences. It was also contended that the petition is not maintainable since the owner and insurer of the Maruthi Zen Car were not made as parties to the petition.
On the strength of the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased died in the accident on 10/11-05-2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 4 T 5000?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, from whom?
3. To what relief?
In order to prove their claim, the claimants examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the Insurance Company, none were examined but copy of insurance policy was got marked as Ex.B-1.
The Tribunal after going through the evidence and the material available on record held on issue No.1 that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 proved that the deceased died in the accident on 11-05-2006 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Then proceeding to assess the compensation, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,96,320/- and accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount together with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.
The learned counsel for the claimants contends that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. The Tribunal has also granted less amount towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. He further contends that the Tribunal has taken the contribution of the deceased to the family at lower side.
The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that since the deceased was doing business, the same can be continued by the other family members, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation towards the loss of earnings of the deceased and they can only claim supervisory charges. He further contended that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation towards the future prospects of the deceased because the deceased was working in supervisory capacity.
Admittedly the Tribunal thoroughly considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the accident in this case occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. This Court having due regard to the evidence brought on record does not find any valid and legitimate reason to interfere with the same. Further, it seems from the Award that except making an averment that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, no legitimate attempt was made to prove the same.
In view of the fact that the Insurance Company has not lead any evidence to show that the business of the deceased was not closed, it cannot be held that the deceased was working in supervisory capacity only and, therefore, claimants are not entitled to compensation towards the loss of earnings and future prospects.
As regards the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was dealing in several businesses such as supply of construction material to various construction firms and builders; that he was also doing real estate business and other allied businesses and was having a monthly income of Rs.60,000/- after deductions. The deceased was stated to be an income tax assessee and copy of his income tax returns filed for the assessment year 2005- 2006 was marked as Ex.A-7. Since the claimants have not filed any documentary proof to show that the deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per month, based on Ex.A-7 we consider it appropriate to take the income of the deceased to be Rs.1,67,820/- per annum.
Since no amount of compensation was awarded by the Tribunal towards the future prospects of the deceased, following the judgment
[1]
of the Supreme Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh , 30% has to be added towards future prospects i.e., Rs.50,346/- giving a total of Rs.2,18,166/- per annum. Since there are five dependants, one-fourth is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses, then contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.1,63,624.50/-. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
[2]
Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , as the
deceased was 45 years of age as on the date of accident, therefore multiplier of ‘14’ would be applicable in the present case and hence, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.22,90,743/-. Added to the aforesaid amount, Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of consortium to the husband, another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the children and also a sum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral and transportation charges. Thus, the appellants – claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.25,15,743/-.
In the result, M.A.C.M.A No. 2264 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, whereas M.A.C.M.A (SR) No. 48173 of 2013 filed by the claimants is allowed awarding a sum of Rs.25,15,743/- as compensation together with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Out of the said amount of compensation, claimant No.1 who is the wife of the deceased is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-; claimant Nos.2 to 4 who are the children of the deceased are held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- each and claimant No.5 who is the mother of the deceased is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.3,15,743/-. The share of the minor children shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. Claimant No.1 is entitled to withdraw the annual interest accrued on the aforesaid amounts to meet the expenses of the minor children.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending consideration shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 21st January, 2014 ks
[1] 2013 ACJ 1403
[2] III (2009) ACC 708 (SC)