THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI MACMA.NO.478 OF 2009 DT.24.06.2010 Between:
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Hyderabad Vs.
B.Kautlamma and four others.
… Petitioner … Respondents.
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the award, dated 17.06.2008 in O.P.No.74 of 2007 on the file of XXI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereunder a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’).
The appellant/Insurance Company obtained permission in I.A.No.335 of 2008 under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and contested the matter on merits before the Tribunal.
On 30.11.2006, one Boya Urkundu (deceased) was travelling in an auto of the first respondent bearing No.AP 22 V 5235. On account of the rash and negligent driving, the vehicle fell in a ditch and overturned. The deceased, on account of the said incident, sustained injuries and died in the hospital. The first claimant being the wife, claimants 2 and 3 being the children and claimants 4 and 5 being the parents of the deceased filed claim petition and claimed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. The first claimant examined herself as PW-1 and examined one Bheemanna as PW-2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. The appellant-Insurance Company marked Ex.B- 1 policy but did not examine any witness.
After framing relevant issues, the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence placed before it, recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto and awarded compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In this appeal the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company confined the challenge only to the extent of quantum of compensation. He would submit that the compensation awarded is excessive. He would further urge that the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- only, whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,50,000/-, which is in excess of Rs.50,000/-. He would further contend that the amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses is excessive.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants would submit that the claimants sought for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and denied the contention that the claim was only for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. He would further contend that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference.
Since the issue relating to rash and negligence is not pursued in this appeal, the said aspect need not be adverted to.
In order to ascertain the fact whether the claim was for Rs.4,50,000/- or Rs.4,00,000/-, I perused the original record. In the original claim petition, as presented to the Tribunal, the claim was made for Rs.4,50,000/-. In order to cross check, whether this amount was originally sought for, since there was a correction, the court fee paid there of by way of pay slip in original has been verified. The pay slip in original was obtained by Sri Satish Kumar Reddy, Advocate, for a sum of Rs.3860/- and the receipt is duly stamped by the State Bank of Hyderabad, City Civil Court Branch, Hyderabad. The court fee was also verified and an endorsement is made by the Receiving Section of the Court of Chief Judge, on 22.12.2006, on which date the claim petition was also filed. While passing the award, the Tribunal also noted that the claim was made for Rs.4,50,000/-. It is therefore manifest that the compensation was sought for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, but not Rs.4,00,000/- as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.
It is in the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and was aged about 28 years. He was working as Labourer and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. All the claimants are dependants of the deceased. There is nothing on record to dis-believe the version of PW-1. Even otherwise, the income at Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.100/- per day) cannot be said to be un-reasonable. The Tribunal therefore rightly took into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd from out of the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, pecuniary loss was calculated on the basis of his contribution at Rs.24,000/- per annum by applying multiplier ‘18’. The compensation so awarded cannot be said to be excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant did not question the award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred at Bahadurguda village and the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and later he was shifted to his native place, the award of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses cannot be said to be excessive. On a consideration of the entire material on record, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is excessive or unreasonable.
For the reasons stated above, there are no merits in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
NOUSHAD ALI J., Dt.24.06.2010 tjs