National Insurance Company vs Ponna Jayamma and Others

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.—Challenging the award dated 05-04-2004 in M.V.O.P. No. 400 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, ''the Tribunal''), as excessive and arbitrary, the National Insurance Company Limited preferred the instant M.A.C.M.A. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) Respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal are claimants before the Tribunal. The 5th respondent herein is the 1st respondent in the O.P. Claimants 1 and 2 are the wives, claimant No. 3 is the minor daughter and claimant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased-Ranga Reddy. They are residents of Pothireddypalli Village, Sangareddy Mandal. Their case is that the deceased was aged 45 years and was the Ex President, Mandal Praja Parishat, Sangareddy. He was doing contract works and also doing wine business. He used to earn Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and contributing to the claimants. Their further case is that on 29-08-2001, while the deceased was returning from Hyderabad to his village in his Maruti car, bearing No. AP 23 C 8686 and on the way when he reached near Kandi Village about 2.15 p.m. a Tata van bearing No. KA 382355 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed the car of the deceased and fled O.P. No. 400 of 2002 against respondents 1 and 2, who a own and insurer of the offending vehicle, and claimed Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation under different heads.

b) Respondents 1 and 2 filed counters and opposed the claim on different grounds.

c) During trial, P.W. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A30 were marked on behalf of claimants. Policy copy filed by 2nd respondent was marked as Ex. B1.

d) Award of the Tribunal shows that considering the eyewitness account of P.W. 2 coupled with the documentary evidence such as Ex. A.1 - F.I.R, Ex. A2 - charge sheet, Ex. A.4 - scene of offence panchanama and Ex. A5 M.V.I. Report, the Tribunal held that the van driver was at fault.

e) Then, regarding compensation, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,33,000/- under different heads as follows:

Hence, the appeal by the 2 respondent - Insurance Company.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. No representation on behalf of 5th respondent.

Learned counsel for appellant has, while challenging the quantum of compensation as high side, firstly argued that the Tribunal grossly erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- without there being a cogent evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was only a politician and he was not doing either contract works or wine business by the date of his accident. The documents filed by the claimants showing his doing contract works relate to the period long prior to his death and hence those documents cannot be taken as basis for fixing his income. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased being a politician, there was no fixed income for him. Despite all these, the Tribunal committed gross error in fixing his monthly income as Rs. 5,000/- and thereby granted a high amount towards loss of estate which needs to be reconsidered. Secondly, learned counsel argued that the interest at 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and same needs to be reduced. He thus prayed for allowing the appeal.

Per contra, defending the award of Tribunal, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 argued that the deceased used to earn income by different avocations i.e., by doing contract works, agriculture and also wine business. Besides he officiated as President, Mandal Praja Parishad, Sangareddy during the year 1994 and served as such. Hence considering his different sources of income, the Tribunal has rightly fixed his monthly income as Rs. 5,000/- which is a modest one by all means and hence the same need not be doubted merely because the claimants could not produce the documents relating to the contract works performed by the deceased during the relevant period. Learned counsel submitted that Ex. A.28- pattadar pass book alone would show that the deceased was having agricultural lands and he could earn agricultural income of more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. Secondly, learned counsel while citing the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain and Another Vs. Irfan Ahammed and Another, argued that Hon''ble Apex Court has held that granting of interest at 9% per annum is admissible in view of the fact that the nationalized banks are granting interest at that rate.

In view of the above arguments, now the point for determination is:

Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant?

POINT: The first argument of appellant is concerned, a perusal of exhibits produced by the claimants would show that the deceased used to have variety of occupations. Ex. A.27- certificate issued by Chief Engineer, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad dated 07.12.1990 would show that the deceased was registered as Class-II (Civil) Contractor qualified to tender for works costing Rs. 10,00,000/- - Rs. 30,00,000/-. Then Exs. A.11, A.12, A.21, A.24 would show the different work orders issued by the Engineering Department to the deceased for executing the different works. It is true that these work orders relate to the period 1992-1994 i.e., long prior to the death of deceased. However, they depict the variety of works executed by the deceased. Then Exs. A.13 to A.20 would show that the deceased was also involved in wine business. Then Ex. A.28- pattadar pass book shows that the deceased owned agricultural lands in Sangareddy Mandal. Above all, Ex. A.23- certificate dated 18.03.1995 issued by Election Officer, Mandal Parishad, Sangareddy would show that the deceased was elected as President of Mandal Praja Parishad on 18.03.1995. In view of all the above, the Tribunal rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- and I see no irregularity or illegality in it. Hence, the first argument raised by the learned counsel for appellant cannot be countenanced.

Then the second argument of appellant is concerned, the Tribunal granted interest at 9% per annum from the date of O.P, till the date of realization. In the above cited decision, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that the claimant is entitled to interest at 9% per annum since nationalized banks were then granting interest at that rate. In view of the same, the Tribunal''s granting interest at 9% per annum cannot be said to be excessive. Hence, I find no merits in the appeal.

In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the judgment dated 05.04.2004 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No. 400 of 2002. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.