AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for insurance company and learned counsel Sri V.Atchuta Ram for the claimants.
M.A.C.M.A.No.4758 of 2008 is an appeal by the insurance company and M.A.C.M.A.No.675 of 2017 is an appeal by the claimants. Considering the fact that the two appeals arises out of the same award dated 24.07.2008 between the same parties, we have decided to take up the two appeals together and decide the same by this common judgment.
The facts leading to filing of these two Appeals are that, MVOP No.687 of 2007 was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the wife, children and mother of the deceased-Emmadi Ramesh Reddy, claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle fatal accident. That on 05.01.2007 at about 1.00 p.m., while the deceased was standing on the left side of the road at Bachannapet, a lorry bearing registration No.ABK-466, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, as a result, he sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Jangaon, where he expired.
According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of accident and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month by doing transport business and agriculture and contributing his earnings to the claimants.
The respondent no.1 owner of the crime vehicle filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the crime vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent-insurance company and as such, the 1st respondent stands indemnified.
The respondent no.2-insurance company filed counter, denying the allegations made in the claim petition and also denied the manner of occurrence of accident, the age, the income of the deceased and thus disputed the claim of claimants.
On the basis of the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues:
i) Whether Sri Emmadi Ramesh Reddy died in the accident on 05.01.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.ABK-466 ?
ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, against whom ?
iii) To what relief ?
In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, no witness was examined, but copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
The Tribunal, on conclusion of the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties, vide impugned award, held that the claimants to be entitled for compensation of Rs.11,40,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization, payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
The primary ground of challenge by the insurance company in MACMA No.4758 of 2008 was firstly, so far as doubting the accident itself, in which the deceased died and secondly, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
MACMA No.675 of 2017 is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation. The primary ground seeking for enhancement of compensation was that the Tribunal had not awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimants and secondly, the Tribunal had erred in not awarding prospects of the deceased so also the consortium to the claimants. During the hearing of appeal, learned counsel for claimants submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-, so also in deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/4th as the dependents in the present appeal are four in number. He further submitted that Tribunal erred in applying multiplier ‘15’, instead of ‘16’ as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma.
As regards the contention of the appellant-insurance company in MACMA No.4758 of 2008 is concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel for insurance company that from the perusal of the pleadings and evidence, which has come on record, there appears to be many missing links to establish and prove that the deceased-E.Ramesh Reddy died of an accident. It was the contention of the insurance company that there is no material made available before the Tribunal so as to establish that the deceased had died on account of injuries suffered from a road accident. Further, there was also no medical documents available with the claimant to establish that the deceased was immediately hospitalized or taken to a hospital and in the course of treatment, he had succumbed.
Coming to the first ground raised by the insurance company i.e., doubting the accident that occurred on 05.01.2007, we find that the insurance company has failed to discharge its obligations so far as proving the contentions raised by it by placing cogent, substantial material and evidence in support of its contention. The insurance company, except filing Ex.B1-insurance policy, did not choose to examine any oral evidence to support their contention.
PW.2-Subari Kishan, who has been examined as an eye witness, in his chief-examination has categorically stated that he noticed the accident, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drive of the crime vehicle. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony.
In the absence of any material on the part of insurance company, it is difficult to accept the contention of doubting the accident and the accidental death of the deceased said to have taken place on 05.01.2007. The said ground raised by the appellant-insurance company thus stands answered in the negative.
Coming to the appeal in MACMA No.675 of 2017 filed by the claimants, on perusal of the entire award, we find that the Tribunal had erred in not awarding of 40% of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects in view of the decision of Hon’ble National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680.
In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph-59.4 had held as under:
“59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”
In view of the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that since the age of the deceased was 32 years as on the date of the accident, an addition of 40% of the income of the deceased be added towards his future prospects.
In so far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for claimants that deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the Tribunal had considered Exs.A8 to A10, and taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month, which is just and proper.
Since the dependents of the deceased are four in number, one-fourth of the income towards personal and living expenses is to be deducted as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 at paragraph-30, instead 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal.
With regard to the multiplier, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier is ‘16’ for the age groups of 31 to 35. In the instant appeal, as the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 32 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘16’, instead of ‘15’ as applied by the Tribunal.
With regard to the award of consortium, the Hon’ble Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 2023(1) ALD 107(SC) decided on 06.12.2022, taking into consideration the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Sarala Verma (supra), as also in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. The said enhancement and revision has been done taking into consideration, rise in the cost of expenses and cost of living that has arisen during the intervening period from the date of decisions of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself in its Constitutional Bench decision had said that there shall be 10% hike on the compensation awarded under general damages every three years.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for claimants/appellant deserves to be allowed to the above extent. We are of the considered opinion that the claimants are also entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.
Conclusion:
In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No.
Head
Compensation awarded
1
Loss of dependency
Rs.19,20,000/- [Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 16)
minus one-fourth i.e.,Rs.4,80,000/-, which comes to Rs.14,40,000/-.
2
Future prospects
Rs.5,76,000/- (i.e., 40% of annual income i.e., Rs.14,40,000/-)
3
Total loss of dependency
Rs.20,16,000/-
(Rs.14,40,000/- + Rs.5,76,000/-)
4
Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- x 4)
Rs. 1,76,000/-
5
Funeral expenses
Rs. 16,500/-
6
Loss of estate
Rs. 16,500/-
Total compensation to be paid :
Rs.22,25,000/-
The total compensation, which becomes payable to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.11,40,000/- to Rs.22,25,000/-. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till the date of the actual payment. The insurance company is directed to ensure that the entire amount of compensation is deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount if any already paid by the insurance company. The ratio of apportionment of amounts among the appellants/claimants and the permission to withdrawal shall be the same in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.
In the result, MACMA No.4758 of 2008 stands dismissed and MACMA No.675 of 2017 stands allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.