AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.218 of 2008 dt.14.09.2012.
The claimants in the OP are the parents of the deceased who died in the accident which occurred on 08.02.2007. The appellant is the insurance company of the vehicle van bearing No.AP-25-T-7461. The claimants had made a claim of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, whereas the Tribunal has granted Rs.2,74,000/- with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment or deposit of the said amount into Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, submits that the deceased was an unmarried woman of 27 years and though there was no proof of her earning an income of Rs.4,000/- per month as claimed by the claimants, the Tribunal erroneously adopted Rs.3,000/- per month as the income and further that instead of deducting half of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, the Tribunal has deducted only one-third of the same. He further submits that there was contributory negligence in the case and therefore the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company were both jointly and severally responsible for compensation and the Tribunal instead of directing the insurance company to initiate separate proceedings against the owner ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the claimants and recover from the owner of the vehicle. He therefore sought suitable directions from this Court by reducing the compensation.
Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants 1 and 2, Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, submits that the deceased is a woman who was working as a beedi roller and though the claimants had made a claim of Rs.4,000/- per month as the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has adopted only Rs.3,000/- which is very meagre. He fairly agreed that 50% amount should have been deducted towards the personal expenses and not one-third as directed by the Tribunal. He also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded funeral expenses, compensation towards loss of estate and filial consortium to the claimants. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others 2020 LawSuit(SC) 828, wherein it was held that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accidents, the Court should not take hyper-technical approach and must ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected persons or claimants. He further submits that since the deceased was only 27 years of age, though the actual multiplier to be applied is 17, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 11. He therefore sought enhancement of the compensation as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others (2020 LawSuit(SC) 828 supra) even though he has not filed any appeal against the award seeking enhancement of the compensation.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is seen that the deceased was an unmarried woman. The Tribunal has adopted only Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. Having regard to the social status of the deceased and she being aged 27 years, she cannot be expected to be sitting at home without earning any income. As observed by the Tribunal, the inquest report also recorded that the deceased was a beedi roller. In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal in adopting the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month.
Since the deceased is unmarried and is survived by parents, half of her income is to be treated as her personal and living expenses as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121.
As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mandala Yadagiri Goud (2019) 5 SCC 554, the age of the deceased should be taken and not the age of her parents for applying the appropriate multiplier and since the deceased was 27 years of age, as per Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ((2009) 6 SCC 121 supra), the multiplier to be used in this case is 17.
This Court deems it appropriate to further award Rs.30,000/-towards loss of estate and funeral expenses (Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000) with 10% increase as directed in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, Rs.33,000/- is directed to be added to the compensation payable as it was not awarded by the Tribunal.
The respondents 1 and 2 being parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others (2018) 18 SCC 130 with 10% increase after lapse of three years from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ((2017) 16 SCC 680 supra). Therefore, a sum of Rs.44,000/-to each of respondents 1 and 2 is also awarded as compensation.
Applying the Full Bench Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Adam Indur Muttemma and others Vs. Rathod Reddia and others 2015 (4) LD 585 (LB), the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation over and above the amount claimed subject to payment of Court fee, if any, on such enhanced compensation.
The grievance of the insurance company is that instead of directing the insurance company to initiate separate proceedings, the Tribunal should have given a direction to pay and recover. The Supreme Court in the case of Singh Ram Vs. Nirmala and others (2018) 3 SCC 800 has directed that the insurance company is responsible for making the payment and that it is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle for violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Respectfully following the same, the order of the Tribunal is modified directing the insurance company to make payment of the compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, if it so chooses.
As regards the contributory negligence, there is no evidence put forth by the insurance company and hence this argument is rejected.
In the light of the abovementioned discussion, the claimants/ respondents 1 and 2 herein are entitled to the following amounts:
Head
Compensation awarded
(1)Income
Rs.3,000 per month
(2)Deduction towards personal Expenses
Rs.1,500 i.e. 1/2 of Rs.3,000
(3)Total income
Rs.1,500
(4)Multiplier
17
(5)Loss of future income
Rs.3,06,000 (Rs.1,500x12x17)
(6)Funeral expenses
Rs.16,500 (15,000 + 10% thereof)
(7)Loss of estate
Rs.16,500 (15,000 + 10% thereof)
(8)Loss of filial consortium
Rs.88,000 (40,000 + 10% thereof each payable to claimants 1 and 2)
Total compensation awarded
Rs.4,27,000 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.
In the result, the award dt.14.09.2008 in O.P.No.218 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial is modified by awarding a total compensation of Rs.4,27,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and twenty seven thousand only) with costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. As the compensation payable to the claimants as per law was found to be higher than the original claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- is granted subject to payment of Court fee on such enhanced compensation by the claimants. The amount of compensation awarded shall be apportioned between claimants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein equally. The appellant (insurance) is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and thereafter the insurance company shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their shares of compensation amount.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly partly allowed without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this MACMA shall stand closed.