AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The M.A.C.M.A.No.1263 of 2012 has been preferred by the claim petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation and the M.A.C.M.A.No. 3115 of 2012 has been filed by the respondent No.3/insurer disputing the liability and the quantum granted in the decree and order dated 22.11.2011 in M.V.O.P.No. 786 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
We have heard Mr. N.Chandra Shekhar Reddy and Mr. A. Ramalingeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer.
For the facility, the parties are referred to with their rank in the claim petition.
The petitioners’ case in brief is that on 02.06.2004 while N.V.Suresh Babu/deceased/first petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. AP16S 7248 (hereinafter ‘the motorcycle’) and when he reached bypass road in Uyyuru, a tipper lorry bearing registration No. AP-16W 8399 (hereinafter ‘the lorry’) came in rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle and caused severe injuries all over his body. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Uyyuru from there to Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada and Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. However could not recover and while undergoing treatment as outpatient died on 03.05.2006.
Though the first petitioner initially filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries, after the death the legal representatives of the deceased/petitioners 1 to 3 came on to record and got amended the petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,09,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.
The tribunal in enquiry got examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs:A-1 to A-35 including Exs:A-28A to A-28Y and Exs:X-1 to X-3. On behalf of the insurer RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs:B-1 to B-4 were marked. The tribunal on considering the materials partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.47,22,524/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization with proportionate costs. However as the driver of the lorry had no valid driving license at relevant time restricted the liability to the owner/insured/respondent No.1, nonetheless directed the respondent No.3/insurer to pay the awarded compensation in the first instance and to recover the same from the insured by filing execution petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in appeal would submit that the tribunal without considering the proviso of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) which is prescribing that notwithstanding the expiry date of driving license it shall be continued to be effective for a period of 30 days restricted the liability. Even as per the admitted case, the accident was within 30 days from the date of expiry of the driving license of the driver of the lorry, hence the tribunal should have been held that the driver had valid and effective driving licence by the date of the accident. Further the transportation charges for air ambulance/Ex.A-14 and the medical bills/Exs:A-28A to A-29V though accepted, the tribunal unreasonably declined to grant that amount, on the ground of essentiality certificate. The tribunal ignored future prospects and standard heads in assessment of compensation. Thus prayed for reassessment and to grant just compensation.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer would contend that the petitioners failed to prove the nexus between the death and the injuries caused in the accident and the death. Thus, the tribunal erred in considering the claim of the petitioners as in the case of death. The tribunal having held that the driver was not holding an effective driving licence should have exonerated the insurer for the breach of policy condition. However erred in ordering pay and recovery. Further contended that no materials are filed proving income of the deceased and the compensation awarded is excessive.
The rival submissions of learned counsel are considered and perused the materials on record.
The eyewitness/PW-4 account as to the accident and assertion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, remained unshaken. This evidence is in consonance with the entries in the FIR/Ex.A-1. The police after investigation in the charge sheet/Ex.A-2 concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The respondents except suggestions could not point out any fact or circumstance to discredit the petitioners’ claim and the materials placed on record. Therefore the fact of occurrence on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver stands established.
The respondent No.3/insurer contested that the driver of the lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence at relevant time. To substantiate, the insurer placed the driving licence of the driver/respondent No.2/Ex.B-2. The entries in driving licence/Ex.B-2 are showing that the driving licence was in the transport category of the heavy goods vehicle from 2.05.2001 to 08.05.2004. Thereafter renewed from 19.08.2004 to 18.04.2008.
The petitioners by relying on Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) contested that the provision deals with currency of licence to drive motor vehicles.
For better appreciation the Section 14 of the Act is extracted hereunder:
“14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.—(1) A learner’s licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,— (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: 1 *** 2 [Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and;] (b) in the case of any other licence,— (i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of 3 [fifty years] on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,— (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of 3 [fifty years], whichever is earlier; [(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be. renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal:] Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.”
The Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act is prescribing that the driving licence issued or renewed to drive a transport vehicle is effective for a period of three years. However the proviso to the sub-section (ii) is clearly providing that regardless of the expiry period given in the sub-section that every driving licence shall be effective for a period of 30 days from such expiry.
In the present case the driving license expired on 8.05.2004. By virtue of statute it shall be deemed that the same is effective till 07.06.2004. The accident occurred on 02.06.2004. Therefore by implication of the provision, it shall be held that the driver/respondent No.2 was possessing effective driving licence. Consequently the conclusion recorded by the tribunal that the driver of the lorry had no valid and effective driving licence is liable to be and is accordingly set aside.
The other contention is that the petitioners failed to establish the fact that the injuries suffered in the accident resulted in the death of petitioner No.1. The petitioners contested that after the accident he undergone treatment in the hospital as inpatient till 15.12.2004, after discharge continued treatment in an apartment/private residence with regular physiotherapy and finally succumbed on 03.05.2006. The treating doctor/PW-2 from Apollo Hospitals and PW-3 from Vijaya Krishna Nursing Home deposed about the treatment given by them and that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The discharge summaries of the hospitals are supporting that the deceased had undergone prolonged treatment. Though the insurer has contested that there is no direct evidence to prove the fact that the death was due to the injuries suffered in the accident, having regard to the evidence of the treating doctors and the petitioners’ evidence that the deceased was under treatment from the date of the accident till his death and in absence of any other fact or circumstance to disbelieve, it shall be held that the petitioners had established that the death of the petitioner No.1 was due to the injuries caused in the accident.
In regard to the compensation awarded, the tribunal having regard to the bills placed on record, granted Rs.21,45,386/- towards medical bills. However rejected the air ambulance charges of Rs.6,50,000/- and the bills under Exs:A-28A to A-28V to the tune of Rs.12,58,628/- on the ground of absence of essentiality certificates. Having said that, in lump sum granted Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenditure and extra nourishment after the discharge. Pertinently the PWs.5 and 6 who were the employees from the Apollo Hospitals in their evidence did not refer to the air ambulance transportation charges. Still and all, the PW-6 mentioned about the bills under Exs:A-28A to A-28R. The doctors did not refer to any prescription for purchase of diet supplements said to have been purchased from the hospital. The physiotherapy bills/Exs:A-28W and A-28X were without particulars of dates of treatment. Nonetheless, considering these deficiencies and the probabilities of associated spending and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case granting Rs.5,00,000/- as lump sum in the place of Rs.2 lakhs, addition to medical bills under this head is found appropriate.
The claim of the petitioners and the entries in date of birth certificate of the deceased/Ex.A-24 are proving that the deceased was aged 42 years by the date of his demise. Further claimed that the occupation of the deceased was Senior Manager in Administration department of Genotech Laboratories, Turkapally has been affirmed by the in-charge of HR Department of the company/PW-7. The pay slips/Ex.A-23 and payment vouchers/Exs:A-32 to A-34 are proving the gross salary of Rs.25,000/-. By now it is well settled that in assessment of compensation the gross income less tax shall be taken as actual income of the deceased in assessment of compensation. As per the tax slabs of relevant year if the tax payable is deducted, the actual annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,57,600/-.
Further as per the dictum in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 860 considering the age and regular nature of employment 30% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.3,34,880/-. As the dependants were three in number, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.2,23,253/-. If this sum is multiplied with relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased i.e. 14, the sum would be Rs.31,25,542/-. The petitioners are entitled to Rs.31,25,542/- for loss of dependency.
Further as per the authority in Pranay Sethi (supra) and National United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 2021(11) SCC 780, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled for spousal and parental consortium at Rs.48,400/- each and also Rs.36,300/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the petitioners are eligible for compensation as under:
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of dependency
31,25,542.00
Spousal consortium to petitioner No.1
48,400.00
Parental consortium to petitioners 2 & 3
@ Rs.48,400/- each
96,800.00
Loss of estate and funeral expenses
36,300.00
Medical bills
21,45,386.00
Medical expenses in addition to medical
bills and extra nourishment
5,00,000.00
TOTAL
59,52,428.00
For the aforesaid, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.59,52,428/- (Rupees fifty nine lakhs fifty two thousand four hundred and twenty eight only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the differential compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The rate of interest and ratio of apportionment among the petitioners shall remain as per the impugned order.
Accordingly, the decree and order dated 22.11.2011 in M.V.O.P.No. 786 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad stands modified.
In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.1263 of 2012 filed by the petitioners is partly allowed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.3115 of 2012 filed by the respondent No.3/insurer is dismissed without costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stands closed.