The National Insurance Company Limited, Chilakaluripeta, v. Kilaru Rudramma And 3 Others

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI M.A.C.M.A. No.1 5 7 7 of 2 0 1 0 Judgment:

Having been aggrieved by the order dated: 21.7.2010 passed in M.V.O.P. No.379 of 2007 by the Chairman of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam, granting compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ - to the claimants, National Insurance Company Limited which has been arrayed as respondent No.2 in the above mentioned MVOP has come before this Court by preferring the present Appeal. The parties herein after will be referred as 'petitioners' and 'respondents' as they are arrayed in M.V.O.P. No.379/ 2007 for the sake of convenience.

2.

The case of the petitioner as narrated in her claim petition is briefly stated as under:

The petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased Venkateswarlu, who died in the accident on 17.8.2006. It has been asserted by the petitioners in their claim petition that on 17.8.2006 at about 12.00 noon while the deceased-K. Venkateswarlu was proceeding to his village Ammapalem from Khammam on his hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-20-N-3264, he halted near a petrol bunk to fill the petrol in the motor bike, while he was entering the road from the petrol bunk, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-27-V-3436 which was driven by its driver in a negligent manner came towards his motor cycle and dashed it and as the result of it, he received severe injuries. Immediately

after the accident, he was taken to Kinnera Super Speciality Hospital, Khammam. From there, he was referred to Hyderabad for better treatment. As his condition was serious while he was being taken to Hyderabad for treatment, he succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital at Hyderabad. It has been further asserted by the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 46 years by the date of his death, he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was working as Pump Operator/ Lusker in N.S.P Department and was getting income of Rs.8,000/ - per month and was contributing the same for maintenance of his family. The petitioners having lost the love and affection and their earnings of the deceased, laid the claim for compensation against the owner and insurer of the offending lorry bearing No.AP-27-V-3436.

The owner of the offending lorry did not choose to contest the case filed by the petitioners. Respondent No.2 ie., the National Insurance Company Limited with whom the offending lorry was having valid and subsisting insurance as on the date of accident alone contested the case.

3.

The learned Trial judge on close scrutiny of the evidence available on case record held that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-27-V-3436 was at fault, and due to negligent driving of the said lorry by him the deceased received severe injuries and succumbed to such injuries while he was being shifted to

Hyderabad for treatment and awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ - to his legal representatives.

It is understood after going through the grounds urged by the insurance company in the Memorandum of appeal, it's grievance as to quantification of compensation. It has been contended by the leaned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that the trial judge has wrongly opined that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is fair and reasonable. He contends that though no document is produced by the claimants establishing the age of the deceased and his income, the court below has allowed their claim in toto instead of dismissing their claim made for compensation due to their failure to substantiate the contentions they raised as to the age of the deceased and his income etc.,. Since these being the contentions raised by the Insurance Company, the evidence given by PW.2 in respect of income particulars of the deceased needs to be re-appreciated.

The petitioners to prove avocation of the deceased have examined PW.2, the Superintending Engineer, N.S.P., Tekulapalli, where the deceased was working prior to his death as a Pump Operator / Luskar from 1979 onwards. PW.2 testifies that the deceased worked in their department as NMR Winch Operator / Pump Operator. Though his services were terminated in the year 1979, he was reinstated into service in the year 1989 and was transferred to Tekulapally village and was

paid back wages, his seniority was also safeguarded as per the award passed by the Labour Court. He was paid the arrears of salary amounting to Rs.2,83,600/ - as per the court order. After he was reinstated into service, he was getting salary of Rs.7000/ - per month excluding the pay towards emoluments, thus, in all he was getting Rs.10,000/ - per month. 4.

The appellant-Insurance Company did not let in any oral evidence but it marked salary certificate of the deceased for the month of July, 2006 issued by the A.E., NSC, Tekulapalli, which also would show that the deceased was paid salary of Rs.6,175/ - for the month of July, 2006.

5.

This Court on perusal of the award under challenge noticed that the Trial Court though took note of the income particulars of the deceased mentioned in Ex.A9 and Ex.B1 (which is filed by the appellants herein), it had not undertaken the task of determination of compensation except holding that the compensation claimed by petitioners is fair and reasonable. It was not explained in the judgment of the Court below how the compensation claimed by the petitioners was just and adequate. The learned Trial judge, ought to have determined the compensation which the petitioners were entitled to get under separate heads. It is not stated in the award of the Trial Court what amount the petitioners are entitled to get towards pecuniary damages, so also under the conventional heads etc.

Even if the salary of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,175/ - per month as per Ex.B1 document produced by the appellantInsurance Company, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.74,100/ -. After duly deducting 1/ 3rd of the income earned by the deceased through his salary per annum towards his personal expenditure, the annual loss of contribution of the income of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.49,400/ - (6,175x12= 74,100x2/ 3= 49,400/ -). If annual loss of income contribution of the deceased is multiplied by 13 (as the appropriate Multiplier to be applied for the person at the age group 46-50 years is 13 as per Sarla Varma case), the compensation amount which the petitioners are entitled to get under the head of loss of income contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.6,42,200/ -.

They are also entitled for an amount of Rs.70,000/ - under the conventional charges such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate as per the decision in S.L.P. (Civil) No.25590 of 2014, dated:31.10.2017, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others. The petitioners are entitled to get Rs.10,01,190/ - (6,175x12=74,100x30/100=22,230x13=2,88,990+6,42,200+70,000=10,01,190/-) towards total compensation if 30% of the income of the deceased is taken into consideration to assess the compensation under the head of loss of future prospects applying the legal principle i.e., National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others.

6.

In the light of a detailed discussion held above, there cannot be any hesitation for this Court to hold that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive. The Court below has not committed error in awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ - to the claimants. Since it is opined that the award under challenge is not suffering from any factual or legal infirmities, the same deserves to be affirmed.

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Dated: 09-08-2018 gnr

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI M.A.C.M.A. No.1 5 7 7 of 2 0 1 0 Dated: 09-08-2018 gnr