Reliancce Gneral Insurance Co Ltd v. Bommakanti Bhumalingam And 3 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY. THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P, NAVEEN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1725 OF 2014 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Order and decree made in MVOP No.156 of 2013 dated 0111012013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Meadk at Sangareddy. Between:

M/s. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd-, Rep by its Branch Manager, Deccan Chambers, 4rh Ftoor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. (Policy No.1807422311001313 valid frcm 28.12.201210 27 .12.2013) ...A',ELLANT/R, AND

1. Bommakantl Bhumalingam, S/o Buchaiah, Occ:- Employee in A P C P D C L' Fl/o rl,r'iJ.is-27 Llc Apna-poiiiiJaJvplttv, sansaredo.v Ma-ndal' Medak District' 2 ij;;;;;;ti R;.vrr,t.n*. diJ'drt''i''r'ngirn lwlo G Naresh)' occ:- Housewife, R/o H.No .15_27 LrC [p[ii ioi"ni'JJifi"riy) sansareody Mandal. rvledak :. Bltlir"k"nti Archana, D/o B Bhumalingam' occ:- Student' R/o H No 15-27 LIG " XFriii ij"*tnii.odvp'riv s i n g jred d v tr/a-nd al lr"led ak.District 4 lvlr. Pradeep Aotr'uk'rwa:'' 5'; "oi ,k""*^ io t'" oet1t191-er Occ:- Owner or rrilaruthr Swifl ozire np-o'i-inYob"rji 'ni"' ri'Nt +-'s-22915' Bhukthapur village Adilabad District -504001 ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & Rl For the Appellant : sRl V'sATYAM REDDY' SENIoR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.N.MOHAN KRISHNA' Advocate For the Respondent Nos'1 to 3 : sRl M'KIRAN REDDY', Advocate For the Respondent No'4 : SRI T'V RAMANA RAO' Advocate The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

H )N'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND HI IN'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA MACMA No. 1723 of 2Ol4

JUDGMENT

U?er J ustice P.Srce Sr.trlhit) l.

This a )peal is prelerred by Reliance (lcncral lnsurance C()rnpan.!- Li 1itcd, ap1>cllat.rt/ scct.,trtl t csp'rtrrlctlt. aggrrt ved bY the rlccrec and.j rdgement dated 01.10.2013, passed in M.V.O.P. No 156 ol 2013 on he hle of the Chairman, Motor Vehicie Accidents Claims Tribunal-cu n-Principal District Judge, Ivledak at Sangareddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

2.

The said M.V.O.P. u/as filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles , .ct, by the original petitioners (Respondent Nos.I to g herein) sr:king a compensarion of {40,00,000/- on account of the death of imt.Dontula @ Bommakanti Nagamani, in a Motor Vehicle accident .hat occurred on 26.0I.2013; from the owner and insurers ol the cri ne vehicle that caused the accident. .r.l -ll- -' clcceasecl u.as u,orfujng as a I_.D. Str,tro in I)RDA, drawing a rrLrnrhl,\, salarv ol' a24,706 / besiclcs doing rhe household chores for IrL'r' l:rr ilr, 'l-he dcccast,d and hcr ltLrsltancl (liespondent No. I, !)r'irlion f Nr.r. i) rrcrl T(,LLintl jtL lr SlLrrt.rr.ctlcl ,, ltr-)ul (ldncsh Tcmpl-v, Rr-rdrar m, on a scoot\ clriven br tlre husbirncl ou 16.01.2013 ancl rnet wi h an accident q,hen rt crossed thc rr,rad, dl.(3 to the rash and neSlige rt driving of rhe driver of a car beanng l\0, Ap 0l AA 0007, which .rit thc scooty at i deceas( J pirion rider *, o.'"

tt" side' as a resuit of whjch, the and died on the spot. on the dab of inciden ,n" o.,,,,";"..:l-"n*'" "s.o about 48 years. o are the husband ,r. "r;;::;."

the inc lent, ,n" 0.".r:.;

deceased he t40,oo,ooo / -.

ri:rn D/ed a Thc li_ibLil claim petition seeking cornpeD s.t Lion entire oral al alter appreciatron ef documen tarr.

cr,idcn63 o recard anr/ n ?37,54,000 / of - wirh aw arded ln teresr ,a ao_ - s. u /o p.a. from Cornpersation the date olpedrion, ti.l.l the date of deposit The calcu la tjon made b-, the tribunaj award is reflected in reaching the sajd the table below 11-l Age of thedeceased vears of service remaining 48 years 10 yeaJS Gross tncome of the deceased < 24,706/- p.m.

Net Income of the deceased, inciuding EPF < 23,955/- p.m Futu Assu re Prospects ran ce l,opal r Con S1dered N ni dia whereln 1 0o% was granted) Co. v.

51yo Neutralized future salarv { 35.902/- p.m Deduction tou,ar-ds personal expenses 1/3 Loss of income to the familv(muitiplicarldJ <2 3,93s/- p.m . 2,a7 ,220 / - p.a Multipiier applicd Loss of futurc {Multiplier*Multiplicarlrt) { 37,33,860 / _ l1-ICOme Funeral Expenses Not awarded Loss of estate Not a\\.,arded Loss of consortium for pl { 10,000 Loss of love ald affectio n lor P2&3 { 5,000 each { 10,000 pensatior (rounded ofI) Total Com { 37,53,860 / - t 37,54,OOO/- 5.

The learned counsel for the appellant herein mainly contended that the crime vehicle is a non-transport vehicle, but at the time of the accident, it was being used for hire for carrying passengers,

of the PolicY '

q hich is a cl ar \iolalion o1 rhe tcrrns irncl tronditions e hable to PaY htrlce the al pe\lant insurance companl \\'ollid not b the compen: 1tion 6.

The ( ounsel for appeiiant also contended that the t'ribunal failed to cr nsider the evidence of RW- 1 ' a senior execudve of the insurance )ompany' who stated lhat B Sailesh' who is the son of R4 herein, ge /e a statement to the Patencheru Police that the crime vehicle we s a private car' but was being used Ior hire purpose lt is contende( that the same is in violation of the terms and conditions of the poliq as the vehicle was used' for transport purpose and hence theinsulrncecompanywouldnotbeliabletopayCompensation. 7.

Th : appellants also contended that the Tribunal erred in consider ng the luture prospects of the deceased at 5O%' instead ol 3o','i,. T tc' learned counsel reliecl on SARALA VERMA V/s' DELHI TRANSI ORT CORPORATIONI, Tl e appe IIants submitted rh:tL Lhc tr-illr'rnitl u r c.'rlgl1' granted an intercsl ll 87u p,a. and that the proper intercsI t-atc u'ju]d be 6% p'a' as per S {RALA VERLA (sllpra).

9.

T e appeliants placed reliance on the statemcnt of RW-l being ignored by the Tribunal. It is observed that in the chief, RW- 1, 'ho is a senior executive of the insurance company, stated that on B.Sailesh, son ofthe fourth respondent, gave a statement to the poli, e that on the date of accident, the car was sent for hire from Adilaba( to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to pune ancl when the .returning from pune and reached Medak, the accident car was occurred The crime vehicle is a private car , which was being used for ' 2aa,) ACJ l: )8 -=-*

the Five Judge Bench of the Hon,ble Apex Court in NATIONAL IITSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/s. pRANAy SETHI3. According to the settled law, the future prospects to be granted to a person aged between 40 to 50 years, with a permanent job would be 30olo, as rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in granting future prospect s @ SOo/o and the future prospects should be granted @ 30yo in this case.

12. Coming to the calculation of the compensation amount by the Tribunal. lt is to be said that the Tribunal grossly erred in not granting funeral expenses and loss of estate and in granting loss of consortium at al0,0O0/- to thc husband ancl in granting Ioss oflove and alfection to the children. lt is thc seuled position oI law as laid dos,n by the Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI (supra), which lxed the amounts for conventional heads at {16,SOO/- for funeral expenses, {16,500/- for loss of estaLe and ?44,OOO/- as loss of consortium (enhanced in 2O2OJ and as such the same shall be granted in the current case, instead of the amounts granted by the Tribunal_ Under these conventional heads, a total of <1,65,000/- is granted to the deceased.

With regards to grant of loss of love and affection, a recent Three Judge Bench of the Hon,ble Apex Court, in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/s. SATINDER NAURa, has been laid down that "The tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.'

(lu l7) l6 SCC 680 'ArR 2o2o sc io76

L transpo t purpose, and hence, R4 violated the terms and conditions of the F >licy and is alone liable to pay the compensation. He also filed Ex 31 - policy and Ex.B2 _ attested copy of the statement of B.Sailes It is observed that no notice ra,as issued to R4 anci R4 didnt gi e any statement to thc porice. The Tribunar consicrered thc evidence and observed that the policv shou.s the namc o[ pradccp Bothuku war as the ou.ner of the car, and as such statements ol third par ies, cven iI they are to bc the son of the owner, cannot be taken as troof regarding the nature of use of the car.. The appcllanr Iailed to :xaminc the lourth respondent before the Tribunal and hence th, contentions ol thc appeliants in thrs regard u,ere not accepted I nd they were held to be vicariouslv liable.

10. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribur al, which was derived at after thoroughly considering all the evider ce on record and the lnsurance compaq. cannot be exonerated from the liability.

11. Anot .er issue raised by the appellant which is to be considered is with reg rd to grant of future prospects. The age of the deceased herein is n( t in dispute and she was aged 4g years at the time of the accident. Tl e Tribunal placed reliancc upon a judgment ol" this Court in NEIV II{I IA ASSURANCE COMPANY V/s. cOpALI2 rvherein the deceased h2 1 22 years oI senice reft and the court a*arcied ir r00%, increase in he incomc. As in rhe case on hand, the victim had lO years of ser ice lcft, the Tribunal grantcd 5004 as future prospccrs. The posrtion of lau'concerning grant of luture prospecls is not res integra. The oosition laid down in SARALA VERMA (supra), r.r,hich has been rel :d upon by the appellants, has also gotten approval of '?20 tz ,l,ct 2 ti t

13. The calculation of compensation is drawn out in the table below:

Net Income of the Deceased {.23,935/- p.m.

Future Prospects 300/0 { 3 i,1 15.50/- p.m.

Deduction towards personal expenses rl3 < 10,37 1/- p.m.

Loss of income (multipltcand) to the famlly 120,744 /- p.n, 12,48,9241p.a, Multi plicr Loss of dependency (Multiplic.r n(l* M rr ltiplier) a 32,36,O 12l - r 16.500 / { 16,s00/ - Loss of Estate Funeral Expcn scs Loss of Consortium for R 1-R3 144,000/- each r r,s2,o00/- ?otal Compensation I 34,Ot,Ot2/-

14. As seen from the table, the total compensation for the claimants comes to < 34,O1,O121-. Learned counsel for the appellants has disputed the interest rate imposed by the Tribunal. In order to determine the interest rate to be granted, we shall refer to the interest rate granted by the Supreme Court in its recent Judgements for Motor Vehicle Accident awards. In the case of RASMITA BISWAL V/s. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIoNAL INSURANCE CoMPAI$T LTD.5 the Hon'ble Apex Court granted an interest of 7.Syo.ln another case before the Supreme Court, N,JAYASREE V/s. CHOLAMANDALAM Ms GENERAL INSURANCE COMPAI{Y LTD..,rhe inreresr grantcd was 7..57o as well. By placing reliance on these rcccnt judgcmcnts of thc Supreme Court, this Court 5 2o2l scc onl-ine sc r rqi 6 2o2l SCC Ont-ine SC gr)7

is inclined tt grant an interest at the rate of 7 -5o/o p.a. from ttre date of petition ti.

the date of realization.

15. The a rpellant and the fourth respondent being jointly and lle are directed to deposit the entire amount of severally Ii:

r within a period of one month from the date of receipt of compensatio a copv of thi , order. On such dcposit, the Respondent Nos.l tr:3 are permitted to vithdraw the entire amount.

16. Regarr ng apportionmcnt of the compcnsati{Jn, Respondent rrc thc claLrghtsrs iiqcd f.l irrrcl 23 rr':rr.s rcspc'ctivcl! in Nos 2 i.rnd 3 I Respondenr No.1 is rhc hlrsband ot rlrc dtccaseC agcd vear 20 l3 ar 5l years as n the date of the order of the Tribunal, all ol them are entitled for a . equal amount.

17. Accord ngly, this appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

18. Miscell meous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed n the light of this final order. Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY/i SECTIO OFFICER To

1. The Chairn rn, [,4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Prancipal District Judge, Medak at S rngareddy.

2. One CC to iri N.Mohan Krishna, Advocate (OPUC)

3. One CC to )ri M,Kiran Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

4. One CC to )ri T,V.Ramana Rao, Advocate (OPUC)

5. Two CD Cc )ies

6. One Spare )opy ar ZT

HIGH COURT DATED:3111212021 * \ I M'P 2022

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No-1725 f 20'14 DISPOSING OF T IE MACMA.

V ,td\ ay

\ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1725 OF 2014 Between:

l\4/s. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Branch [t4anager, Deccan chambers, 4th Ftoor, Somajiguda, Hideabad. (Polici No.1807422311001313 valid ft om 28.1 2.201 2 lo 27.1 2.20 1 3) ...APPELLANT/R2 AND

1. Bommakanti Bhumallngam, S/o Buchaiah, Occ:- Employee in A.P.C.P.D.C.L, Fyo H.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypally, Sangareddy Mandal, lVedak District.

2. Bommakanti Ramyakrishna, D/o Bhumalingam, (W/o G, Naresh), Occ:- Housewife, R/o H.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypally, Sangareddy lvlandal, Medak Dist.

3. Bommakanti Archana, D/o B.Bhumalingam, Occ:- Student, Ryo H.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypa lly, Sangareddy lt4andal, l\,4edak District.

4. l\,4r. Pradeep Bothukurwar, S/o not known to the petitioner, Occ:- Owner of Maruthi Swift Dzire AP-01-AA-0007, R/o H.No.4-3-22915, Bhukthapur Village, Adilabad District -504001'

...RES'.NDENTS/'ET',.NERS 1 To 3 & Rl Appeal under Section 173 of l',4otor Vehicles Act, against the judgmenu order and decree made in MVOP No.156 of 2013 dated 0111012013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal Diskict Judge, I\ileadk at Sangareddy.

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing, and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.Satyam Reddy, Senior Advocate for Sri N.Mohan Krishna, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M.Kiran Reddy, for R1 to R3 and Sri,T.V,Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.4. This Court doth Order and decree as follows :- 1 . That the IMACMA be and hereby is disposed of

2. That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby reduced from Rs.37,54,0001 to Rs.34,01 ,012/-

3. That the compensation amount shall carry interest is 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. That the appellant and the fourth respondenl be and hereby are directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. That on such deposit respondent number 1 to 3 be and hereby are permitted to withdraw the entire amounl.

6. That the (of the compensation) respondents 1 to 3 on entitled for an equal amount.

7. That there sl all be no Order as to cosls in this I\4ACNIA. Sdi -B.SATYAVATH ASSIS'TANT REGISTRAR e-'-"

SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To The Chairme l, lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principa] District Judge, Medak at Sa rgareddy.

Two CD Cop :s One Spare C rpy 2.

lttr

HIGH COURT DA-IED:3'11121202'

DECREE MACMA.No.172 i ot 2014 DISPOSINGC:THEMACMA.

{7^t* 6)>'