Bench Sr.No:-50 v. Kattunga Venkata Rao 4 Others & Ors.

Judgment

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Insurer preferred present appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 in M.V.O.P. No.620 of 2012 passed by learned V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, by which compensation of ₹57,05,000/- was awarded along with interest @6% per annum. 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016

For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

#3. (a) The deceased, aged 22 years, was Engineering Graduate and further pursuing Post Graduation i.e., M.Tech. Engineering. While so, she was offered employment by IBM India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, as a research engineer. Due to her misfortune, while she proceeding on a motorbike as pillion rider, was hit by offending Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 11AB 8442 and thus, she succumbed due to injuries. The parents and sister of deceased preferred claim for compensation. The deceased already had an offer letter with an annual salary package of ₹6,92,128/-, which translated to ₹57,677/- per month, accordingly, compensation of ₹86,00,000/- was claimed. (b) The driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent – insurer filed written statement contesting the claim. The liability as well as quantum of compensation were disputed on several grounds. (c) Based on aforesaid pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues:

#1. Whether the death of the deceased was caused in motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 by the driver of vehicle Mahindra Bolero Goods truck bearing No.KL 11AB 8442?

#2. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non- joinder of necessary parties, i.e., owner and insurer of motor vehicle?

#3. Whether petitioners entitled compensation? If so, to what amount and against which respondent?

#4. To what relief? (d) Claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. None were examined for 3rd respondent. However, Ex.B1 was marked. The Tribunal held first issue in favour of the claimants, holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent - driver of offending vehicle. Though the claimants have adduced evidence under Exs.A7 to A10, substantiate educational qualifications, employment offered by IBM India Private Limited and the joining letter, the Tribunal has considered income of deceased as ₹25,000/- per month on notional basis. Future prospects were awarded @50% and after deducting 30% towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 18, loss of earnings were assessed. Tribunal also awarded ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹10,000/- towards 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 transportation expenses, thus, in total, awarded compensation of ₹56,70,000/-, payable along with interest @6% per annum. (e) Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred.

#4. Heard Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for insurer and Sri Siva Surya Kumar Musunuri, learned counsel appearing for claimants.

#5. Learned counsel for appellant urged that the Tribunal erred in deducting 30% of income towards personal expenses rather than 50% as the deceased was unmarried. Except for the said ground, no other arguments advanced either on the aspect of liability or otherwise.

#6. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for claimants fairly conceded the ground urged above. However, it is contented that the Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as ₹25,000/- per month on notional basis, despite availability of sufficient evidence on record indicating the Salary package already offered by IBM India Private Limited, therefore, urged to determine the income considering Exs.A8 to A10. (b) The learned counsel also submitted that though the claimants did not prefer appeal or cross objections, this Court, while deciding the appeal of insurer, is amply empowered to award 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 just and fair compensation. In support, he placed reliance on judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others1.

#7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by both parties and perused the record.

#8. Now, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is: 1) Whether the Tribunal committed any error in fixing the quantum of compensation and if so, whether claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation? 2) To what relief?

#9. Since the ground urged by learned counsel for insurer has been fairly conceded by the claimants, the grievance of insurer stands addressed.

#10. We now proceed to determine as to whether the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation under law. It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation and that endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred any appeal for enhancement or filed cross-objections in the appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. Coordinate 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 164 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2738 of 2016 Bench of this Court had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others2 , by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company Limited3, Surekha v. Santosh4, Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali5 and Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod6. As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs respondents/claimants enhancing compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

#11. Coming to the aspect of income of the deceased, Tribunal assessed income of deceased as ₹25,000/- per month on notional basis, considering the deceased was a post graduate in Engineering. The claimants have produced Ex.A8 - computerised copy of joining letter in IBM, Ex.A9 – computerised copy of confirmation letter in IBM in favour of deceased and Ex.A10 – computerised copy of expiry letter from IBM regarding the offer extended. The contents and substratum of the said letters have not