United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Papisetty Ramadevi @ Sandhya & Ors.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.257 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the order and decree, dated

27.07.2007 in O.P.No.707 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

The appellant herein is respondent No.2 and the respondents herein are the petitioners in the O.P. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal.

The petitioners filed O.P.No.707 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Ramalingam in a road accident. The Tribunal by evaluating the evidence on record, awarded the total compensation as claimed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, United India Insurance Company filed this appeal on the ground the Tribunal granted compensation erroneously by applying multiplier ‘16’ instead of ‘15’ while fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month, though there is no evidence on record.

Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable?

P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, deposed that she is not an eye witness to the incident, but she came to know that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending lorry. P.W.2, who is the brother of the deceased, deposed that he received information from P.W.1 and rushed to the spot, by the time he reached the spot, the deceased was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Kanchanbagh. He found the offending lorry stationed at the spot. Thereafter, he went to the hospital and found the dead body of the deceased.

However, the Tribunal while placing reliance on documentary evidence-Exs.A.1 to 8, fastened liability against the driver of the offending lorry and its insurer. The police filed charge sheet, wherein it was noted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending lorry, which was voluntarily insured with respondent No.2. Therefore, the factum of the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle was also proved. Therefore, in view of the documentary evidence proved beyond all reasonable doubt the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of offending lorry.

The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month on the ground that the deceased was the only earning member of the family by supplying the material to the school going children. But, no evidence was adduced on that score. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 39 years. Therefore, while taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/-. Though it is stated that the deceased was an income tax assessee, no documentary evidence was placed before the Tribunal to appreciate the same. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- Accordingly, the annual income was arrived at Rs.48,000/- (Rs.4000x12).

The petitioners are five in number. As per Sarla Verma and Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], 1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses. After deducting 1/4th amount, the income contributed to his family comes to Rs.36,000/ per annum-. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 39 years. Therefore, by applying appropriate multiplier ‘15’, as per Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra) the loss of income contributed to the family comes to Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.36,000x15). Apart from the above, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards consortium, but, the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/- as per Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra). The Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and the same is not in accordance with the principles laid down under the Act and the same is disallowed. The Tribunal further granted an amount of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses which is appropriate. Thus all together, the petitioners are entitled a sum of Rs.5,52,000/-(Rs.5,40,000+10,000+2000)

The Tribunal granted interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. As per Sarla Verma’s Case (1 supra) the petitioners are entitled interest at 6% per annum.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.5,52,000/- which shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J MARCH 28, 2011. YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298