The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri T.Mahender Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. G.L.Narasimha Rao The Court made the following : JUDGMENT 1 macma 463-2019 NBK, J THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTIC E NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A No. 463 of 2019 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the Cholarnandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., aggrieved by the Order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, Ciry Civit Court, in MVOP No.277 ol 2016. By the impugned Order, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,89,000 to the claimants on account of the death of the deccased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.02.2016 while the deceased was proceeding on a Mini DCM Vehicte bearingNo.TS-l}UA-2397, from Hyderabad to Kumool, along with others, and the vehicle overtumed due to bursting of its rear tyre due to the rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the DCM vehicle.

2. Heard Mr. T. Mahender Rao, leamed Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance company; and Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the record. For the sake of convenience, the parties rvill be relerred as insurance company and claimants' 3, T[re fact that the deceased J.c. Mario Princely travelled on the Mini DCM Vehicle bearing No.TS-l0UA-2397 on 24.02.2016 and his death on account of the vehicle overtuming due to its rear vehicle burst are not in dispute. The police registered a case in Crime No .34 of 2016, against the driver of the subject DCM vehicle, for the ofiences punishable under Sections 304-4 and337 of IPC. The Tribunal, after considering the FIR (Ex-Al), Charge Sheet (Ex.A2), Inquest Report (Ex.A3), Postmortem examination report (Ex'A4), CrigeDetaits Form (Ex.A5) and Motor Vehicle Inspector Report (Ex',{6), and 2 !. l: macma,463 2019 N8K, J more particularlv. the evidence of PW-2, r,r,ho rvas travelli Lg w.ith the deceased on the DCM Van or.r 24.02.2016, recorded a finding that t nr accident occurred due to thc rash and negligent driving by the dri.",er of the ll -tM Van. RW- I (the ou,'ner of the Mini I)CM van) stated that the deceased \, s; not his employee. hoivever, keeping i, r,ieu' the larv laid dor.r,n in Nation t' tt.t.\,ronca Contpam.. Limited v. Saju P. l,ault, and Manrtaru Khutun vs. Rzycl t Kumar Singh2, the Tribunal held that the insurance company is liable to first p ry the conlpensation and later recover tiom the orvner of the Mini DCM vehir, : as per law.

3.1 Further, PW-3 (Proprietor of L & .t ,Civil Engineering Contractors) stated that the deceased was a welder rr irl their company and they used to pay him Rs.8,000 per month initiatty and lat,. r:nhancecl the salary to Rs.14,500 per rnonth (under Ex.A-7 Salary Cerlili:*te). The Tribunal considered Ex.A-7 and also considered the claim of thc ,: rimants wherein the claimants stated that the deceased used to eam Rs.6,0()(, )er month at leisure time (which was not supported by reliable oral/dor r rlenrary evidence), assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000 per mor th, and applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Nationtl [,qsurance, Company, Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi3, and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Trt tspot.t Corporotiona awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,89,000 with intcr .:;t at 9oh per annum from the date of claim petition to the date of actual pay, ( rLt, by the impugned Order. Challenging the same, the insurance company fiIt., tli5 appeal.

4. Leamed Standing counsel for the insurance comf . ny cortends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased rt Rs.g,000 per month for coolie work in the absence of reliable evidence; thar,rhen the clependents