The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 20.O5.2O21 in M.V.O.P.No.26O of 2OL7 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on

16.03.2017 the deceased and her family members were waiting for bus at Mothuguda Village bus stand, and in the mean time, one Mahindra Bolero Vehicle bearing No.TS-01-U13-43O2 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Asifabad and from there she was shifted to Pulse Hospital, Mancherial for better treatment on 17.03.2017 and her left leg above the knee was amputated. Subsequently on 2O.03.2017 she died while undergoing treatment. The family members of the deceased sought a compensation of Rs.S,0O,OOO/-. \\ 'i ) 2 ETO,J MACMA No.716 2021

4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were set ex-parte

5. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 frled counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, tha t the deceased was crossing the road without observing the vehicular traffic negligently and thus met with the accident. It i:; further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident ancl that their company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed thr: following issues for trial: iJ ii) tui/ Wrcther accidenl occrred on 16.O3.2O17 at 21:30 hours near Muthuda Village bus stand. due to rash and negligent diuing oJ drtuer of Mahindra Bolero Vehicle No.TS-O1-UB-43O2? W'.e*ter the petitiotars are entitled for ampensahon? If so, to uhat amt>unt and from whom? To ruhat relieJ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 and got markec Exs.Al to A13. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Exs.Bl to 85 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compeflfition c,f Rs.4,94,O28/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the InSurance Company. / EID,J MACMA No.716_2021

9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

10. karned counsel for appellant has submitted that their company has not issued policy to the alleged crime vehicle and that the policy marked under Ex.B1 is issued to some other vehicle i.e., Tata Indica bearing No.KA-O5-AE-2O05. The crime vehicle as per the charge sheet is Bolero bearing No.TS-O 1-UB-43O2 and that the policy does not cover the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident and hence, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is his further contention that they could prove their case before the Tribunal through the evidence of RWl and Ex.Bl to 85. He further submitted that Ex.A3/MVI report also discloses the crime vehicle/Bolero pick up bearing No.TS-O1-UB- 43O2. The counsel has further argued that the Tribunal has arrived at huge amount of compensation based on assumptions and also that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9%o per annum which is very high and prayed to reduce the same to 6yo per annum in case if this Court frxes liability on their company. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.80,OOO/- under parental consortium and has also awarded Rs.1,0O,000/- under the head of love and affection which is 4 ETD,J MACMA No.716 2021 excessive. He therefore submitted ttrat the Order and Decree of the Tribunal is not tenable in the eye of law and hence, prayed to set aside the sane by allowing this appeal. He therefore, prayed to exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability. 1 1. Based c,n the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following point s for determination: 1 2 \llether the cime uehicle had ualid insurance s;olicg as on th( date of the a*ident? If so, utether ttre Insurance Compang is liable to pay compensation? Wlrcther the conpensation grdnted bg the Tibunal is just atld reasonable? Wlrcther the order and decree of the Tibunal need any interkrence?

4. To u.that relief

12. POINT 1TIO.1: a) The appr:llant counsel has contended that their company has not issued an5' policy under Ex.Bl to the crime vehicle i.e., Bolero pick up bearing No.TS-O 1-UB-43O2. A perusal of Ex.B I reveals that it is issucd to Tata Indica bearing No.KA-05-AE-2OO5 and is valid from 28.()8.2OI5 to 27.08.2016, thus, it is not issued to the crime vehicle. b) Ex.B2 is also liled by the Insurance Company ttrrough RWl bearing Policlr 1t16.5527O03 1156360O62a67. A perusal of Ex.B2 reveals that it also bears the same policy number issued by National Insurance Company to Mahindra and Mahindra Alpha ,'/ / 5 ETD,J MACMA No.716 2021 Vehicle bearing No.TS-O i-UB -4302. Th.e crirne record that is the charge sheet reveals the number of crime vehicle as TS-OI-UB-

4302. c) The evidence of RWI reveals that he is the Senior Branch Manager of National Insurance Company. His contention is that the accident vehicle i.e., Mahindra Bolero bearing No.TS-Ol-UB- 43O2 is not insured by their company and as such, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. d) In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion given by the claimants counsel that the crime vehicle is insured with their company and that their company is liable to pay compensation. Since the number of the vehicle as mentioned in the charge sheet is the same as mentioned in Ex.B2/the Insurance Policy issued by the appellant herein and there is no explanation from the Insurance Company as to how two policies were issued with the same number. e) It is their contention that they have served rrctices to the owner of the Mahindra Bolero Vehicle bearing No.TS-O 1-UB-43O2, but the owner of the vehicle failed to produce the Original Insurance Poliry and failed to appear before the Court and further they have filed a petilion vide I.A.No.4O7 of 2Ol9 to direct the owner of the vehicle to produce the Original lnsurance Policy which \ ,\ 6 ETD,J MACMA No.716 2021 was dismissed. In support of their contention, they have filed Postal Rece ipt dated 04 .O2.2O2O sent to the respondent No.2/owner ,:,f the crime vehicle and the Ofhce Copy of the notices are also filerl as Exs.B3 to B5. Thus the contention of the lnsurance Ct>mpany is that, inspite of the notices issued to the owner of the vehicle, he failed to produce the original policy and thus, they are disputing the issuance of policy to the Mahindra Bolero Vehicle involved in the accident. However, a perusal of the number of thr vehicle mentioned in the charge sheet- is the same as it is mentione d in Ex.B2lPolicy issued by the appellant herein to Mahindra ancl Mahindra Alpha Vehicle bearing No.'lS-O 1-UB-4302. f) Though the Insurance Company contends that Ex.B4/the notice was issued through Registered Post through the owner of the vehicle to produce the Original Insurance Policy, the Postal Acknowledgm('nt is not filed to prove that the owner of the vehicle has received the notice. The Insurance Company has only Iiled the Offrce Copy of notice and the Postal Receipt. d Furthe r RW t has admitted that they have not liled any Postal Acknowredgment to show that respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle was served notice under Ex.B4. Though he frled two Insurance Policies under Ex.Bl and E}2 bearing the same Policy No.55270O3 1156360062867, he did not offer any explanation as to 7 ETDJ MACMA No.716 2021 why two policies were issued on the same number. Though the appellant counsel contends that it might be a fake policy and that their company is not liable, it is not placed on record as to what action was initiated while the Insurance Company with regard to issuance of fake policy. h) Ex.B2 bears the signature of authorized signatory and it bears the seal of the company. In case if it disputes the genuineness, then the company must have taken action and nothing is placed on record to show that they have initiated any action to prove the issuance of fake policy under their seal. Therefore, it is held that the vehicle bearing No.TS-0 1-UB-4302 involved in the accident is insured with the appellant herein. i) Thus, it is held that the contention of the appellant is not tenable and therefore, it is held that the crime vehicle is insured with their Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its tiability. Hence, it is held that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:- a) It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 6O years aq{ was earning an amount of Rs. IO,O00/- by sel\B ve8etables. No proof can be expected in this regard. \ 8 ETD,J MACMA No.716 2021 b) The Pos, - Mortem Examination Report and Inquest Report under Ex.AS r,nd A6 reveal the age of the deceased as 65 years. Thus, the sarne is taken into consideration. Considering the age of the deceased r:nd the assertion of PWl, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,OOO/- per month which is found to be qr.111. reasonable and has taken into consideration all the other conlponents while calculating the compensation and arrived at a just and reasonable compensation. Thus, the annual income comes to Rs.48,000/-. There shall be no acldition towards future prosper:ts as the deceased is aged 65 years. c) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, 1/3ra deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.32,0O0/- (Rs. 8,0OO/- (-) Rs. 16,00o/-). d) The Post Mortem Examination Report filed under Ex.A4 reveals the age of the deceased as 65'years. The mr.rltiplier should be chosen wil t-r regard to the age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the iable given in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Cofobrationl, the deceased being aged 65'years, the appropriate multiplier is ''i'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.2,24,@O | - (Rs.32,OO0 x 7). / ' zooe loyscc ru r 9 EID,J MACMA No.716 2021 e) In the Iight of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.15O00/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by lOo/o every three years. 0 In Magm.a General Insurance Compang Ltmlted v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and othersz, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Sethi's case and has further held ttrat not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,4O0/ - each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.1,45,2OOl- instead of Rs.40,0O0/-. Further an amount of Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. d In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts:-

1. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency RS.2,24,OOO I -

2. Compensation towards l,oss of cpnsortium Rs.r,45,2oOl- 3

4. Compensation towards loss of estate Compenaation towards furteral expenses Total Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,r50/- Rs.4,O5,5OO/- 1 ) '1zora; ra scc r:o 10 ETD,] MACMA No.716_2021 k) Theref<rrt:, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is cafu:ulated as Rs.4,05,5OO /- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.4,9.+,o28/- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. Hence, prcint No.2 is answered accordingly. L4. Polnt No.3:- a) In view.tt' the lindings arrived at Point Nos. I Br 2, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the compensation f r om Rs.4,94,O28 / - to 4,O5,5OO/ -. b) The interr:st granted by the Tribunal is 9olo. The appellant counsel has contended that it is too high and prayed to reduce the rate of interest lo 60/o. c) lrr Jad.ant SaroJa Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Anothef; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7 .!'to/o per annum on the enhanced amount ol compensation. d) In Bandauath Mangla and Another Versus Bandouath Suresh and Otlrcr{; and Natlonal Insurance Compang Limited Versus. M- Ven-katesuantlu and. Otherss; also interest @ 7.5o/o per annum was lqranted on the enhanced amount of compensalien. 3 2022 sgConline TS (io6 ' 2023 SCC Online 1S r095 5 2023 SCC Online TS t70 I 11 EroJ MACMA No.716 2021 e) ln Unlted Insurqnce Compang Limited Versus. Bollann Llngalaha; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 97o per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. 0 A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance Compang Limited Versus Jagadish PraJapathlT; has granted 7 .5 o/o per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7.syo on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. Hence, in the present case, the rate of interest is reduced from 9o/o per annum to that of

7.5%o per annum. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.4:- In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs.4,94,O281- to 4,05,500/- and the rate of interest from 9o/o to 7.5o/o per annum, from the date of claim petition tiil realization. The Insurance Company has already 6 2024 sCC Online TS 9t5 7 2024 scc online TS 2050 12 ETD,] ITACMA No.715 2021 deposited 5O% of the decreetal amount awarded by the Tribunal which is withclrawn by the respondents herein. Therefore, the balance amount if any, is to be deposited by tie Insurance Company withir a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said arnount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscelianeous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Adilabad. (With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies AsEhw HIGH COURT DATED:27106/2025 I (_) [2 DRAFTS] *- 'ft TAS 0tI 1 1 L-)\ * JUDGMENT+DE(]FI:E MACMA.No.716 of 11021 PARTLY ALLOWIiIG MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENry SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 716 OF 2021 Between

1. National lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager, Division Office lV, 'lst Floor, Flat No.C17 to 19, Minarva Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad.

2. National lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Local Branch Office, Ambedkar Chowk, Adilabad. ...Appellants/Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 AND

1. Munjam Aduku, S/o Munjam Rajaiah (Died as Per his L.Rs Respondent Nos.2 and 3)

2. Munjam Ram Chander, S/o Aduku, Age. 37 years, Occ. Agriculturist 3. Munjam Shankar, S/o Aduku Age. 35 years, Occ. Agriculturist All are Residents of Parsa Nambala Village, Presently Residing at Ramnagar, Adilabad. ...Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Petitioners

4. Gattu Ravi, S/o Ganapathi, Age.22 years, Driver of Crime Vehicle, R/o Venkatapur Village, R/M Kannepalli, Mancherial District.

5. Chilveru Jaya Prakash, S/o Vittaiah, Owner of Bolero Vehicle bearing No. TS 01 UB 4302, Rl/o Laxmipur Village, Bheemini Mandal, Mancherial District. ...RESPONDENT Nos. 4 to S/Respondent Nos. I & 2 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,19BB against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.260 OF 2017 dated.2010512021 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum V Additional District Judge, at Adilabad. 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 Case and upon hearing the arguments of A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and None appeared for the respondents. This Court doth Orde' and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs.4,94,0281 to Rs.4,05,500/- and the rate of interest from 9%p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization; 2. That the lnsur.ene company has already deposited 50% of the decreetal amount awarded by the tribunal which is wihtdrawn by the respondents herein:

3. That the balance amount if any, is to be deposited by the lnsurance company within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this . #::T::"h deposit the craimnants are entitired to withdraw the said a.ornt without furnishing any security; 5- That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree ofthe Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there sha{l be no order as to costs in this appeal. S . SIIEENIVASA REDDY :STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Additional Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additicnal District Judge, Adilabad.

2. Two CD Copies / HIGH COURT DATED:27lOGlZO2!; DECREE MACMA.No.716 of 11021 PARTLY ALLOWIN(i MACMA WTHOUT COSTS.