Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Boya Laxmikanthamma at Suguru Laxmikanthamma and 5 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2019MACMA/1178/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an insurance company’s appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court rejected the claim that the multiplier should have been reduced to 16 and held that the total compensation, including 40% for future prospects, was within limits, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company failing and dismissed. No order as to costs claimed.

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Boya… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶2

M.A.C.M.A No.1178 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The United India Insurance Company limited, which is the 2^nd respondent in O.P.No.348 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur at Gooty, has preferred this appeal having felt aggrieved by the award, dated 31.01.2013, passed in the aforementioned OP granting compensation of Rs.19,05,000/- to the claimants therein, and making it liable to pay the compensation amount so awarded with proportionate interest and costs thereon.

¶5

The grounds urged by the appellant-insurance company to challenge the award of the court below are precisely stated as under:

¶6

(i) The award passed by the court below in OP No.348 of 2012, dated 31.01.2013 has no basis and it is against to the settled principles of law;

¶7

(ii) The Tribunal ought to have noticed that the income of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.5,780/- per month as a probationer in APCPDCEL, Gooty;

¶8

(iii) Even though it was established that the deceased was working on contract basis through PW 3, and that he was being paid the amount of Rs.5,780/- only per month as a probationer, the court below had erroneously taken his income @Rs.10,000/per month;

¶9

(iv) The Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier ‘17’ and that the appropriate multiplier to be applied for the

¶10

JUD,J MACMA_1178_2013

¶11

¶12

people under the age group of 32-35 is ‘16’ as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another¹ ;

¶13

(v) The Tribunal has erred in granting compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- under the head of “loss of love and affection and consortium” against the ratio laid down in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others² and as per the said ratio of the Apex Court, an amount of Rs.40,000/- to be awarded under the head of “consortium”, Rs.15,000/- under the head of “loss of estate” and Rs.15,000/- under the head of “funeral expenditure”.

¶14

After careful perusal of the aforementioned grounds urged by the appellant-insurance company, it is manifestly clear that it has no grievance in so far as the finding recorded by the court below on the aspect of negligence attributed to the driver of the Van bearing R.C.No.AP-21-T-4032.

¶15

Since the dispute is raised disputing the quantum of compensation, it is to be seen whether any evidence is adduced by the claimants in proof of the income that was being received by the deceased as a probationer in APCPDCEL at the relevant point of time.

¶16

The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased have laid the claim for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- in respect of his death in a road accident, dated 01.06.2012. They have examined PW 3-Adiseshaiah and marked Exs.A6 to A10 to prove that the deceased was appointed as a Junior Lineman on contract basis, and by the date of his death, he was a

¶17

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶18

2 2017 (6) ALD 170 (SC)

¶19

JUD,J MACMA_1178_2013

¶20

¶21

probationer. Ex.A7 document establishes that the deceased was attending to the lineman work in APCPDCEL in the capacity of a probationer. Exs.A8 and A9 are the appointment lists. Ex.A10 is the certificate issued by APCPDCEL as to a training programme attended by the deceased. PW 3, the Junior Accounts Officer, whom the petitioners summoned to speak about the appointment and the pay particulars drawn by the deceased testified that the deceased was appointed in the month of June, 2011 and his probation was to be completed within two years of his appointment. After completion of probation, his gross salary would be Rs.13,320/-.

¶22

Exs.X1 to X5 were the qualification certificates of the deceased. Ex.X2-salary certificate was also marked through PW 3. During course of cross examination of PW 3, only the question that was suggested to him was that Exs.X1 to X5 were created for the purpose of the case. Admittedly, no evidence was adduced disproving the evidence given by PW 3 with reference to Ex.X2, and as to the getting of gross salary of Rs.13,320/- by the deceased after declaration of his probation.

¶23

Upon appreciation of the evidence of PW 3 and Exs.X1 to X5 which would disclose that the deceased was working in the capacity of probationer in APCPDCEL having been appointed in such capacity in the month of June, 2011 and was drawing Rs.5,780 as a probationer, had he been alive, his services would have been regularized after completion of the training programme and would have received the initial pay of Rs.13,059/-, the court below had assessed his income roughly at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, and after coming to the conclusion that the deceased would have get minimum income of Rs.10,000/- per month on duly deducting 1/3^rd of his income towards his personal and living expenditure from out of the initial pay of Rs.13,059/- per month.

¶24

JUD,J MACMA_1178_2013

¶25

¶26

The Tribunal, though opined that the income contribution of the deceased to his family would be Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, reduced it to Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, on multiplying it with multiplier ‘17’ as the deceased was aged about 32 to 35 years, assessed the compensation under the head of “loss of dependency” at Rs.17,00,000/-.

¶27

Since the dispute is raised in so far as the multiplier applied by the court below, this court has drawn its attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (1 supra) and noticed that the appropriate multiplier to be applied to the people under the age group between 31 – 35 years is ‘16’, but not ‘17’. As appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘16’ as per the above decision of the Apex court, the amount which the claimants are entitled to get under the head of “loss of contribution of income to his family” is Rs.16,00,000/- but not Rs.17,00,000/-.

¶28

A perusal of the award impugned discloses that the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- is awarded under the head of “loss of love and affection and towards consortium” to the claimants. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company contends that the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded to the claimants under the head of “loss of love and affection and consortium” is abnormal and is against to the ratio laid down in a recent judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (2 supra), wherein the Apex court, after referring to its earlier judgments, fixed reasonable compensation amount under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenditure as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The claimants are thus entitled to get the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of “loss of estate”, Rs.40,000/- under the head of “loss of consortium”

¶29

JUD,J MACMA_1178_2013

¶30

¶31

and Rs.15,000/- under the head of “funeral expenditure”. As the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the court below under the head of “loss of love and affection and consortium” appears to be very high, the same is to be reduced to Rs.70,000/-.

¶32

Though this court has agreed with the contention of the counsel of the appellant-insurance company in so far as wrong application of multiplier ‘17’ and granting of exorbitant compensation amount to the claimant under the head of “loss of love and affection and consortium” etc., this court has been accepting his contentions that the compensation amount of Rs.19,05,000/awarded to the claimants is on higher side for the reason, that as per the decision of the Apex Court cited by the appellant-insurance company in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (2 supra), an addition of more than 40% of the established income of the deceased is to be granted towards “future prospects”. In the aforementioned judgment, the Apex Court held as under:

¶33

“….As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency……In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years….”

¶34

If 40% of the established income is awarded towards further prospects, the compensation amount which the claimants are entitled to get exceeds the amount granted by the court below towards compensation.

¶35

In view of the above, the contention raised by the appellant-insurance company that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on higher side cannot be accepted.

¶36

JUD,J MACMA_1178_2013

¶37

¶38

In the light of the afore held discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company, challenging award passed by the court below in OP.No.348 of 2012, fails and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶40

__________________ J.UMA DEVI,J

¶41

Date: 17.09.2019 Dsr

United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Boya Laxmikanthamma at Suguru Laxmikanthamma and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Boya Laxmikanthamma at Suguru Laxmikanthamma and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chitrala Sreenivasulu Vs a. Subahan Saheb and Another

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs v.Ramalingeswara Rao and 3 Others.

Rameswarapu Venugopalaswamy, W.G.Dist and 2 Othrs Vs Guttikonda Ashok, Krishna Dist and 2 Othrs

The Managing Director Vs Bandaru Lakshminarayana and 2 Others

M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Vs D. Rama Mohan

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Konduru Parameswara Reddy and Ano