Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Meesala Eswaramma

MEESALA ESWA R AMMA, W/O. LATE APPALANAIDU, AGED 41 YEARS, HINDU, H OUSEHOLD DUTIES, DEVARAP A LLI VILLAGE, RANASTALAM MA N DALM., SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

MEEALA SATISH, S/O. LATE APPALANAIDU, AGED 22 YEARS, HINDU, DEVAR A PALLI VILLAGE, RANASTALA M MANDALM, SRIKAKULAM DIS T RICT.

¶15

MEESALA SRIDE V I, D/O. LATE APPALANAIDU, AG E D 16 YEARS. MINOR, HINDU, B E ING MINOR REPRESENTED BY H ER MOTHERNEXT FRIEND, GUARDIAN-1ST PETITIONER HEREIN )

¶16

MEESALA APPAL A MMA, W/O. LATE RAMULU, AG E D 75 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEH O LD, DEVARAPALLI VILLAGE, RANASTALAM MANDALM, SRIKA K ULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

KANDI NARAYAN A RAO, S/O. THAVUDU. OWNER-CU M - DRIVER OF BOLERO GOODS CARRIAGE NO. AP 39 TT 60 6 1, D.NO.4-78, SANCLIAM, PU N NANAPALEM, RANASTHALAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DIS T RICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶21

1.D RAVI KIRAN

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.N B CHANDRA SEKHAR

¶24

The Court made the following Judgment :

¶25

The Appellant/ Insurance Company filed the present Appeal challenging the order and decree 01.09.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.16,45,000/- to the Respondents/ Claimants, as against the claim of 30,00,000/- for the death of one Mr. Meesala Appala Naidu, (in short ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident that occurred on 01.06.2021.

¶26

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶27

3. The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶28

On 31.05.2021, the Respondent No.1 along with one Duppada Ashok, transported mangoes from Devarapalli to Berhampur, in the offending vehicle and the mangoes were loaded at Devarapalli. The owner of mangoes load also joined the, and all of them started at 8.30 p.m and while they were proceeding towards Berhampur, on 01.06.2021 at about 2.20 a.m, when they reached near Sri Venkateswara Weigh Bridge, ahead of sky drop junction, Respondent No.1 drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, onto divider, as a result, the offending vehicle capsized on

¶29

3

¶30

the road, and deceased sitting on the mangoes load fell down, and sustained severe injuries on his head. The Ichapuram Police registered a case in Crime No. 52 of 2021 under Section 304(A) of IPC. Therefore, the Claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the Respondents.

¶31

Respondent No.1 filed Written Statement denying all material averments made in the petition and inter alia contended that he drove the vehicle with careful manner and possessing valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. If offending vehicle had involved in any accident, it would be damage, but it did not sustain damage. The offending vehicle insured with the Respondent No.2, who is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants if any.

¶32

Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed Written Statement contending that the deceased was sitting negligently on the top of the mangoes load in the offending vehicle, as gratuitous passenger, without taking proper care and safety and due to his negligence, the accident took place, as the Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. Further, the driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license on the date of accident, which amounts to breach of Section 181 read with 3 of Motor Vehicles Act and also violation of insurance policy. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the Claimants.

¶33

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶34

4

¶35

“1. Whether the death of deceased Meesala Appala Naidu, S/o late Ramulu, took place in motor accident on 01.06.2021, at about 1.20 hours, near Sri Venkateswara Weigh Bridge, due to rash and negligence of 1^st respondent, in driving his vehicle bearing No. AP 39 TT 6061?

¶36

2. Whether the deceased was aged 45 years, and earned Rs. 30,000/- per month?

¶37

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, for what amount, and against whom?

¶38

4. To what relief?”

¶39

On behalf of the Claimants, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of Respondents, RW-1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

¶40

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against Respondent No.2, awarding compensation of Rs.16,45,000/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed Respondent No.2 to deposit the said amount within a month from the date of the order.

¶41

Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant/ Claimant preferred this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger and was sitting on the mangoes load on the goods carriage bearing No. AP 39 TT 6061 at the time of accident and the act of the deceased own negligence resulted his death. As such, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the deceased as he contributing his life in the accident. Considering the negligence on the part of

¶42

5

¶43

the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition holding that the risk is not covered under policy as there was no premium paid as per policy. The Tribunal while passing the orders beyond the terms and conditions of the policy and ignored the law that the liability of the insured subject to terms and conditions of the policy.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

Now the point for consideration is:

¶46

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶47

POINT:

¶48

On perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal, the Claimant No.1, who is wife of the deceased got examined herself as PW-1 and also got examined PW-2, who is an eye witness to the accident. Basing on the report submitted by PW-2, Ex.A1- FIR was registered. PW-2 categorically stated that on 31.05.2021 at about 2.20 a.m the Respondent No.1 proceeded in the offending vehicle with a load of mangoes of the deceased, which was loaded at Devarapalli Village and deceased was sitting on the mangoes load at the relevant point of time, coupled with Ex.A1 i.e copy of FIR in Crime No. 52 of 2021 of Ichapuram Police, which was registered basing on the report submitted by PW-2. Ex.A2 copy of Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 491 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ichapuram, the Tribunal held that the Respondent No.1 drove the offending vehicle towards the divider, resulting

¶49

6

¶50

death of the deceased due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

¶51

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased was doing business and used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence adduced by PW-1 to that extent, the Tribunal holding that the deceased was the owner of the mangoes load, though it is a seasonal business, fixed the earnings of the deceased notionally at Rs.10,000/- per month, if same is considered, the annual income would be at Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. As the age of the deceased was 45 years as on the date of accident as per Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, an addition of 25% of the income was added towards future prospects. If the same is added, his income would come to Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum (Rs. 1,20,000/- + 30,000/-). There are four dependants of the deceased, therefore 1/4^th was deducted towards personal expenses, after deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased, it would come to Rs. 1,12,500/- After applying relevant multiplier ‘14’ as per “ Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another”¹ ¸ loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 15,75,000/- (Rs.1,12,500/x 14). Apart from the same, the Tribunal also awarded compensation under conventional heads such as Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the Claimant No.1 alone. In total compensation 16,45,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶52

1 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)

¶53

7

¶54

It is curious to note that the Claimants No. 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased and Claimants No.4 is the mother of the deceased, who are also entitled to a tune of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of consortium. As the Tribunal has failed to award the same, this Court feels it appropriate to consider the said aspect by awarding Rs. 40,000/- each to the Petitioners No. 2 to 4. If the same is calculated, the total consortium would be come to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- x 3) apart from granting consortium to the Claimant No.1 as Rs. 40,000/-.

¶55

As the learned counsel for the Appellant has strongly contended that the deceased has contributed to the said accident by sitting on the top of mangoes load and if the deceased was sitting on the cabin in the said vehicle, he can survive. As such, this Court feels it appropriate to enhance the compensation under the head of consortium to a tune of Rs. 1,20,000/towards contributory negligence of the deceased.

¶56

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows:-

¶57

S.No.	Head of the Claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Amounts now enhanced by this Court
1.	Loss of dependency	15,75,000/-	15,75,000/-
2.	Loss of estate	15,000/-	15,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	15,000/-	15,000/-
4.	Loss of consortium	40,000/-	1,20,000/-
	Total	16,45,000/-	17,25,000/-

¶58

8

¶59

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, enhancing the compensation of Rs.17,25,000/- from Rs.16,45,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the Claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶61

___________________

¶62

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶63

Date: 06.04.2026

¶64

KK

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meesala Eswaramma

Case brief

What is this about?

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meesala Eswaramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gottimukkala Kiran Babu Vs the Union of India

The Official Liquidator, Vs Nil

The Official Liquidator Vs Nil

Kotakondla Rathna Vs Rengichetty Manohar

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Kongana Bhavani

Manjula Narayana Vs Pathan Shahida