Partly allowed

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chityala Lakshmi

Telangana HC16 Nov 2012MACMA/1153/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an appeal against an award of Rs.7 lakh compensation in a motor accident death case. The court reduced the amount to Rs.5.03 lakh based on notional income and dependency, confirming medical expenses and funeral costs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs.5,03,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a., payable jointly and severally by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chityala… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1153 of 2012

¶2

Date: 16-11-2012

¶3

Between

¶4

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Begumper, Hyderabad

¶5

… Appellant/Respondent No.2

¶6

and

¶7

Chityala Lakshmi and another

¶8

… Respondents/Claimants

¶9

Ch.Narsimha Reddy

¶10

… Respondent/Respondent No.1

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶12

M.A.C.M.A.No.1153 of 2012

¶13

Judgment:

¶14

Award of compensation at Rs.7,00,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum for the death of Chityala Rajani Kanth by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (the Tribunal, for short), is assailed by the insurer of Tipper bearing registration No.AP 1V 5621.

¶15

2. The 1st claimant is the widowed mother of the nd deceased. The 2 clamant is the elder brother of the deceased. The deceased was 20 years old at the time of his death. He was statedly working as a Marketing Executive with M/s. R.S.Enterprises, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad. On 04-8-2007, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 10AH 3829 from Lallapet towards Thimmapur. By the time the motorcycle reached the near abouts of Shilpa Venture, Rampally village, at about 9.00 a.m., the tipper dashed against the motorcycle. The deceased sustained serious injuries in the said accident. He was immediately shifted to Sigma Hospital. The deceased breathed his last at about 4.30 p.m. while undergoing treatment. Claiming that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper, the claimants laid the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation at Rs.7,00,000/-.

¶16

3. The claimants examined the 1st claimant as P.W.1 and two others as P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were exhibited by the claimants. The owner of the tipper remained ex parte. The insurer of the tipper did not choose to examine anyone in support of its claim. The insurer, however, marked Ex.B-1 copy of the policy. Considering that the claim was proved, the Tribunal

¶17

awarded compensation at Rs.7,00,000/-, as claimed through the petition.

¶18

4. Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, contended that it is a case of head on collision of the tipper and the motorcycle, so much so, the necessary inference is that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased himself. However, the insurer did not choose to examine anyone in support of its contention. On the other hand, the claimants examined P.W.3. P.W.3 was the pillion-rider of the motorcycle of the deceased at the time of the accident. He deposed that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper. Exs.A-1 and A-4 to A-6 are the certified copies of the First Information Report, panchanama of the scene of offence, the inquest report and the charge-sheet. All of them uniformly claim that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper. In view of the overwhelming evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Exs.A-1 and A-4 to A-6 and in the absence of contrary evidence, I hold that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper. I reject the contention of the insurer that there was negligence or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident.

¶19

5. The deceased was working as Marketing

¶20

Executive in M/s. R.S.Enterprises at the time of the accident. P.W.2 would appear to be the Proprietor of M/s. R.S.Enterprises. However, by the date of his evidence, P.W.2 was not involved in M/s. R.S.Enterprises as P.W.2 admittedly sold away the concern by then. Assuming that P.W.2 was not involved in the organization where the deceased was working at the time of the death of the deceased, P.W.2 could have been aware of the income of the deceased while P.W.2 was running the concern. However, there was no evidence to show that the deceased was working with M/s. R.S.Enterprises at the time of the accident barring for the evidence of P.W.2.

¶21

6. P.W.2 certified that the deceased was earning Rs.8,500/- per month at the time of the accident. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. As rightly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, there is no evidence whatsoever regarding the income of the deceased or the educational qualifications of the deceased. Having regard to the claim of the deceased that he was working as Marketing Executive/Sales Executive, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. When the deceased died in 2007, determining the income notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month considering that the deceased was a Marketing/Sales Executive is quite reasonable and justified. I therefore do not deem it

¶22

appropriate to interfere with the monthly notional income of the deceased as arrived at by the Tribunal.

¶23

7. However, only two claimants sought for compensation. In such an event, in view of Sarla Verma

¶24

[1] v. Delhi Transport Corporation , it would be appropriate to deduct half of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Deducting half of Rs.6,000/-, Rs.3,000/- is liable to be worked out as the monthly notional income of the deceased for the purpose of dependency and calculation. As the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-, the annual notional income was Rs.36,000/-.

¶25

8. The deceased was a bachelor. The 1st claimant, who is the mother of the deceased, was described to be 48 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal rightly applied multiplier ‘13’. If the annual notional income at Rs.36,000/- is multiplied by 13, the amount would be Rs.4,68,000/-. The claimants shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.4,68,000/towards loss of dependency, loss of income and future expectancy of life. The claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, as granted by the Tribunal.

¶26

9. Although this is a death claim, the deceased was in the hospital for about 8 to 9 hours before his death.

¶27

Ex.A-9 medical bills for a sum of Rs.20,000/- was included as compensation. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer contended that the medical bills have not been proved and that medical expenses therefore cannot be accepted. It may be noticed that P.W.1 proved the medical bills. In a summary enquiry, I am afraid that it is not necessary for the claimants to examine someone connected with the hospital to prove the claims in Ex.A-9. The claimants are entitled to Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for medical expenses.

¶28

10. The claimants accordingly are entitled to compensation at:

¶29

(a) Compensation towards … Rs.4,68,000/loss of dependency, loss of income and future expectancy of life

¶30

(b) Compensation towards … 10,000/loss of estate (c) Compensation towards … 5,000/funeral expenses (d) Compensation towards ... 20,000/medical expenses ----------------Total … Rs.5,03,000/-

¶31

-----------------

¶32

11. The claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.5,03,000/-. As the accident occurred in 2007, the claimants are entitled to interest at 7.5% per annum as granted by the Tribunal.

¶33

12. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part without costs. Compensation is reduced to Rs.5,03,000/(Rupees five lakhs and three thousand only) together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit. The owner of the tipper and the insurer thereof are jointly and severally liable to answer the same. They shall deposit the same within one month from today. Out of the awarded amount, the 1^st claimant-widowed mother of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only).

¶34

The 2^nd claimant-elder brother of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs.2,03,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and three thousand only). Each of them is entitled to interest over their respective share of awarded amounts.

¶35

13. After deposit, each of the claimants 1 and 2 shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) at the first instance. The balance shall lie in Fixed Deposits. The claimants 1 and 2 shall be entitled to withdraw the balance in instalments at Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees fifty thousand only) once in two years. As the last of their respective instalments, each of the claimants 1 and 2 shall be entitled to withdraw the balance together with accrued interest. In case of urgency for withdrawal, the parties may approach the Tribunal. In such an event, it is the Tribunal, which shall decide the question.

¶36

K.G.SHANKAR, J.

¶37

16^th November, 2012. Ak

¶38

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶39

M.A.C.M.A.No.1153 of 2012 (Judgment)

¶40

th 16 November, 2012. (Ak)

¶41

[1] 2009 ACJ 1298

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chityala Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chityala Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kakanuru Nagi Reddy, Vs Dudekula Ramu

Thotakura Venkaiah Prasanth, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. G. Srinivasa Rao (A-4) Vs The State

A.Sudershan Rao Vs Sreenivas Agarwal

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs P. Yadamma

Syed Siddiq Ahmed, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh