Dismissed

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, v. C. Kasthuri

Telangana HC15 Dec 2014MACMA/1927/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an insurer's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award compensating legal heirs of a deceased moped rider. The appeal challenged the compensation quantum, claiming wrong multiplier usage and contributory negligence. The court upheld the finding that death resulted from injuries sustained in the accident and affirmed the Tribunal's calculation was not excessive.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurer was dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs.

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs C… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.1927 OF 2008

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The 2^nd respondent – insurer, among the two respondents including the owner of the Mini Van bearing No.AP 09 V 3605, in the claim filed by the wife, minor daughter since became major and parents of the deceased – C. Bathaiah aged about 43 years, as per Ex.X.6 – attested copy of the Service Register extract, met with death on 03.05.2006 for the injuries sustained in the accident, dated 10.04.2005 while he was proceeding on TVS XL 50 Moped bearing No.AP 03 F 9006, the claim made for Rs.16,00,000/- in O.P. No.250 of 2006 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), since the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) awarded compensation Rs.11,28,080/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, preferred the appeal with contentions in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal gravely erred in adopting a wrong multiplier and taken gross salary without deductions and the claim is false, the deceased working in the Canteen of the Bank, hence to set aside the award and to fix only just compensation.

¶4

02. Learned counsel for the insurer reiterated the same and as well submits that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, there is no nexus between death of the deceased and the date of accident i.e. nearly 11 months and from personal action dies with the person, what the compensation to be awarded is for the loss of estate.

¶5

03. Whereas, it is the contention of learned counsel for claimants as respondents 1 to 4 to the appeal that the award of the Tribunal holds good, while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere.

¶6

04. The 5^th respondent to the appeal since remained ex parte before the Tribunal and absent herein, the appeal is taken as heard on his behalf.

¶7

05. Perused the material on record. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶8

06. Now the points that arise for consideration are,

¶9

i. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, death is not because of the injuries sustained in the accident for its taken place 11 months after the accident

¶10

and whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and multiplier adopted and the multiplicand arrived is wrong to reduce. If so with what observation?

¶11

ii. To what result?

¶12

POINT No.i:

¶13

07. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. Ex.A.1 – First Information Report is against the driver of the mini van –1^st respondent and the mini van admittedly insured with the 2^nd respondent of the claim petition and the police, Pakala Police Station, after completion of investigation in crime No.24 of 2005, filed charge sheet in C.C. No.6 of 2006, thereby the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pakala, has taken on file and the investigation of the police also corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 – eye witness and also with reference to Ex.A.1 – First Information Report to come to a conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini van, which dashed the Moped of the deceased and it is due to injuries he sustained and he was admitted and treated in Government Hospital and also at Vellore Hospital. Ex.X.1 is the discharge summary issued by the Neuro Surgeon of C.M.C. Vellore Hospital and Ex.X.2 is the discharge summary issued by P.M.S.R. Department, Ex.A.3 is the wound certificate, Ex.A.5 – Photos of the deceased and his condition after the injuries sustained with totally immobile and bedridden even after discharge from the hospital on 14.07.2005. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased also deposed that after the accident, from the injuries, her husband became immobile and totally bedridden and from the injuries, he ultimately succumbed. P.W.4 is the Dr.Jacob George of C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. With reference to the case sheet, wound certificate and other treatment, he deposed that the deceased was admitted and discharged on 14.07.2005 and he was totally dependant and can lead to secondary infection which may lead to death and that there is less chances of his further survival. The deceased was discharged on 22.10.2005 from Neuro Surgery Unit and by the date of his admission the deceased was dependant in all activities and he was unconscious like a dead person. As per the

¶14

evidence of P.W.4 cause of death is on account of hypertension Numenia. Even therefrom the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent and cause of death was out come of injuries sustained and totally bedridden and un-recovered and breathed lost after 11 months on 03.05.2006. The Tribunal is right in its conclusion and for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere so far as the finding on the negligence of the 1^st respondent is concerned.

¶15

08. Now coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal concerned, P.W.5 - Manager of State Bank of India deposed with reference to Ex.X.6 is the attested copy of the Service sheet. As per Ex.X.6, the deceased was aged 43 years. Ex.X.5 is the attested copy of salary slips of the deceased for 6 months and Exs.X.3 and X.4 are the statement of accounts prepared by SR Accounts Officer and Ex.X.7 is the attendance register to prove that the deceased attended to duty prior to the accident and not later. As per Ex.X.5 – salary slips of the deceased, the gross salary of the deceased is 7,689.65 ps., out of which even by deduction special allowance - Rs.184.00ps, wash allowance – Rs.50.00 ps., conveyance allowance – Rs.65-00 and the other special allowance Rs.340.00 ps., the net salary can be taken Rs.7,000/- and from the claimants 4 in number, who are parents, wife and minor son of the deceased, since he became major, depending upon the dependants herein, the 1/4^th of the personal expenses should be deducted and not 1/3^rd , then the earnings would comes to Rs.5,250/-. As per the expression of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v.

¶16

Delhi Transport Corporation^[1] , the multiplier for the persons aged between 41 and 45 is 14, then the loss of earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.8,82,000/- (5,250 x 12x 14). Besides the above, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,45,000/- towards care and guidance of the 2^nd claimant – minor child,

¶17

in view of expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh^[2] . Hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is no way excessive.

¶18

Accordingly, point No.i is answered.

¶19

Point No.ii:

¶20

09. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶21

_________________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶22

December 15, 2014 bv

¶23

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶24

MACMA No.1927 OF 2008

¶25

15.12.2014

¶26

¶27

[1] 2001 ACJ 1298

¶28

[2] 2013 ACJ 1403 = (2013) 9 SCC 54

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, v. C. Kasthuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, v. C. Kasthuri

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

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Are Gangu Bai

Ponna Shankar Reddy Vs M/s. Ratna Solutions

P.Mukunda Reddy Vs P.Rukminamma

Ape Vintage Motor Auto Company Vs Singarathi Srinivas

Kasula Shankaraiah (died per L.R.) Vs Sri E.Ramchandra Reddy

M/s.National Insurance Company Limited Vs K.Rajeswari