Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vaddempudi Narayanamma

Telangana HC25 Aug 2014MACMA/2408/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellants challenged the compensation decree awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal regarding a death caused in a motor accident. The High Court found the Tribunal's quantum of Rs. 6,25,000 and 9% interest lawful, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was confirmed in all aspects.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vaddempudi Narayanamma — Insurance | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No.2408 of 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited (the 2^nd respondent in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2007), challenging the order and decree, dated 10.04.2008, passed in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-District Judge, Ongole.

¶5

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.P.

¶6

The petitioner in O.P. filed an application under Section 166 & 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a Motor accident, which occurred on 26.10.2006 at about 07.00 a.m.

¶7

The averments in the petition would disclose that on the fateful day i.e., on 26.10.2006 at about 07.00 a.m., the deceased along with his relative, by name, V. Lakshmi Sudhakara Rao were going on a scooter bearing No.AP27-9292 from Narasayapalem to Maddipadu. When they reached Seetharampuram Village, a lorry bearing No.MP 09 KD 3085 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the motorcycle from its backside. As a result of which, the deceased and his

¶8

relative Lakshmi Sudhakara Rao died on the spot. In respect of the above accident, a case in Crime No.143 of 2006 of Maddipadu police station came to be registered. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of 1^st respondent-owner, which was insured with R2, both the respondents are jointly and severally made liable to pay compensation.

¶9

The 1^st respondent remained exparte, while the 2^nd respondent filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place and also the income and age of the deceased. It was specifically contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and that he had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In any event it was stated that the claim made is excessive and exorbitant.

¶10

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶11

1) Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of R1’s lorry?

¶12

2) What is the correct age & income of deceased as on the date of accident?

¶13

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

¶14

4) To what relief?

¶15

In support of their claim, the petitioners/claimants examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. No

¶16

oral or documentary evidence has adduced on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

The 1^st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and one V. Anjaiah, who is an eyewitness to the incident, was examined as PW2. According to him, on 26.10.2006 at about 7.00 a.m., while the deceased along with his relative V. Lakshmi Sudhakara Rao was going on the scooter bearing No. AP-27-9292 from Narsayapalem to Maddipadu and when they reached Seetharampuram Village, a lorry bearing No.MP 09 KD 3085 of R1 insured with R2 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle from behind. As a result of which, the deceased and his relative Lakshmi Sudhakrara Rao died on the spot. In respect of the above accident, a case in Crime No.143 of 2006 of Maddipadu Police Station was registered against the driver of the lorry. They have also relied upon Ex.A1 copy of F.I.R and Ex.A2 inquest report. There is nothing to show, on record that the deceased or the pillion rider are negligent or contributed to the accident. Though PW.1 was crossexamined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit her testimony.

¶18

Therefore, the finding of the tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry warrants no interference, more particularly, when no rebuttal evidence has been placed on record.

¶19

Coming to the quantum of compensation to be awarded, the material on record would disclose that the deceased completed his Engineering in the year 1972. In order to substantiate the same, the claimants got marked Ex.A6 certificate of Bachelor of Engineering issued by the college. But the claimants failed to produce any document showing his consultancy business and the income earned from the business.

¶20

The material available on record would disclose that the claimants have filed Ex.A1 issued by the ATO Pedapalli to show that the deceased was holding Ac.4.00 acres of land. But no documents were filed in the form of pattadar passbook or Adangal, in support the same. Ex.A7 is the copy of passbook showing the extent of Ac 12.04 cents of land in the name of the mother of the deceased. Out of the same, she was holding Ac12.97 cents of land. But no evidence has been filed to show that he was cultivating for any benefit, to be derived. The trial Court held that even assuming the deceased was cultivating the above lands, there is no monetary loss but only supervisory loss. Considering the facts in issue and taking into consideration the education qualifications of the deceased, the tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.7500/- per month.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the finding of the tribunal in taking the

¶22

supervisory loss may not be correct, as no evidence has been placed on record to show as to whether any cultivation was being done for the said land. Even accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to supervisory loss, the finding of the tribunal in fixing the income at Rs.7,500/- per month cannot be found fault with.

¶23

Deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses applying multiplier of ‘10’ and by awarding Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate , Rs.8,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, assured the loss of dependency at Rs.6,25,000/-.

¶24

At this stage, Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that awarding interest @ 9% p.a. is on higher side. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that adopting multiplier of ‘10’ is incorrect as suitable multiplier to be adopted to a person, who is aged about 55 years would be ‘11’ and not ‘10’.

¶25

But in Syed Sadiq etc. V. Divisional Manager,

¶26

United India Insurance Company^[1] , the Apex Court held upheld awarding of 9% interest on the amount of compensation by the trial Court. Therefore, the argument of the counsel that interest @ 9% p.a. is on a higher side

¶27

cannot be accepted. At the same time, the change in multiplier from ‘10’ to ‘11’ also cannot be accepted as the claimants have not filed any appeal challenging the same.

¶28

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- awarded by the tribunal cannot said to be on higher side and the same needs no interference.

¶29

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the tribunal in all aspects. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petition pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.

¶30

______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶31

Date: 25.08.2014 gvl

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶33

M.A.C.M.A. No.2408 of 2008

¶34

Date:25.08.2014

¶35

gvl

¶36

[1] 2014(2) ALD 133(SC)

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vaddempudi Narayanamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vaddempudi Narayanamma

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

Dasari Shyamsunder, Vs State of Telangana

Chilaka Veera Venkata Naga Ramlinga Sridhar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Vallabhaneni Srinivasa Rao, Vs Mangalapudi Venkateswarlu

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Konka Latha

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Nalabothula Sanjeevarayudu

Shaik Sakeera, W/o Razak, Vs Bokkisam Suresh Kumar, S/o Subba Rao