Dismissed

The National Insurance Company Limited, v. Nalabothula Sanjeevarayudu

Telangana HC25 Aug 2014MACMA/2884/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by an insurer challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.4,00,000 compensation for the death of Nallabothula Lakshmi Devi. The High Court held that the finding of rash and negligent driving warrants no interference and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2884 of 2007

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

Questioning the order and award dated 13.09.2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.470 of 2006, the National Insurance Company Limited (for short “the Insurance Company”) preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”).

¶5

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

¶6

The facts in issue are as under:

¶7

The petitioners, who are the husband and children of one Nallabothula Lakshmi Devi, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the said Nallabothula Lakshmi Devi in a road accident that took place on 07.02.2006. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the said Nallabothula Lakshmi Devi was returning to her native village after selling milk and at 6.30 p.m. when she reached near Yerramreddipalli village on Pulivendla-Thernampalli road, a tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.AP 04K 2654 and 2655 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against her. As a result of which, she fell down, sustained injuries and died instantaneously. In respect of the above incident, a case in crime No.25 of 2006 came to be registered by the police. It is stated that as a policy was in force at the time of accident and since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and trailer belonged to the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company, an application was filed making the owner and the insurer

¶8

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶9

The 1^st respondent-driver filed a counter disputing the age, profession and income of the deceased as well as the manner in which the accident took place. It is, however, stated that since the offending vehicle is insured with the 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent has to indemnify the liability of the 1^st respondent.

¶10

The 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company also filed their counter disputing the age, income and avocation of the deceased, apart from the manner in which the accident occurred. It was stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident. According to them, the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased while crossing a road in a zigzag manner. Hence, it is contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation.

¶11

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

¶12

1) Whether the deceased Nallabothula Lakshmi Devi died on 07.02.2006 at 6.30 p.m. on Pulivendla-Thernampalli road at Yerramreddipalli due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trolley bearing registration Nos.AP 04K 2654 and 2655 of the 1^st respondent being insured with the 2^nd respondent?

¶13

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from whom?

¶14

3) To what relief?

¶15

In support of their case, the 1^st petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 as an eyewitness to the incident. In support of their evidence, the petitioners also got marked Exs.A.1 to

¶16

A.4. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

After analyzing the material available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and trailer and, accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

¶18

In order to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 04K 2654 and 2655, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.W.1 - husband of the deceased and examined P.W.2 as an eyewitness to the incident, apart from the first information and charge sheet, which are placed on record as Exs.A.1 and A.4 respectively. P.W.2, who was examined as an eyewitness to the accident, deposed about the fault on the part of the driver of the tractor and trailer while driving the vehicle. He narrated the manner in which the accident took place. The said evidence of P.W.2 get corroboration from P.W.1 on material aspects. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit his testimony. Exs.A.1 and A.4 amply establish that the driver of the tractor and trailer was responsible for the accident. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.4 clearly prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and trailer. Though the respondents filed counters denying the manner in which the accident took place, they did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to disprove the case of the petitioners. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place warrants no interference.

¶19

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the Insurance company would mainly submit that the Tribunal erred

¶20

in taking into consideration multiplier “17” for calculating the loss of dependency. According to him, the deceased being 31 years at the time of accident, the suitable multiplier to be adopted would be ”16”, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma and others Vs.

¶21

Delhi Transport Corporation and anothe r^[1] .

¶22

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that if the High Court proposes to reduce compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants can resist the reduction of quantum of compensation, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and others v. Divisional Manager and anothe r^[2] .

¶23

In Ranjana Prakash case (2 supra), the Apex Court held as

¶24

under:

¶25

“In an appeal filed by owner/insurer, if High Court proposes to reduce compensation awarded by Tribunal, the claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation.”

¶26

In the instant case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which in my view appears to be on a lower side. The petitioners would be entitled to more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal under the above counts, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir

¶27

Singh and others^[3] . Even if multiplier “16” is adopted for calculating the loss of dependency, the reduction in the quantum of compensation get adjusted if the error in awarding meager amount towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is taken into consideration. Though the

¶28

Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,17,500/-, but the same was restricted to the actual claim of the petitioners i.e., Rs.4,00,000/-. On this ground also, the quantum of compensation need not be reduced.

¶29

For the foregoing reasons and keeping in view the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimant is a paramount consideration, the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal in awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- needs no interference.

¶30

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.

¶32

__________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 25^th August, 2014 cbs

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶34

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2884 of 2007

¶35

25^th August, 2014