Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yanamadhala Subbayamma

Telangana HC14 Jun 2018MACMA/1709/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal by United India Insurance Company challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's compensation award to heirs of a deceased motor accident victim is dismissed. The court held the Tribunal's application of the 1/3rd personal expense deduction and 9% interest was justified under the circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is dismissed.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Yanamadhala Subbayamma — Insurance | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.1 7 0 9 of 2 0 0 5

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant/ United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.1,89,500/ - as against a claim of Rs.2,00,000/ - to the respondents 1 to 5/ claimants, by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity), vide order, dated 19.04.2005, passed in O.P.No.308 of 2004.

¶5

2 . Heard the learned Standing Counsel for appellantInsurance Company, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5/ claimants and perused the record.

¶6

3 . The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased-Y.Ramakrishna as Rs.4,000/ -, which is excessive. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount granted as compensation, which is also excessive and ultimately prayed to reduce the amount of compensation granted in favour of respondents 1 to 5/ claimants.

¶7

4 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5/ claimants would contend that the Tribunal had taken all the factors into consideration and awarded just and reasonable

¶8

¶9

amount towards compensation. There are no circumstances to interfere with the same ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶10

5 . It is not in dispute that the deceased-Y.Ramakrishna died in a motor accident that occurred on the intervening night of 27/ 28-05-2003 due to the rash and negligent driving of 6^th respondent-driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-TT7440. As per the records, the deceased was 52 years old and working as Watchman at CSP-I Godavarikhani as on the date of accident. The Tribunal, relying on the oral and documentary evidence on record, had taken age of the deceased as 52 years, monthly income as Rs.4,000/ -, deducted 1/ 3^rd of it towards personal expenses, applied multiplier 11 to the age of the deceased and granted an amount of RS.1,70,000/ - towards loss of earnings and dependency. The Tribunal further awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/ - towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.5,000/ - towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/ - towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/ - towards loss of estate. In all, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,89,500/ - to the respondents 1 to 5/ claimants with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶11

6 . As per the records, there are five dependants on the deceased. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sar la Ver m a v . Delh i Tr an spor t Cor por at ion¹ , 1/ 4^th of the monthly income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses in the cases of this nature. However, the Tribunal

¶12

1 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶13

¶14

deducted 1/ 3^rd of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. There is catena of decisions, wherein, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation was awarded in the cases of this nature. Since the Tribunal did not deduct 1/ 4^th of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure as per the settled legal position, award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount granted as compensation is just and reasonable. Under these circumstances, there is nothing to vary the award passed by the Tribunal. There are no merits in the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5/ claimants. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

7 . In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶16

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶17

____________________ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶18

14^th June, 2018 Bvv

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yanamadhala Subbayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yanamadhala Subbayamma

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

Divisional Manager Vs G. Krishnaiah Naidu

Pabba Laxman Vs B.Lingaiah

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vijayawada. Vs Guguloth Vijaya , Rama and 2 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs D.R. Sarma and 5 Others

K.R. Koteswara Rao Vs M/S Abdul Khader Distributors and Another

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its Dm, , and Another Vs N. Narayana Reddy and Another