Partly allowed

Reliancce Gneral Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommakanti Bhumalingam and 3 Others

Telangana HC31 Dec 2021MACMA/1725/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal by the insurance company against the Tribunal's award in a motor accident death case. It reduced the total compensation from Rs. 37.54 lakhs to Rs. 34.01 lakhs by adjusting future prospects to 30% and correcting conventional heads. Interest was fixed at 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs. 34,01,012; interest fixed at 7.5% p.a.; appellant and fourth respondent directed to deposit amount.

Reliancce Gneral Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bommakanti… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY. THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P, NAVEEN RAO AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1725 OF 2014

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the^{Order and decree made in} MVOP No.156 of 2013 dated 0111012013^{on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor} Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal^{DistrictJudge,Meadkat Sangareddy.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Reliance General lnsurance Company^{Ltd-, Repby its Branch Manager,Deccan} Chambers, 4rh Ftoor, Somajiguda,^{Hyderabad. (PolicyNo.1807422311001313valid} frcm 28.12.201210 27 .12.2013)

¶10

...A',ELLANT/R,

¶11

AND

¶12

Bommakantl Bhumalingam,^{S/o Buchaiah, Occ:-Employee in A P C P D C L' Fl/o} rl,r'iJ.is-27 Llc Apna-poiiiiJaJvplttv,^{sansaredo.vMa-ndal'MedakDistrict'}

¶13

2 ij;;;;;;ti R;.vrr,t.n*.^{diJ'drt''i''r'ngirnlwlo G Naresh)'occ:-House-} wife, R/o^{H.No .15_27LrC [p[ii ioi"ni'JJifi"riy)sansareody Mandal.rvledak}

¶14

:. Bltlir"k"nti^{Archana, D/o B Bhumalingam'occ:-Student' R/o H No 15-27 LIG} " XFriii ij"tnii.odvp'riv s i n g^jred d v tr/a-nd al^{lr"led ak.District} ,k""^ io t'" oet1t191-er Occ:- Owner or

¶15

4 lvlr. Pradeep^{Aotr'uk'rwa:'' 5';} "oi rrilaruthr Swifl^{ozire np-o'i-inYob"rji'ni"' ri'Nt+-'s-22915'Bhukthapurvillage} Adilabad^{District-504001} ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS^{1 TO 3 & Rl}

¶16

For the Appellant^{: sRl V'sATYAMREDDY'SENIoR ADVOCATEFOR} SRI.N.MOHAN^{KRISHNA'Advocate}

¶17

For the^{Respondent Nos'1 to 3 : sRl M'KIRANREDDY', Advocate}

¶18

For the^{Respondent No'4: SRI T'V RAMANARAO' Advocate}

¶19

The Court^{delivered thefollowing: JUDGMENT}

¶20

¶21

H )N'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEP. NAVEENRAO} AND HI^{IN'BLE SMT. JUSTICEP. SREE SUDHA} MAC MA No.^{1723 of 2Ol4}

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

U?er^{J usticeP.SrceSr.trlhit)}

¶24

l. This a )peal is^{prelerred byReliance(lcncrallnsurance} C()rnpan.!- Li 1itcd,^{ap1>cllat.rt/ scct.,trtl t csp'rtrrlctlt.aggrrt ved bYthe} rlccrec and.j rdgement dated 01.10.2013,^{passedin M.V.O.P. No 156} ol 2013 on he hle of the Chairman, Motor Vehicie Accidents^Claims Tribunal-cu n-Principal District Judge, Ivledak at Sangareddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

¶25

The said M.V.O.P. u/as filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles , .ct, by the original petitioners (Respondent Nos.I to g herein) sr:king a compensarion of {40,00,000/- on account of the death of imt.Dontula @ Bommakanti Nagamani, in a Motor Vehicle accident .hat occurred on 26.0I.2013; from the owner and insurers ol the cri ne vehicle that caused the accident.

¶26

.r.l -ll- -' clcceasecl u.as u,orfujng as a I_.D. Str,tro in I)RDA, drawing a rrLrnrhl,, salarv ol' a24,706 / besiclcs doing rhe household chores for IrL'r' l:rr ilr, 'l-he dcccast,d and hcr ltLrsltancl (liespondent No. I, !)r'irlion f Nr.r. i) rrcrl T(,LLintl jtL lr SlLrrt.rr.ctlcl ,, ltr-)ul (ldncsh Tcmpl-v, Rr-rdrar m, on a scoot\ clriven br tlre husbirncl ou 16.01.2013 ancl rnet wi h an accident q,hen rt crossed thc rr,rad, dl.(3 to the rash and neSlige rt driving of rhe driver of a car beanng l\0, Ap 0l AA 0007, which^.rit thc scooty at i tt" side' as a resuit of whjch, the deceas( J pirion rider , o.'" the inc lent, ,n" 0.".r:.; and died on the spot. on the dab of inciden ,n" o.,,,,";"..:l-"n'" "s.o^about 48 years. o are the husband ,r. "r;;::;."

¶27

I I

¶28

deceased he ri:rn D/ed a claim t40,oo,ooo /^-. Thc li_ibLil al alterpetition seeking cornpeD s.t Lion documen tarr. appreciatron ef cr,idcn63 on recard entire oral anr/ aw arded ?37,54,000 / - wirh Cornpersation ln teresr ,a ao_ of - s. u /o p.a. from date of deposit the date olpedrion, ti.l.l the

¶29

4 The calcu la tjon made b-, the tribunaj 11-l
award is reflected in reaching the sajd
the table below
Age of thed eceased
48 years
vears of service remaining
10 yeaJS
Gross tncom e of the deceased
< 24,7 06/- p.m.
Net In come of the deceased, inciudin g EPF
< 23,955/- p.m
Futu re Prospects
Assu ran ce Co. v. Con S1dered N india 51yo
was granted) l,opal r whereln 1 0o%
Neutralized fu ture salarv
{ 35.902 /- p.m
Deductio n tou,ar-ds personal expenses 1/3
Loss of income to the familv(muitiplicarldJ <23,93s/- p.m
. 2,a7 ,220 / - p.a
Mul tipiier applicd
13
Loss of futurc l1-ICOme { 37,33,860 / _
{Multiplier*Multiplicarlrt)
Fu neral Expenses
Not awarded
Loss of estate
Not a\.,arded
Loss of consortium for pl
{ 10,000
Loss of love ald affectio n lor P2&3
{ 5,000 each
{ 10,000
Total Compensatior (rounded ofI) { 37,53,860 / -
t 37,54,OOO/-

¶30

The learned counsel for the appellant herein mainly contended

¶31

that the crime vehicle is a non-transport vehicle, but at the time of the accident, it was being used for hire for carrying passengers,

¶32

of^{the PolicY} ' q hich is^{a cl ar \iolaliono1 rhe tcrrnsirncltronditions} e hable^{to PaY} htrlce^{the al pe\lant insurancecompanl \'ollid not b} the^compen:1tion

¶33

The^{( ounsel for appeiiant also contended that the t'ribunal} failed^{to cr nsider the evidence of RW- 1 ' a seniorexecudveof the} insurance^{)ompany' who stated lhat B Sailesh' who is the son of R4} herein,^{ge /e a statementto the Patencheru Police that thecrime} vehicle^{wes a private car' but was being usedIor hire purpose lt is} contende(^{that the same is in violation of the terms and conditionsof} the poliq^{as the vehicle wasused' for transport purposeand hence} theinsulrncecompanywouldnotbeliabletopayCompensation.

¶34

Th : appellants^{alsocontendedthat the Tribunal erred in} consider ng the^{luture prospectsof the deceased at 5O%'instead ol} 3o','i,. T tc' learned^{counsel relieclon SARALA VERMA V/s' DELHI} TRANSI ORT CORPORATIONI,

¶35

E Tl e appe IIants submitted^{rh:tL Lhc tr-illr'rnitlu r c.'rlgl1' grantedan} intercsl ll 87u p,a. and that the^{properintercsIt-atc u'ju]d be 6% p'a'} as per S {RALA VERLA (sllpra).

¶36

T e appeliants placed reliance on the statemcnt^{of RW-lbeing} ignored by the Tribunal. It is observed that in the^chief, RW- 1, 'ho is a senior executive of the insurance company, stated that on B.Sailesh, son ofthe fourth respondent, gave a statement to the^poli, e that on the date of accident, the car was sent for hire from Adilaba( to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to pune ancl when the occurredcar was .returning from pune and reached Medak, the accident The crime vehicle is a private car '^2aa,) ACJ l: )8 , which was being used for

¶37

-=-*

¶38

the Five Judge Bench of the Hon,ble Apex Court in NATIONAL IITSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/s. pRANAy SETHI3. According to the settled law, the future prospects to be granted to a person aged between 40 to 50 years, with a permanent job would be 30olo, as rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in granting future prospect s @ SOo/o and the future prospects should be granted @ 30yo in this case.

¶39

Coming to the calculation of the compensation amount by the Tribunal. lt is to be said that the Tribunal grossly erred in not granting funeral expenses and loss of estate and in granting loss of consortium at al0,0O0/- to thc husband ancl in granting Ioss oflove and alfection to the children. lt is thc seuled position oI law as laid dos,n by the Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI (supra), which lxed the amounts for conventional heads at {16,SOO/- for funeral expenses, {16,500/- for loss of estaLe and ?44,OOO/- as loss of consortium (enhanced in 2O2OJ and as such the same shall be granted in the current case, instead of the amounts granted by the Tribunal_ Under these conventional heads, a total of <1,65,000/- is granted to the deceased. With regards to grant of loss of love and affection, a recent Three Judge Bench of the Hon,ble Apex Court, in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/s. SATINDER NAURa, has been laid down that "The tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.'

¶40

(lu l7) l6 SCC 680 'ArR 2o2o sc io76

¶41

¶42

transpo t purpose, and hence, R4 violated the terms and conditions of the F >licy and is alone liable to pay the compensation. He also filed Ex 31 - policy and Ex.B2 _ attested copy of the statement of B.Sailes It is observed that no notice ra,as issued to R4 anci R4 didnt gi e any statement to thc porice. The Tribunar consicrered thc evidence and observed that the policv shou.s the namc o[ pradccp Bothuku war as the ou.ner of the car, and as such statements ol third par ies, cven iI they are to bc the son of the owner, cannot be taken as troof regarding the nature of use of the car.. The appcllanr Iailed to :xaminc the lourth respondent before the Tribunal and hence th, contentions ol thc appeliants in thrs regard u,ere not accepted I nd they were held to be vicariouslv liable.

¶43

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribur al, which was derived at after thoroughly considering all the evider ce on record and the lnsurance compaq. cannot be exonerated from the liability.

¶44

Anot .er issue raised by the appellant which is to be considered is with reg rd to grant of future prospects. The age of the deceased herein is n( t in dispute and she was aged 4g years at the time of the accident. Tl e Tribunal placed reliancc upon a judgment ol" this Court in NEIV II{I IA ASSURANCE COMPANY V/s. cOpALI2 rvherein the deceased h2 1 22 years oI senice reft and the court a*arcied ir r00%, increase in he incomc. As in rhe case on hand, the victim had lO years of ser ice lcft, the Tribunal grantcd 5004 as future prospccrs. The posrtion of lau'concerning grant of luture prospecls is not res integra. The oosition laid down in SARALA VERMA (supra), r.r,hich has been rel :d upon by the appellants, has also gotten approval of '?20^{tz ,l,ct 2 tit}

¶45

¶46

The calculation of compensation is drawn out in the table

¶47

below:

¶48

NetIncomeoftheDeceased I I	{.23,935/-p.m.
FutureProspects	300/0 {3i,1 15.50/-p.m.
Deduction towards personalexpenses	rl3 <10,371/-p.m.
Loss ofincome (multipltcand) to thefamlly I	120,744/-p.n, 12,48,9241p.a,
Multiplicr	13
Lossofdependency (Multiplic.rn(l*Mrrltiplier)	a32,36,O12l-
FuneralExpcnscs	r16.500/
LossofEstate	{16,s00/-
Lossof Consortium forR1-R3	144,000/-each rr,s2,o00/-
?otalCompensation	I 34,Ot,Ot2/-

¶49

As seen from the table, the total compensation for the claimants comes to < 34,O1,O121-. Learned counsel for the appellants has disputed the interest rate imposed by the Tribunal. In order to determine the interest rate to be granted, we shall refer to the interest rate granted by the Supreme Court in its recent Judgements for Motor Vehicle Accident awards. In the case of RASMITA BISWAL V/s. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIoNAL INSURANCE CoMPAI$T LTD.5 the Hon'ble Apex Court granted an interest of 7.Syo.ln another case before the Supreme Court,

¶50

N,JAYASREE V/s. CHOLAMANDALAM Ms GENERAL INSURANCE

¶51

COMPAI{Y LTD..,rhe inreresr grantcd was 7..57o as well. By placing reliance on these rcccnt judgcmcnts of thc Supreme Court, this Court

¶52

5 2o2l scc onl-ine sc r rqi

¶53

6 2o2l SCC Ont-ine SC gr)7

¶54

¶55

is inclined tt grant an interest at the rate of 7 -5o/o p.a. from ttre date of petition ti. the date of realization.

¶56

The a rpellant and the fourth respondent being jointly and severally Ii: lle are directed to deposit the entire amount of compensatio r within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copv of thi , order. On such dcposit, the Respondent Nos.l tr:3 are permitted to vithdraw the entire amount.

¶57

Regarr ng apportionmcnt of the compcnsati{Jn, Respondent Nos 2 i.rnd 3 rrc thc claLrghtsrs iiqcd f.l irrrcl 23 rr':rr.s rcspc'ctivcl! in vear 20 l3 ar I Respondenr No.1 is rhc hlrsband ot rlrc dtccaseC agcd 5l years as n the date of the order of the Tribunal, all ol them are entitled for a . equal amount.

¶58

Accord ngly, this appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶59

Miscell meous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed n the light of this final order.

¶60

Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY/i

¶61

SECTIO OFFICER

¶62

¶63

The Chairn rn, [,4otor^{AccidentsClaims Tribunal} -cum-^{PrancipalDistrict Judge,} Medak at S rngareddy.

¶64

One CC to iri N.Mohan^{Krishna, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶65

One CC to )ri M,Kiran^{Reddy,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶66

One CC to )ri T,V.Ramana^{Rao,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶67

Two CD Cc )ies

¶68

One Spare )opy

ar ZT

HIGH COURT

DATED:3111212021

I *
<br>I M'P 2022

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No-1725 f 20'14

¶75

DISPOSING OF T IE MACMA.

¶76

V
ay
,td<br>

¶77

¶78

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶79

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶80

PRESENT

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND

¶82

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶83

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1725 OF 2014

¶84

Between:

¶85

l\4/s. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Branch [t4anager, Deccan chambers, 4th Ftoor, Somajiguda, Hideabad. (Polici No.1807422311001313 valid ft om 28.1 2.201 2 lo 27.1 2.20 1 3)

¶86

...APPELLANT/R2

¶87

AND

¶88

Bommakanti Bhumallngam, S/o Buchaiah, Occ:- Employee in A.P.C.P.D.C.L, Fyo H.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypally, Sangareddy Mandal, lVedak District.

¶89

Bommakanti Ramyakrishna, D/o Bhumalingam, (W/o G, Naresh), Occ:- Housewife, R/o H.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypally, Sangareddy lvlandal, Medak Dist.

¶90

Bommakanti Archana, D/o B.Bhumalingam, Occ:- Student, Ryo H.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypa lly, Sangareddy lt4andal, l,4edak District.

¶91

l,4r. Pradeep Bothukurwar, S/o not known to the^petitioner, Occ:- Owner of Maruthi Swift Dzire AP-01-AA-0007, R/o H.No.4-3-22915, Bhukthapur Village, Adilabad District -504001'

¶92

...RES'.NDENTS/'ET',.NERS 1 To 3 & Rl

¶93

Appeal under Section 173 of l',4otor Vehicles Act, against the^judgmenu order and decree made in MVOP No.156 of 2013 dated 0111012013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal Diskict Judge, I\ileadk at Sangareddy.

¶94

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing, and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.Satyam Reddy, Senior Advocate for Sri N.Mohan Krishna, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M.Kiran Reddy, for R1 to R3 and Sri,T.V,Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.4.

¶95

This Court doth Order and decree as follows :-

¶96

1 . That the IMACMA be and hereby is disposed of

¶97

That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby reduced from Rs.37,54,0001 to Rs.34,01 ,012/-

¶98

That the compensation amount shall carry interest is 7.5%^p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶99

That the appellant and the fourth respondenl be and hereby are directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation^jointly and severally within a^period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶100