Partly allowed

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Undekari Bharathi and 3 Others

Telangana HC14 Jun 2022MACMA/2516/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court reduced the compensation awarded to deceased family members from Rs. 34,98,000 to Rs. 34,13,000 by deducting income tax and adjusting the future prospects percentage, and allocated the compensation between the surviving wife and son.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 34,98,000 to Rs. 34,13,000 and apportioned to wife (Rs. 22,88,667) and son (Rs. 11,24,333). Interest at 7.5% per annum granted.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁶⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

TUESDAY, THE^{FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEMAKTHER}

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEJUWADISRIDEVI}

¶8

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2516^{0F 2012}

¶9

Appeal under section^{173 of Motor VehiclesAct against the orderandde-cree} made in M.V.O.P.No.^{50 0f 2007dated 28104120120n the file of the courtof the} chairman, Motor Accidents^{claimsTribunal- cum} -^{District Judge, Mahabubnagar.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Bajaj Allianz General^{lnsuranceCo. Ltd., Rep' by its} Regional Office, oOi} if Oos, 2nd Block^{White House} ,^{Begumpet' Hyderabad}

¶12

...APPELLANTlResPondent^No.2

¶13

AN D

¶14

Smt. Undekari Bharathi,^{W/o Late Sugurappa,Occ : Household'}

¶15

2 Smt. Undekari Sunildath,^{S/o Late Sugurappa, Occ: Pvt. Employee'} 3 Smt.U. Eeramma, W/o^{LateAdivappa, Occ: Nil} All are Ryo H.No. 8-5-10/G,^{TeachersColony' Mahabubnagar, Presently} residing at Aize Village^{& lvlandal' Mahabubnagar District'}

¶16

....ResPondents/Petitioners

¶17

K. Bheemanna Goud,^{S/o Narsimhulu Goud, age not knownbut Major,} Occ :Owner of Auto^{bearingNo. AP 22 V 365, R/o Teeliar Village, Dhanwada} Mandal, Mahabubnagar^District.

¶18

...RESPONDENT/ResPondent^No.1

¶19

For the Appellant : SRl. T.^{MAHENDER RAO,Advocate}

¶20

For the Respondent Nos.1^{to 3} :^{K VENKATESH GUPTA,Advocate}

¶21

Forthe Respondent No.4 : None Appeared

¶22

The Court delivered the following^{: Judgment}

¶23

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM^AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI^SRIDEVI

¶24

M.A.C.M.A.No.25 I 6 of 2OL2

¶25

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

¶26

This appeal, under Section 173 of the^{Motor Vehicles Act,} 1988, is filed by the appellant/Bajaj Allianz^{General Insurance} Company Limited, challenging the order, dated^28-04.2012, passed in O.P.No.So of 2OO7 by the Chairman, Motor^Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mah abubnagar.

¶27

2, Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel^{for the appellant/} Insurance Company, Sri K,Venkatesh Gupta,^{learned counsel for} the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants, and^{perused the record.}

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant/^{InsuranceCompany would} contend that Ex.A.1-First Information Report^{was lodged after two} days of occurrence of the accident. PW.2,^{who is said to be eye} witness, is planted in this case. There is^{evidence of RW.1 to} discard the evidence of PW.2. The^{d eceased who was driving} motorcycle was not^possessing valid^d riving^{licence. Further, the} auto bearing No.AP 22 V 365 was not involved^{in the subject} accident and it was^planted by the^{respondent Nos.1 to 3/} claimants to claim compensation. Therefore,^{whenthe involvement}

¶29

Irr.Sr.J&JS.J IrlACI!,\ )io.ls16ol20l2

¶30

¶31

of subject crime vehicle is not proved, the Tribunat ought not have directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation. It is further contended that when the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.28,525/- per month, the Tribunal failed to deduct income tax payable from the salary of the deceased. Further, when the deceased was 54 years old as on the date ofhis death, in view of the decision of Sarta Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationl, there can be no addition to the income oF the deceased towards future prospects. However, the Tribunal erroneously added 30% hike in salary towards future prospects and granted a total compensation of Rs.34,98,000/-. It is further contended that the Tribunal granted Rs.6,33,000/- towards medical expenses without there being any substantial evidence. As per Ex.B.13-proceedings issued by the Regional Joint Director (Education) Warangal, the medical expenses incurred by th e respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants, were reimbursed by tri e Government. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are not entitled for any amount towards medical expenses an d ultimately prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for. The learned counsel placed rellance over the decision in Rajesh and others t/. Rajbir Singh and othersz.

¶32

I AIR 2oo9 sc :t t04

¶33

'2oiJ^{,q.cJ l.loi (sc)}

¶34

D.-SA.J{JS.J ]lACll.t No.25l6 of 2012

¶35

¶36

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the^respondent Nos.l to 3/petitioners in O.P contended that the Tribunal rightly took the age of the deceased as on the date of subject accident as 54 years and rightly granted a compensation of Rs.34,80,000/with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realisation, by taking all the relevant factors into consideration. It is further submitted that Ex.A.12-copy of driving licence extract of the deceased, substantiates that the deceased was having valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle on the date of accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. The involvement of the subject auto is proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence. There iS ample eVidence on record to substantiate that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 22 V 365.^There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned order^and ultimately^prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the^order and decree under challenge.

¶37

In view of the submissions made by both sides, the^points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

¶38

Whether the deceased-Sugurappa, died due^to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the^auto bearing NI.AP 22 V 365?

¶39

DiS..J & JS. J iU,(-NtA No.25l(of 20!2

¶40

¶41

lt/hether the Tribunal is justiiied in adding 30o/o to the gross salary of the deceased towards future prospects?

¶42

l,yhether 70o/o frcm the satary of the deceased is required to be deducted towards income tax, while calculating loss of dependency?

¶43

To what relieP 4)

¶44

POINT No.1: To substantiate their claim, the responclent Nos.1 to 3/petitioners in O.P got examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B.14 lvere marked.

¶45

To rebut the evidence on record, appellant/Insurance Company got examined RW.1-Assistant Manager^.(Legal). pW.2, who is said to be eye v/itness categorically, deposed that the auto bearing No.AP 22 V 365 was involved in the accident. pW.2 was extensively cross-examined. There is also evidence of pW.5K.Narsimulu, the-then Sub-Inspector of police, Investigating Officer, who supported the case of the claimants. There is also ci-iminal case record i.e, Ex.A.1-copy of First Information Report, Ex.A.2-copy of crime details form dated 06.03.2006, Ex.A.3-copy of alteration memo dated 17.t2.2006, Ex.A.4-copy of charge sheet and Ex.A.S-copy of death certificate. Delay in lodging Ex.A.1-EIR, is not fatal to the case of the claimants. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that the auto bearing No. Ap 22 V

¶46

DiSA. J^&JS,J MAC|UA No.25l6of20l2

¶47

¶48

365 was not involved in the^{accidentand it was planted by the} respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants to^{claim compensation.Further,} Ex.A.12-copy of driving licence extract of^thedeceased, substantiates that the deceased^{was havingvalid driving licenceto} drive the motorcycle on the date^{of accident and there was no} negligence on the^part of the deceased.^{The Tribunalelaborately} dealt with the oral and documentary^{evidence on recordand} rightly held that the auto bearing^{No.AP 22 V 365 was involved in} the accident and that the driver of^{the said auto drove in a rash} and negligent manner and caused^{the subject accident on} 04.03.2006, resulting in death of^{the deceasedon 21.06.2006.} Accordingly, this^point is answered^{againstthe appellant/Insurance} Company.

¶49

a. POINT Nos. 2 to 4: The Tribunal ,^placing reliance^{on Ex.A6-} salary certificate-cum-service^{certificate of the deceased, took age} of the deceased as 54^{years as on the date of his death, tookhis} monthly earnings as Rs.28,5251-^{after deducting Rs.200/-per} month towards^{professionaltax; added 30o/o of the income} towards future^prospects and^{calculated the annual incomeof} deceased as Rs.4,41,600/-.^{The Tribunal furtherdeductedl/3'd of} the income of the deceased^{towards personalexpenditure,applied} multiplier'10'and calculated total^{loss ofdependencyas}

¶50

Dr.SA, J & JS..l llAC]UA No.25l6 of l(rl2

¶51

¶52

Rs.29,44,000/- but however restricted the amount to Rs.28,00,000/-, as claimed by the respon<Jents/claimants. The Tribunal further added Rs.6,33,OOO/- towards medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- torarards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the respondent No.1/claimant and accordingly, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.34,98,000/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants.

¶53

As seen From the materiai placed on record, the date o,f birt! of the deceased is 10.09.1952, the date of occurrence of the subject accident is on 04.03.2006 and the deceased succunrbed to injuries on 21.06.2006. Thus, the deceased was 54 years old on the date of his death. It may be noted that the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased (54 years) as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma,s case (supra) is '11'. There is no dispute that the deceased was a Government servant and income tax assessee as on the date of his death in the subject accident. Therefore, as righfly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insu rance Company, LOo/o af the annual income is required to be deducted towards income tax. The

¶54

Dr.S,.J&JS.J IIACNIA No.25l6 of 201:

¶55

¶56

Tribunal did not deduct the same. Furthermore, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/_ towards loss of consortium, which are on lower side.

¶57

Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court deems it appropriate to take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.28,325/- (monthly salary of Rs.28,325l_ minus professionar tax of Rs.200/-). Thus the annuar income of the deceased comes to (Rs.28,325/- x 12) Rs.3,39,gOO/-. As observed supra, Loo/o of the annuar income is required to be deducted towards income tax (after deducting standard deduction _ of Rs.1,00,000/- which was prevailing then). Thus, the total loss of earnings of the deceased per annum comes to (Rs.3,39,900/_ minus Rs.23,990/-) Rs.3,15,910/-. Since there are three dependants on the deceased, 1/3rd amount should be deducted towards personal expenditure. Thus the net annuar income of the deceased would come to (Rs.3,15,910/- minus Rs.1,05,303/-) Rs.2,10,606/-. The Court below added 30olo to the actual salary of the deceased towards future prospects but in view of the decision in Raiesh's case (2 supra), this Court deems it appropriate to add 15% to the actual salary of the deceased. Thus, the contribution of the deceased to his family per annum comes to (Rs.2,10,606/- +

¶58

Dr S,.1&.1S. J \t1c{A^{o.2<16 ot llrl2

¶59

¶60

Rs.31,591/-)^{Rs.2,42,197/-. As observeds:;pra,the appropriate} multiplier applicable^{to the age of the decea:;etJ(54 years) is'11''} Thus, the total^{loss of dependency would core to (Rs'?'42'197/-x} 11) Rs.26,64, L67/-,^{roundedcff to Rs'26,65,900/-'}

¶61

ll.Sofarastlremedicaiexpensesilrecotlcerned'the Ex.A.11-mciical^{bills issuedbY} respondents,/cla^{ima nts} Produced the Hospital and^statedthat tirey incu:-red^{an amount of} Rs.7 ,23 ,522/-^{towardsmedical expenses'Th= Tribunal considering} Ex.8.13^{-reimbu rsementproceedings, dedr"lcied an amount of} Rs.90,000/- ancl^{awai-dedmedical expenses of Rs'6'33'000/-to} the respondent^{Nos.1to 3/claimants'Follol"'ing the verdictof the} Hon'ble Apex Court^{in Natlonal Insuranc;: CompanyLimited} Vs. Pranay Sethi^{and others3, rnre grant an amount of} Rs.70,000/- under^{the conventional heads, i'e',Rs'15'C00/-} towards loss of^{estate, Rs.40,000/- towardsloss of consortium to} the respondent^{No.1/ claimantand Rs't5,0CO/- tou'ards funeral} expenses. Grant of^{Rs.25,000/- towarcis extra nourlshment'} Rs.15,0OO/- towards^{transportationchai-ges and Rs'5'000/-} towards attendant^{charges, by the Tribunal cannot be faulted'} Thus, in all, the^{respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are entitledfor a} compensation of^{Rs.34, 13,000/-.} t<*

¶62

r 120t71 l6 Suprcme ('oun Cases 680

¶63

Dr.SA,J&JS,J MACntA No ZS16 of20tt

I \

I, I

i I I I I

I I I

Medicalex enses EX ta t OU n Ir shme t n Tran rtationcha ES ES Attendant Cha Lossofestate LosS f o n co sort U I m Funeral ex SES TOTAL LossofD nde	000 Rs.26 65 Rs.6 33 000 Rs.25 000 Rs.15 o00/- Rs.5 000 Rs.15 000 Rs.40 o00 Rs.15 000 Rs.34 13 ooo

¶70

The Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5o/o per annum on the amount awarded as compensation from the date of petition till the date of deposit, which is just and reasonable,

¶71

Accordingly. the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order, dated 28.04.2012, passed in O.p.No.SO of 2OO7 by the Tribunal, reducing the compensation from Rs.34,98,000/_ awarded by lh" T-ribunat ro Rs-34,13,0O0/_. The said amount oF compensation carries interest at the rate of 7 .So/o per annum from the date of petition till realisation, besides costs. On deposit of the compensation, the respondents/claimants are perrnitted to withdraw the entire amount arong with the accrued interest. The other terms of the order under challenge remain unaltered. It is submitted by both sides that respondent No.3/claimant, who is rnother of the deceased passed away. since the deceased died on 21.06.2006 and as the respondent No.2/claimant is an employee, the respondent No.1/claimant is entifled for the share amount of respondent No.3/claimant. Thus the apportionment of compensation shall be as under:

¶72

D..S^. J & IS.^j ltlACUr No.2st6 of²⁰¹²

I i

|Respondent No.1^(wife)|RS.2ZFA,667|^-
(includinglossofconsortium^of
Ps.40,000/-)| |---|---| |Respondent No.2^(son)|Rs.r1,24,3331-| |TOTAL|Rs.34,13,OOO/-|

¶77

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{if any, pending in this appeal, shall}

¶78

stand closed. There^{shall be no orderas to costs'}

¶79

//TRUE^COPY//

¶80

Sd/- N.RAJ^GOPAL ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ii

¶81

SECTION^OFFICER

¶82

To,

¶83

The Chairman,^{MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal - cum - DistrictJudge'} ' rvi""n"'t lrr]"'jgai (witn recoros)

¶84

Z. 6ne CC to^{SRl.T MAHENDER RAO' Advocate IOPUCI}

¶85

One CC to^{SRl. K VENKATESH GUPTA' Advocate IOPUC]}

¶86

Two CD^CoPies

¶87

One^SPareCoPY

AKB d'u/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410612022

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2516 of 2012

¶93

1r\ t srAI{-
<br>/+
t.J
io fi. ltl,l 2[?l

¶94

PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA

¶95

9*K

¶96

132641

¶97

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶98

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶99

PRESENT

¶100

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE^{SHAMEEMAKTHER}

¶101

AND

¶102

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{JUWADI SRIDEVI}

¶103

M .A.C.M.A. NO: 2516 OF 2012

¶104

Between:

¶105

Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance^{Co. Ltd., Rep. by its RegionalOffice'} 608 & 609, 2nd Block^{White House} ,^{Begumpet,Hyderabad}

¶106

...APPELLANT/ResPondent No.2

¶107

AND

¶108

Smt. Undekari Bharathi, W/o Late Sugurappa,^{Occ : Household.}

¶109

Smt. Undekari Sunildath, S/o^{LateSugurappa, Occ : Pvt. Employee.}

¶110

Smt.U. Eeramma, Wo Late^{Adivappa, Occ: Nil}

¶111

All are Ri./o H.No. 8-5-10/G, Teachers^{Colony, Mahabubnagar, Presently} residing at Aize Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar^District.

¶112

....Respondents/Petitioners

¶113

K. Bheemanna Goud, S/o Narsimhulu^{Goud, age not known butMa.ior,} Occ :Owner of Auto bearing No. AP 22 V 365,^{Fi"/oTeeliarVillage,} Dhanwada lvlandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶114

...RESPONDENT/Respondent No.'l

¶115

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the JudgmenUOrder and decree made in M.V.O.P.No. 50 of 2007 daled^2810412012 on^{the file of the} Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum -^{DistrictJudge,} Mahabubnagar.

¶116

The 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. T. Mahender Rao, Advocate For the Appellant and of Sri. K. Venkatesh Gupta, Ad\ocate For the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 and of the Respondent No.4 not appeared either in^person or by Advocate.

¶117

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:-

¶118

1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and here by is allowed in part modifying the order, daled28lO4l2O12 passed in O.P.No.50 of 2007 by the Tribunal, reducing the compensation from Rs.34,98,0001 awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 34,13,0001 (Rupees Thirty four lakhs and Thirteen Thousand Only) .

¶119

That the amount of compensation canies interest at the rate of 7.5o/o p.a from the date of petition till realization beside costs.

¶120

That on deposit of the compensation the Respondents/Claimants be and hereby are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the accrued interest.

¶121

That the Respondent No.1/Claimant be and hereby is entitled for the share amount of Respondent No-3 who is the mother of the deceased, who passed away.

¶122

That the apportionment of compensation shall be as under :- Respondent No.1 (wife) Rs.22,88,667/- (including loss of consortiuni of Rs.40,0001). Respondent No.2 (son) Rs.1 1,24,333/-.

¶123