Partly allowed

The United India Insurance Company Limited v. Doulath Bee and 4 Ors.

Telangana HC5 Aug 2024MACMA/3992/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals by claimants and insurer against a Tribunal award in a fatal motor accident case involving a father's private car driven by his son. The court held such employment was natural, fixed higher notional income with future prospects and multiplier of 18, enhanced compensation after deducting 40% contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

MACMA No.1129 of 2010 allowed; compensation enhanced from Rs.1,08,420/- to Rs.4,54,200/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.; MACMA No.3992 of 2012 dismissed

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32s1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE^{FIFTHDAYOF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶7

MACMA NO: 1129 O^{F 2O1O AND3992 0F 2012}

¶8

MAC MA NO: 1129 OF²⁰¹⁰

¶9

AppealfiledUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesAct,l9SSagainsttheOrder and deciee in M.V.O.p.No.SGl^{of 2OO2dated.06-04-2010 on the file of the Courtof} the Motor Accident^{claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District andsessions} Judge(Fast Track^{Court) at Mahabubnagar.}

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

Doulath Bee, W/o.Mushtaq^{Hussaln, mother of the deceased'Occ: Household} R/o. Shesab Gutta,^{Mahabubnagar.}

¶12

2.ShaimBequm,D/o.M.D.MushtaqHussain,un-marriedsisterofthedeceased Dependanl Ri/o. Shesab^{Gutta, Mahabubnagar.}

¶13

Parveen Beoum, D/o.M.D.Mushtaq^{Hussain, un-married sister of the} deceased De[endent^{R/o. ShesabGutta, Mahabubnagar'}

¶14

...R -3/Appellant

¶15

4 Hameeda Beoum, W/o. Late^{MohdAbdul Mateen,} W/o. the deceased Dependent Pr6sently^{residing at ShesabGutta, lr'lahabu} bnagar.

¶16

...AppellanuPetitioners^{& R -3}

¶17

AND

¶18

1 tvlusthao Hussain. S/o. M.D.Chand,^{aged major ownerof Ambassador CAr} r.ro. MER-zo7o ahagathsingh^{Nagar, Wanapbrthy'Mahabubnagar District} The United lndia lnsurance^{Co.Ltd.,, Rep.byits DivisionalManager, Divisional} Office, Kurnool.

¶19

...ResPondents/ResPondents

¶20

Counsel for the^{Appellant: Sri G Ramesh Kumar}

¶21

Counsel for^{the RespondentNo.2: Sri N MohanKrishna}

¶22

MAMCA NO : 3992 0F 2012

¶23

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles Act,'1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No 561 of 2002 dated.06-04-20'10 on the^{file of} the^Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District and^sessions Judge(Fast Track Court) at Mahabubnagar.

¶24

Between:

¶25

The United India lnsurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o.Divisional Office Kurnool, A.P.

¶26

...AppellanUR-2

¶27

AND

¶28

1 Doulath Bee, W/o.Musthaq Hussain, Occ: Household R/o.Shesab Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

¶29

2 Shaim Bagum, D/o.Musthaq Hussain, Occ: Student Rl/o.Shesab Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

¶30

3 Parven Bagum, D/o.Musthaq Hussain, Occ: Student R/o.Shesab Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

¶31

4 Musthaq Hussain, S/o.Md.Chand, Aged Majaor, Occ: Owner of Ambassador Car No.MER 7070 Rf/o. Bhagatsingh Nagar, Wanaparthi. Mahabubnagar District.

¶32

5 Hameeda Begum, Wo.late Mohd Abdul Mateen, Occ: Hosuehold R|/o.9-50, CC Kunta M and [M], Mahabubnagar District.

¶33

(lmpleaded as per orders in 1.A.No.314 of 2008 Dt.13-02-2009)

¶34

...Respondents/Petitioners No.1 to 3 & R-1, R -3

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N Mohan Krishna

¶36

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 & 5 : Sri G Ramesh Kumar

¶37

The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶39

M.A.C.M.A No.LL29 0F²⁰¹⁰ & M.A.C.M .A No.3992 OF 2Ol2

¶40

COMMON JUDMENT:

¶41

M.A.C.M.A.No.1129 of 2010 is^{Iiled by the claimants} questioning the meagre compensation^{granted by the Tribunal.} Questioning^{the very same order, the Insurance Company has} filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3992^{of 2012.}

¶42

Heard learned counsel for^{respondent-lnsurance} Company and learned counsel^{for the petitioners/claimantsand} perused the record.

¶43

Since both the appeals^{are fi1ed questioning the very same} award granted by the^{Tribunal,both are heard togetherand} disposed off by way o[ this common^order.

¶44

The manner in which^{the accidenthad taken placeand} the liability are not in dispute.

¶45

Briefly, the case of the^claimants is that^{deceased was} working as a paid Driver of his^{father's car/R.W.} 1.^While driving the vehicle, on^{24.O7.2OO1,the deceased met with an} accident when an unknown^{lorry came in the oppositedirection} and hit the car. The claimants^{filed a petition stating that the}

deceased was being paid Rs.3,000/- by R.W. 1 u'ho is his father and he was also living separately.

¶52

The Tribunal found that R.W. 1 was u,orking as a Watchman, it cannot be believed that he was paying Rs.3,000/p.m. to deceased and engaged him as a Driver to his private car. However, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/p.m., compensation was granted by the Tribunal.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal had commifted an error in granting compensation when Tribunal found that it was highly improbable that the owner of the vehicle was working as Watchman and engaged his own son for driving his vehicle and at the same breath finding that the deceased was being paid salary. Both are contradictory findings ald accordingiy, need to be set aside.

¶54

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. prakash Shankar Gurav Aad Anotherl and judgment of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

¶55

'^{2006 (2) T.A.C.575 (Kant)}

¶56

¶57

Hyderabad v. K.Anjaneyulu and^{another2and argued that} father engaging a son as a Driver is^{neither improbabienor} impossible. It was an arrangement^{made by the father to} engage his son. As such,^relying on^{the judgmentsstated} supra, prayed for grant of compensation.

¶58

g. It is admitted that R.W. I has^{purchasedthe vehicle and} he owned it as a private^{vehicle.The other sourcesof income} are not placed before the Court.^{However,the fact remains that} a private car was purchased by^{R.W. 1. lt cannotbe said that it} is un-natural for a father to engage^{his son to drive his vehicle-} Similar view was taken in the^{judgmentsstated supra.}

¶59

The accident was of the^{year,2001, compensation can be} granted considering the income of the deceased at^Rs.2,500/- p.m.

¶60

Accordingly, considering^{the income} of^{the deceased at} Rs.2,500/- p.m., the annual^{income comes} to^Rs-3O,000/-. Further, in view of the^{judgment of the Hon'bie Supreme Court} in Natlonal Insurance Co. Ltd.^Vs. Pranag^{Sethis,4O%has} to be considered towards future^{prospects whichcomes to} Rs.42,000/- (30,000+ 12,000). In^view of the^{judgment of the}

¶61

'^{L.C.ACRzooT(4)A.P.q57} 3 zorzlol ALD 170 (sc)

I I

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Scrrlc Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporationa, the appropriate multiplier would be '18'. When applied '18' multiplier, the amount comes to Rs.7,56,O00/-(42,0OOx18). Out of which, 1/4fr has to be deducted towards his personal expenditure, which comes to Rs.5,67,OOO/-(7,56,000-1,89,O0O). Apart from the same, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,60,O0O/ -(40,O00x4 dependants) towards consortium and an amount of Rs.30,O00/towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus the total compensation amount is arrived at Rs.7,57,0OO/-. As the contribution of the deceased is considered as 407o (7,57,000 3,02,800) in causing the accident, the claimants are entitled to receive 607o of the compensation. Accordingly, the total compensation, the claimants are entitled to is Rs.4,54,2OO/-

¶66

In the result, MACMA.No. 1 129 of 20 I 0 is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,O8,42O/- to Rs.4,54,20Oi -. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition ti11 the date of realization. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, on payment of

¶67

o 2009(6) scc 121

¶68

------------'---

¶69

¶70

deficit Court fee. Except the above, the award of the^Tribunal shall remain same on all other aspects.

¶71

Consequently, MACMA.No.3992 of 2Ol2 lied^{by the}

¶72

Insurance Company stands dismissed.^{Miscellaneous}

¶73

applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶74

¶75

SD/-^{T JAYASREE,} ASSIST^{ANT REGI}

¶76

/ffRUE^COPY//

¶77

SECTION^OFFICER

¶78

n ar'D^{s'ir c'1a nd s esso ns} To, 1

¶79

2 3 iifi iEii!,#dn x""""trit 4 , Two^{CD CoPies}

^oK^c\l-

,/)

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510812024

COMMON JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1129 of 2010 AND 3992 of 2412

¶86

'3E 9TAl' o
ry
lur
:) tl0<br>,J $ s
1,
k

¶87

MACMA.No.1129 of 2010 is ALLOWED AND

¶88

MACMA.No.3992 of 20121S DISMIISED

¶89

AutL
v
'qltolzt'

¶90

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶91

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶92

PRESENT

¶93

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶94

MACMA NO: 1129 OF 2010 AND 3992 OF 2012

¶95

MACMA NO: 1129 OF 2010

¶96

Doulath Bee, Wo.Mushtaq Hussain, mother of the deceased, Occ: Household R/o. Shesab Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

¶97

Shaim Begum, D/o.M.D.Mushtaq Hussain, un-married sister of the deceased Dependant R/o. Shesab Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

¶98

Parveen Begum, D/o.M.D.Mushtaq Hussain, un-married sister of the deceased Dependent R/o. Shesab Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

¶99

...R -3lAppellant

¶100

Hameeda Begum, Wo. Late Mohd. Abdul Mateen, W/o. the deceased Dependent Presently residing at Shesab Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

¶101

...AppellanUPetitioners & R -3

¶102

AND

¶103

1 Musthaq Hussain, S/o. M.D.Chand, aged ma.jor owner of Ambassador CAr No. MER-7070 Bhagathsingh Nagar, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District.

¶104

The United lndia lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kurnool.

¶105

... Respondents/Respondents

¶106

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.561 ol 2002 dated.06-04-2010 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional District and sessions Judge(Fast Track Court) at Mahabubnagar.

¶107

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 Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri N Mohan Krishna Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent No.1.

¶108

MAMCA NO: 3992 0F 2012

¶109

Between:

¶110

3?"" oYl,l?"1$3?,:T[H::,:i3pany^{Lim ited,} rep by its Divis iona r Mana ger

¶111

AND

¶112

...AppellanUR-2

¶113

t. il"?:Hrllsr?^{W/o Musthaq Hussain, occ: Househotd} R7o shesab Gutta,

¶114

2 f,ti?'s,?,i,Y,r,$;.D/o^{Musthaq Hussain, occ: student} R/o.shesab Gutra,

¶115

3 fi?ffiSrffgu:l:^{D/o Musthaq Hussain, occ:Student} R/o.Shesab Gutta, 4 8i,'ff tE'-'?a%fl,?"%ffiJ:,:$,fr :#?5,?:ff :.?fl il,Tn"j#il"ojiji,

¶116

5 3il.i?15 ftfi%lix r#i:^l?,f,#if4::B,y;:?*, occ: Hosueho,d R/o e-50, (lmpleaded as per orders in t.A.No.314 of 2008 Dt.13_0 2_2OOg)

¶117

Respondents/petitioners No.l to 3 & R_1, R -3

¶118

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,.t 9gg against the Order the and decree in Motor Accident M V o p craims No 561-of 2002 o"t"r.ou-oo-roro on tne flre of the court of Judge(Fast Track Court) at Mahabubnagar..Tribunat-"um--^{t7 io*"*,} District and sessions

¶119

This appeal comino on.for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and DecreI or tne lower-cl;;;;'ffi;r,eriat papers in rhe Case and upon hearing the arguments of sri N Mohan and of Sri G Ramesh Kumar, Advocat" f"ri;;;;;rolnt^H;, Advocate for the Apperant rvo, r to 3 & 5.

¶120

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶121