Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The United India Insurance Company … vs M. Savithri Alias Savithramma on 18 June, 2025
APHC010081692019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 162/2019
Between:
The United India Insurance Company Ltd., ...APPELLANT
AND
M Savithri Alias Savithramma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. S MURALI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M KARIBASAIAH
2. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA
The Court made the following:
2
VS,J
MACMA No.162 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
The United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present appeal
against the order and decree dated 18.01.2019 passed in O.P.No.238 of 2016
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s
Court, Anantapuramu, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted
compensation of Rs.10,80,342/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three
Hundred and Forty Two only), as against the claim of Rs.20,50,000/-, on
account of the death of the deceased M. Krishnaiah in a motor accident that
occurred on 16.05.2016.
02. Appellant is the insurer. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the
claimants/petitioners. Respondent No.4 herein is the owner and respondent
No.5 is the driver of the offending vehicle.
03. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they
are arrayed before the Tribunal.
04. The case of the petitioner/claimant, in brief, is as follows:
a) On 16.05.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in
an auto to go to Anantapuramu on his personal work and when the auto
reached near TV tower, a lorry bearing registration No.AP02-TC-1215, which
was coming from the opposite direction, was being driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the auto. As a
result, the deceased and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries. The
3
VS,J
MACMA No.162 of 2019deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body in the accident.
Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Anantapuramu for
treatment. Later, on the advice of doctors, the deceased was shifted to
Sreenivasa Hospital, Anantapuramu, where he succumbed to the injuries. A
case was registered in Cr.No.22/2016 for the offences under Sections 337,
338 and 304(A) IPC by Anantapuramu Traffic Police Station against the driver
of the offending vehicle.
b) The petitioners contended that the deceased was hale and healthy
prior to the accident and he was an expert agriculturist and he was technically
cultivating the lands and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per year. The deceased was
also attending the agriculture work of other farmers by implementing his best
thoughts to cultivate commercial crops from time to time. The petitioners were
completely and solely depending on the income of the deceased and due to
his sudden demise, the petitioners have lost their sole bread winner and they
were facing financial difficulties.
05. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3, owner and driver of the
offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte.
06. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the
petitioners and contended that there was neither rashness nor negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending lorry and that the accident occurred
solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto in which the
4
VS,J
MACMA No.162 of 2019
deceased was travelling, and hence, the 2nd respondent/insurer of the
offending lorry is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It was
further contended that the petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of
insurer and insured of the auto in which the deceased was travelling. It was
further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving
licence as on the date of accident and his driving licence was under
suspension and hence, the 2nd respondent/insurer is not liable to pay any
compensation. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
07. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for
trial:
“1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No.AP02-
TC-1215?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to
what extent and from which respondent?
3. To what relief?”
08. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to
A8 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/insurer, the Administrative
Officer respondent No.2 company was examined as R.W.1, Record Assistant
in Deputy Transport Office was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B1 and B2 and
Ex.X1 were marked.
09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition
5
VS,J
MACMA No.162 of 2019
by awarding total compensation of Rs.10,80,342/- against respondent Nos.1
to 3, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
Respondent No.2, being the insurer, was directed to deposit the said amount
into the Court at the first instance, within one month from the date of the
award, and permitted to recover the same from respondent No.1, owner of the
offending vehicle. Out of the compensation awarded, the petitioner No.1,
being wife of the deceased, was awarded an amount of Rs.5,80,342/-,
including consortium. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being children of the deceased,
were awarded an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each. On deposit of the
compensation amount, petitioner No.1 was permitted to withdraw
Rs.3,80,342/- along with accrued interest and costs and the remaining amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized
Bank for a period of two years. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were permitted to
withdraw half of their respective compensation amounts along with accrued
interest and costs, and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in fixed
deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years.
10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/insurer preferred this
appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in directing the 2nd respondent/
insurer to pay the compensation to the petitioner, though the evidence
adduced by the 2nd respondent/insurer clearly established that as on the date
6
VS,J
MACMA No.162 of 2019
of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any driving
license much less valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, as the
driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was suspended by the
Motor Vehicle Inspector for a period of six months i.e., from 04.04.2016 to
03.10.2016. It is further contended that the respondent No.1/owner of the
offending vehicle, despite knowing very well about the suspension of the
driving license of respondent No.3, allowed him to drive the offending vehicle
and since there is clear violation of the conditions of the policy, the entire
liability ought to have been fixed against respondent Nos.1 and 3. The
quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioners was also questioned
contending that fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.80,000/- per annum
without any valid and substantive evidence, is erroneous, that the amounts
awarded under different heads are exorbitant and excessive and the rate of
interest is also on higher side. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondent Nos.1
to 3 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
12. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?
7
VS,J
MACMA No.162 of 2019POINT:
13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as
on the date of accident, the driving license of the driver of the offending
vehicle was suspended and since respondent No.3/driver of the offending
vehicle drove the vehicle without possessing valid driving license, there is
clear violation of the conditions of the policy and hence, no liability can be
fastened on the 2nd respondent/insurer.
14. However, it is to be noted that in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Swaran Singh & Ors.,1 and Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kumar
Singh and others 2 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if the
insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance
company may still be directed to pay compensation to the claimants and then
recover the amount from the insured (owner of the offending vehicle) by way
of execution proceedings under the principle of ‘pay and recovery’.
15. As can be seen from the impugned award, the Tribunal, having
considered the evidence available on record, more particularly, of P.W.2, who
is an eye-witness to the accident, has categorically held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent/driver of
the offending vehicle. It can also be seen that Ex.B1-insurance policy, which
covers third party risk, was in force as on the date of accident. In view of the
1
(2004) 3 SCC 297
2
(2017) 4 SCC 796
8
VS,J
MACMA No.162 of 2019
same, the Tribunal has observed that the 2nd respondent/insurance company
is liable to pay the compensation to the respondents at first instance and then
recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In the light of the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, no deviation can be
taken to the said finding of the Tribunal.
16. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the
petitioners/claimants, the deceased was an expert cultivator and earning
Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. However, considering Exs.A6 to A8-revenue
records pertaining to the land owned by the deceased and electricity bill, the
Tribunal deemed it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.80,000/- per annum, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper.
As the number of dependant family members is three, the Tribunal has
deducted 1/3rd (Rs.26,666/-) from the income of the deceased towards his
personal expenses, which is in accordance with the guidelines laid down in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3 and thus, needs no
interference by this Court. After such deduction, the contribution of the
deceased to the family would come to Rs.53,334/- (Rs.80,000 – Rs.26,666/-).
By applying the relevant multiplier of ’13’ applicable to the age of the
deceased i.e., 50 years, as recorded in Ex.A2-Inquest Report and Ex.A3-Post
Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.6,93,342/- towards the loss of
3
2009 ACJ 1298
9
VS,J
MACMA No.162 of 2019
dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma‘s case.
17. It can be seen from the impugned award that the Tribunal has further
awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the petitioners towards loss of
consortium. However, as per the decision in National Insurance Company
v. Pranay Sethi 4 , the reasonable sum that can be granted under the
conventional head of loss of consortium is Rs. 40,000/-. Thus, the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- each awarded to the petitioners under the head of ‘loss of
consortium’ requires to be reduced to Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- in
total.
18. With regard to other amounts granted by the Tribunal under various
heads, i.e., Rs.25,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.12,000/- towards
‘transport charges’ and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’, this
Court finds that the said amounts are just and reasonable and no interference
is warranted therewith.
19. Thus, the amount granted under the head ‘loss of consortium’ alone is
reduced by this Court, while the amounts granted under the remaining heads
stands confirmed. To sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the
amounts granted in the present appeal in the light of the computations made
above, are as follows:
4
2017 ACJ 2700
10
VS,J
MACMA No.162 of 2019Head Amount granted Amount now
by the Tribunal awarded by this
Court
Loss of Dependency Rs.6,93,342/- Rs.6,93,342/-Loss of consortium Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-
(Rs.1,00,000/- each) (Rs.40,000/- each)
Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
Transport charges Rs.12,000/- Rs.12,000/-
Loss of love & affection Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.10,80,342/- Rs.9,00,342/-
20. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the order dated
18.01.2019 passed in O.P.No.238 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Anantapuramu, is
hereby modified by reducing the compensation awarded to the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 herein/claimants from Rs.10,80,342/- to Rs.9,00,342/-, with
proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total
compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
Date: 18.06.2025
KGR/IBL
[ad_1]
Source link