MACMA/2211/2007 of The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Busi Shakuntala on 30 December 2013

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the Award dated 19.10.2006passed by the XIV-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, FastTrack Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in O.P.No.1968of 2004.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referredto as arrayed in the Court below.

3. The claimants, who are the parents and brother of thedeceased aged 21 years, filed claim petition before the Tribunalseeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal awardedcompensation of Rs.5,00,000/- taking into consideration of theincome of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/-per annum on the ground that he passed B.A., and underwenttraining in the institute by name “Arena” in 2004. After deducting1/3[rd] towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency wasassessed at Rs.4,80,000/-. The Tribunal also granted a sum ofRs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and funeral expenses.

4. Aggrieved by the quantum of Award passed by the Tribunal,the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the accident filedthis appeal on the ground that the deceased also contributed forthe accident and that the income of the deceased taken by theTribunal is on higher side without any basis.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance companysubmitted that the deceased also contributed for the accident, and,therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding totalcompensation against the insurer of the offending vehicle. It isfurther submitted that the income taken and multiplier applied bythe Tribunal was also not correct and needs modification.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimantssubmitted that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in AMRITBHANU SHALI AND OTHERS v NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

Ltd AND OTHERS[[1]]the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of thedeceased on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. The appellant/insurance company has not produced any kind ofevidence that the deceased also contributed for the accident,except filing Ex.B.1-copy of the policy and admitting that the policyis in force. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interferewith the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the rash andnegligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in theaccident. The Tribunal on consideration of evidence on record, particularly Ex.A.4 held that the driver of the lorry drove thevehicle in negligent manner causing death of three persons. In theabsence of any evidence that the deceased also contributed forthe accident, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurreddue to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. So faras quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed theincome of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- as the deceased undergonetraining in the institute and studied B.A. and can earn Rs.5,000/-after training and on that basis awarded compensation whichcannot be said to be on higher side. Therefore, there are nogrounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and theappeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no orderas to costs.

___________________

Date: 30.12.2013 V.SURI APPA

RAO, J

kvrm

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO

MACMA NO. 2211 OF 2007

DATE: 30.12.2013

[1]2012SAR(CIVIL)708