MACMA/1725/2014 of RELIANCCE GNERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs BOMMAKANTI BHUMALINGAM AND 3 OTHERS on 31 December 2021

1. 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.v ][Ma-ndal' ][Medak ][District']rl,r'iJ.is-27 Llc Apna-poiiiiJaJvplttv, [sansaredo.v ][Ma-ndal' ][Medak ][District']2 ij;;;;;;ti R;.vrr,t.n*. [diJ'drt''i''r'ngirn ][lwlo ][G ][Naresh)' ][occ:- ][House-]wife, R/o [H.No ][.15_27 ][LrC ][[p[ii ][ioi"ni'JJifi"riy) ][sansareody ][Mandal. ][rvledak]wife, R/o [H.No ][.15_27 ][LrC ][[p[ii ][ioi"ni'JJifi"riy) ][sansareody ][Mandal. ][rvledak]:. Bltlir"k"nti [Archana, D/o ][B ][Bhumalingam' ][occ:- ][Student' R/o ][H No 15-27 LIG]" 4 XFriii lvlr. Pradeep ij"*tnii.odvp'riv [Aotr'uk'rwa:'' ]s i n g [5'; ][jred ]"oi d v ,k""*^ tr/a-nd al io t'" [lr"led ]oet1t191-er [ak.District]Occ:- Owner orrrilaruthr Swifl [ozire np-o'i-inYob"rji ]['ni"' ri'Nt ][+-'s-22915' ][Bhukthapur ][village]Adilabad [District ][-504001 ]...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS [1 ][TO ][3 ][& ][Rl]" 4 XFriii lvlr. Pradeep ij"*tnii.odvp'riv [Aotr'uk'rwa:'' ]s i n g [5'; ][jred ]"oi d v ,k""*^ tr/a-nd al io t'" [lr"led ]oet1t191-er [ak.District]Occ:- Owner orrrilaruthr Swifl [ozire np-o'i-inYob"rji ]['ni"' ri'Nt ][+-'s-22915' ][Bhukthapur ][village]Adilabad [District ][-504001 ]...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS [1 ][TO ][3 ][& ][Rl]

For the Appellant [: ][sRl ][V'sATYAM ][REDDY' ][SENIoR ][ADVOCATE ][FOR]SRI.N.MOHAN [KRISHNA' ][Advocate]

For the [Respondent Nos'1 ][to ][3 ][: ][sRl ][M'KIRAN ][REDDY', ][Advocate]

For the [Respondent No'4 ][: SRI ][T'V ][RAMANA ][RAO' Advocate]

The Court [delivered ][the ][following: JUDGMENT]

I

H )N'BLE SRI [JUSTICE ][P. NAVEEN ][RAO]ANDHI [IN'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ][P. SREE SUDHA]MACMA No. [1][723 of ][2Ol4]

JUDGMENTU?er [J ][ustice ][P.Srce ][Sr.trlhit)]

l. This a )peal is [prelerred ][by ][Reliance ][(lcncral ][lnsurance]C()rnpan.!- Li 1itcd, [ap1>cllat.rt/ ][scct.,trtl ][t ][csp'rtrrlctlt. ][aggrrt ][ved ][bY ][the]rlccrec and.j rdgement dated 01.10.2013, [passed ][in ][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').

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

.r.l -ll- -' clcceasecl u.as u,orfujng as a I_.D. Str,tro in I)RDA, drawing arrLrnrhl,\, salarv ol' a24,706 / besiclcs doing rhe household chores forIrL'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 anclrnet wi h an accident q,hen rt crossed thc rr,rad, dl.(3 to the rash andneSlige rt driving of rhe driver of a car beanng l\0, Ap 0l AA 0007,which [.rit ]thc deceas( J pirion scooty rider *, at o.'" itt" side' as a resuit of whjch, thethe inc lent, and died on the spot. on the ,n" 0.".r:.; dab ofinciden ,n" o.,,,,";"..:l-"n*'" "s.o [about ]48 years.o are the husband ,r. "r;;::;."

I

I

1

5. The learned counsel for the appellant herein mainly contendedthat the crime vehicle is a non-transport vehicle, but at the time ofthe accident, it was being used for hire for carrying passengers, 'of [the ][PolicY ]q hich is [a ][cl ][ar ][\iolalion ][o1 ][rhe tcrrns ][irncl ][tronditions]e hable [to ][PaY]htrlce [the ][al pe\lant insurance ][companl \\'ollid not ][b]the [compen: ][1tion]

6. The [( ][ounsel ][for ][appeiiant also ][contended ][that ][the ][t'ribunal]failed [to ][cr ][nsider ][the ][evidence ][of ][RW- ][1 ][' ][a ][senior ][execudve ][of ][the]insurance [)ompany' who stated ][lhat ][B ][Sailesh' who ][is the ][son ][of ][R4]herein, [ge ][/e ][a ][statement ][to ][the ][Patencheru Police ][that ][the ][crime]vehicle [we ][s ][a ][private ][car' but ][was being used ][Ior ][hire ][purpose ][lt ][is]contende( [that ][the ][same ][is in ][violation of the ][terms ][and conditions ][of]the poliq [as the ][vehicle was ][used' ][for transport ][purpose ][and ][hence]theinsulrncecompanywouldnotbeliabletopayCompensation.

7. Th : appellants [also ][contended ][that ][the ][Tribunal ][erred ][in]consider ng the [luture ][prospects ][of ][the ][deceased ][at ][5O%' ][instead ][ol]3o','i,. T tc' learned [counsel ][reliecl ][on ][SARALA ][VERMA ][V/s' ][DELHI]TRANSI ORT CORPORATIONI, E Tl e appe IIants submitted [rh:tL Lhc ][tr-illr'rnitl ][u ][r ][c.'rlgl1' ][granted ][an]intercsl ll 87u p,a. and that the [proper ][intercsI ][t-atc ][u'ju]d ][be ][6% ][p'a']as per S {RALA VERLA (sllpra).

9. T e appeliants placed reliance on the statemcnt [of ][RW-l ][being]ignored by the Tribunal. It is observed that in the [chief,]RW- 1, 'ho is a senior executive of the insurance company, statedthat on B.Sailesh, son ofthe fourth respondent, gave a statement tothe [poli, ]e that on the date of accident, the car was sent for hire fromAdilaba(to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to pune ancl when theoccurredcar was.returning from pune and reached Medak, the accidentThe crime vehicle is a private car, which ' [2aa,) ]ACJ l: )8was being used for the Five Judge Bench of the Hon,ble Apex Court in NATIONALIITSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/s. pRANAy SETHI3. Accordingto the settled law, the future prospects to be granted to a person agedbetween 40 to 50 years, with a permanent job would be 30olo, asrightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, theTribunal has erred in granting future prospect s @ SOo/o and the futureprospects should be granted @ 30yo in this case.

12. Coming to the calculation of the compensation amount by theTribunal. lt is to be said that the Tribunal grossly erred in notgranting funeral expenses and loss of estate and in granting loss ofconsortium at al0,0O0/- to thc husband ancl in granting Ioss ofloveand alfection to the children. lt is thc seuled position oI law as laiddos,n by the Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI (supra), which lxed theamounts 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 thecurrent case, instead of the amounts granted by the Tribunal_ Underthese conventional heads, a total of <1,65,000/- is granted to thedeceased. With regards to grant of loss of love and affection, a recentThree Judge Bench of the Hon,ble Apex Court, in UNITED INDIAINSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/s. SATINDER NAURa, has been laiddown that "The tribunals and High Courts are directed to awardcompensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate head.There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of loveand affection as a separate head.'

I

transpo t purpose, and hence, R4 violated the terms and conditionsof the F >licy and is alone liable to pay the compensation. He alsofiled Ex 31 - policy and Ex.B2 _ attested copy of the statement ofof the F >licy and is alone liable to pay the compensation. He alsofiled Ex 31 - policy and Ex.B2 _ attested copy of the statement ofB.Sailes It is observed that no notice ra,as issued to R4 anci R4didnt gi e any statement to thc porice. The Tribunar consicrered thcevidence and observed that the policv shou.s the namc o[ pradccpdidnt gi e any statement to thc porice. The Tribunar consicrered thcevidence and observed that the policv shou.s the namc o[ pradccpBothuku war as the ou.ner of the car, and as such statements olthird par ies, cven iI they are to bc the son of the owner, cannot bethird par ies, cven iI they are to bc the son of the owner, cannot betaken as troof regarding the nature of use of the car.. The appcllanrIailed to :xaminc the lourth respondent before the Tribunal andIailed to :xaminc the lourth respondent before the Tribunal andhence th, contentions ol thc appeliants in thrs regard u,ere notaccepted I nd they were held to be vicariouslv liable.accepted I nd they were held to be vicariouslv liable.

10. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding ofthe Tribur al, which was derived at after thoroughly considering allthe evider ce on record and thelnsurance compaq. cannot beexonerated from the liability.

11. Anot .er issue raised by the appellant which is to be consideredis with reg rd to grant of future prospects. The age of the deceasedherein is n( t in dispute and she was aged 4g years at the time of theaccident. Tl e Tribunal placed reliancc upon a judgment ol" this Courtin NEIV II{I IA ASSURANCE COMPANY V/s. cOpALI2 rvherein thedeceased 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 lOyears of ser ice lcft, the Tribunal grantcd 5004 as future prospccrs.The posrtion of lau'concerning grant of luture prospecls is not resintegra. The oosition laid down in SARALA VERMA (supra), r.r,hichhas been rel :d upon by the appellants, has also gotten approval of'?20 [tz ][,l,ct ][2 ][ti ][t]

13. The calculation of compensation is drawn out in the tablebelow:

13. The calculation of compensation is drawn out in the tablebelow:

14. As seen from the table, the total compensation for theclaimants comes to < 34,O1,O121-. Learned counsel for the appellantshas disputed the interest rate imposed by the Tribunal. In order todetermine the interest rate to be granted, we shall refer to the interestrate granted by the Supreme Court in its recent Judgements forMotor Vehicle Accident awards. In the case of RASMITA BISWALV/s. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIoNAL INSURANCE CoMPAI$TLTD.5 the Hon'ble Apex Court granted an interest of 7.Syo.ln anothercase before the Supreme Court,N,JAYASREE V/s. CHOLAMANDALAM Ms GENERAL INSURANCECOMPAI{Y LTD..,rhe inreresr grantcd was 7..57o as well. By placingreliance on these rcccnt judgcmcnts of thc Supreme Court, this Court 5 2o2l scc onl-ine sc r rqi 6 2o2l SCC Ont-ine SC gr)7

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

15. The arpellant and the fourth respondent being jointly andseverally Ii:lle are directed to deposit the entire amount ofcompensatior within a period of one month from the date of receipt ofa copv of thi, order. On such dcposit, the Respondent Nos.l tr:3 arepermitted tovithdraw the entire amount.

16. Regarrng apportionmcnt of the compcnsati{Jn, RespondentNos 2 i.rnd 3rrc thc claLrghtsrs iiqcd f.l irrrcl 23 rr':rr.s rcspc'ctivcl! invear 20 l3 arI Respondenr No.1 is rhc hlrsband ot rlrc dtccaseC agcd5l years asn the date of the order of the Tribunal, all ol them areentitled for a. equal amount.

17. Accord ngly, this appeal is disposed of. There shall be no orderas to costs

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

Sd/.B.SATYAVATHIASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY/i

SECTIOOFFICER

To1. The Chairn rn, [,4otor [Accidents ][Claims Tribunal ]-cum- [Prancipal ][District Judge,]Medak at S rngareddy.

2. One CC to iri N.Mohan [Krishna, Advocate ][(OPUC)]

3. One CC to )ri M,Kiran [Reddy, ][Advocate (OPUC)]

4. One CC to )ri T,V.Ramana [Rao, ][Advocate (OPUC)]

5. Two CD Cc )ies

6. One Spare )opy

arZT

I

I

I

DATED:3111212021

I*\I M'P 2022JUDGMENTMACMA.No-1725 f 20'14

DISPOSING OF T IE MACMA.

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

AND

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

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

Between:

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

...APPELLANT/R2

AND

1. Bommakanti Bhumallngam, S/o Buchaiah, Occ:- Employee in A.P.C.P.D.C.L, FyoH.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypally, Sangareddy Mandal, lVedak District.H.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypally, Sangareddy Mandal, lVedak District.2. Bommakanti Ramyakrishna, D/o Bhumalingam, (W/o G, Naresh), Occ:- House-wife, R/o H.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypally, Sangareddy lvlandal, MedakDist.wife, R/o H.No.15-27 LIG APHB Pothireddypally, Sangareddy lvlandal, MedakDist.

3. Bommakanti Archana, D/o B.Bhumalingam, Occ:- Student, Ryo H.No.15-27 LIGAPHB Pothireddypa lly, Sangareddy lt4andal, l\,4edak District.APHB Pothireddypa lly, Sangareddy lt4andal, l\,4edak District.4. l\,4r. Pradeep Bothukurwar, S/o not known to the [petitioner, ]Occ:- Owner ofMaruthi Swift Dzire AP-01-AA-0007, R/o H.No.4-3-22915, Bhukthapur Village,Adilabad District -504001' Maruthi Swift Dzire AP-01-AA-0007, R/o H.No.4-3-22915, Bhukthapur Village,Adilabad District -504001'

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

Appeal under Section 173 of l',4otor Vehicles Act, against the [judgmenu ]order anddecree made in MVOP No.156 of 2013 dated 0111012013 on the file of the Court of theChairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal Diskict Judge, I\ileadk atSangareddy.

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 andupon hearing the arguments of Sri V.Satyam Reddy, Senior Advocate for Sri N.MohanKrishna, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M.Kiran Reddy, for R1 to R3 andSri,T.V,Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.4.

This Court doth Order and decree as follows :- 1 . That the IMACMA be and hereby is disposed of

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

3. That the compensation amount shall carry interest is 7.5% [p.a. ]from the date ofpetition till the date of realization.petition till the date of realization.

4. That the appellant and the fourth respondenl be and hereby are directed todeposit the entire amount of compensation [jointly ]and severally within a [period ]ofone month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.deposit the entire amount of compensation [jointly ]and severally within a [period ]ofone month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. That on such deposit respondent number 1 to 3 be and hereby are [permitted ]towithdraw the entire amounl.withdraw the entire amounl.

6. That the (of the compensation) respondents 1 to 3 on entitled for an equalamount.amount.

7. That there sl all be no Order as to cosls in this I\4ACNIA.

Sdi [-B.SATYAVATH ]IASSIS'TANT REGISTRARe-'-"e-'-"SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To1The Chairme l, lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principa] District Judge,Medak at Sa rgareddy.2.Two CD Cop :s One Spare C rpy lttr HIGH COURT

DA-IED:3'11121202'

DECREEMACMA.No.172 [i ][ot ][2014]

DISPOSINGC:THEMACMA.