MACMA/3126/2007 of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Smt. Pittala Saroja on 30 December 2010

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDYAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD

M.A.C.M.A.No.3126 of 2007

(Dated : 30-12-2010)

Between:

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Rep. by its Divisional Officer,Malakpet, Hyderabad.

A n d

…Appellant

Smt. Pittala Saroja W/o P.Sathaiah and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDYANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASADM.A.C.M.A.No.3126 of 2007

JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy)

This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.8.2007passed in O.P.No.3188 of 2005 on the file of III Additional ChiefJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, thelearned Additional Chief Judge allowed the O.P in part and grantedcompensation of Rs.11,05,225/- to the claimants therein.

2. The 2[nd] respondent in O.P.No.3188 of 2005 is theappellant. Respondents 1 to 5 are the claimants in the said O.P. Claimants 1 and 2 are parents, claimant No.3 is sister andclaimants 4 and 5 are brothers of deceased Sridhar. The saidSridhar was employed as an Executive in Call Centre on a monthlysalary of Rs.10,000/-. He was aged 25 years as on the date of theaccident. On 25.3.2005, he was driving his motor-cycle and hismother was on the pillion seat. He along with his mother wasproceeding to Karimnagar. A Maruti car bearing No.AP 12A 2721owned by T.Upender and insured with the appellant-The New India Assurance Company came in high speed and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, Sridhar fell on road and received injuries towhich he succumbed. Therefore, his parents, brothers and sister filed O.P.No.3188 of 2005 claiming compensation ofRs.18,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the offendingvehicle.

3. The owner and the insurer filed counter resisting the claimof the claimants. The owner took the plea that there was nonegligence on the part of the driver of the car and it was the riderof the motor cycle, who drove it in rash and negligent manner andthereby, the accident occurred. However, he pleaded that heinsured the vehicle and therefore, insurer is liable to paycompensation.

4. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- “1) Whether Pittala Sridhar died on 25/3/05 due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Car No.AP 12 A 2721?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation ? Ifso so against whom ?

3) To what relief ?”

5. On behalf of the claimants, Pw-1 was examined and 11documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of theowner and insurer, neither ocular nor documentary evidence wasadduced.

6. The tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on recordand on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to theconclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash andnegligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Car and that theclaimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,05,225/-.Accordingly, allowed the O.P in part, by order dated 18.8.2007. Hence, this appeal by the insurer.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurerand learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5-claimants.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-insurersubmits that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, hiscontribution to the family can at most be taken at 50% of hisincome and in which case, the amount of compensation awardedby the tribunal is required to be reduced. Except this point, noother point is urged before us by either of the parties. Therefore,the only point that calls for adjudication in this appeal is :- Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal warrantsinterference ?

9. POINT: Indisputably, the deceased was a bachelor as onthe date of his death. As held by the Supreme Court in SarlaVerma v. D.T.C[[1]], in case of death of a bachelor, 50% of incomeis required to be taken towards his personal and living expenses.Paras 25 and 26 of the cited judgment need to be noted and theyare thus:-

“25. We have already noticed that the personal andliving expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to thedependants. No evidence need be led to show theactual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely tobe unreliable. The claimants will obviously tend toclaim that the deceased was very frugal and did nothave any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it maybe so. No claimant would admit that the deceased was aspendthrift, even if he was one.

26. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceasedwas spending a considerable part of the income on hisfamily. Therefore, it became necessary to standardisethe deductions to be made under the head of personaland living expenses of the deceased, one-third of theincome if the deceased was married, and one-half(50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic andconvenience. In fact, one-third deduction got statutoryrecognition under the Second Schedule to the Act, inrespect of claims under Section 163-A of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (“the MV Act”, for short). But, suchpercentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule andoffers merely a guideline”.

10. In view of the settled proposition of law, the deceased beingunmarried, 50% of his income is to be taken towards his personaland living expenses and 50% of his income as contribution to thefamily. The tribunal arrived the total annual income of thedeceased at Rs.1,34,000/-, in which case, his contribution to thefamily comes to Rs.67,000/-. Claimant No.1, who is the mother ofthe deceased is aged 41 years. The proper multiplier as per thedecision in Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra) is 14. Thus, applying thesame, the total loss of dependency can be arrived at Rs.9,38,000/-. The tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeralexpenses, which we are not inclined to interfere. Thus, in all, theclaimants are entitled to Rs.9,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% perannum from the date of petition to the date of payment.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part reducing thecompensation from Rs.11,05,225/- to Rs.9,40,000/-. No order asto costs.

_____________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.30-12-2010RAR

________________

P.DURGA PRASAD, J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDYANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD

M.A.C.M.A.No.3126 of 2007(Judgment of the Bench delivered byHon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy)

(Dated : 30-12-2010)

[1](2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121