Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, BATTU DEVANAND, JJ.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
D. Dandapani and Others – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3267 of 2017
Decided On : 01-05-2020
Point of Law: Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the Insurance Company against the order and decree, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge – Held, no appeal or cross-objections has been filed by the claimants seeking any enhancement of compensation, namely, the future prospects. If the said amount is taken into consideration, claimants will get more amount than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. But, having regard to the calculations arrived at, more particularly the deductions made towards personal expenses; the deductions towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the same can be compensated taking into consideration the future prospects to which the deceased will be entitled to in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, as it is well established that in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the Court can adjust the amounts under other counts. Hence, the quantum of compensation fixed by the trial Court requires no interference - Appeal is accordingly dismissed
Facts of the Case:
As per the averments of the claim petition, the 1st petitioner is the husband and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of one S. Manjula (who will be hereinafter referred to as “deceased”). It is further averred that on 08.09.2015 at 4-10 a.m. the 1st petitioner and the deceased left their house in a new and un-numbered Hero Honda Shine motorcycle belonging to Thyagaraja Reddy and were proceeding towards Chittoor Town, on the extreme left side of the road. When they reached near Sri Krishna Temple on Chittoor-Tirupati 1st Road, the 3rd respondent, who is the driver of the respondent bus bearing Registration No. TN 30 BE 7799 (which will be hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”), drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same and dashed against the motorcycle of the 1st petitioner, who was the rider of the motorcycle. As a result of which, he fell to the left side, while the deceased
Finding of the Court:
No appeal or cross-objections has been filed by the claimants seeking any enhancement of compensation, namely, the future prospects. If the said amount is taken into consideration, claimants will get more amount than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. But, having regard to the calculations arrived at, more particularly the deductions made towards personal expenses; the deductions towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the same can be compensated taking into consideration the future prospects to which the deceased will be entitled to in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, as it is well established that in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the Court can adjust the amounts under other counts. Hence, the quantum of compensation fixed by the trial Court requires no interference.
Result: Appeal is accordingly dismissed
JUDGMENT :
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
1. This Appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the Insurance Company against the order and decree, dated 24.07.2017 in M.V.O.P. No. 36 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor District.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. As per the averments of the claim petition, the 1st petitioner is the husband and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of one S. Manjula (who will be hereinafter referred to as “deceased”). It is further averred that on 08.09.2015 at 4-10 a.m. the 1st petitioner and the deceased left their house in a new and un-numbered Hero Honda Shine motorcycle belonging to Thyagaraja Reddy and were proceeding towards Chittoor Town, on the extreme left side of the road. When they reached near Sri Krishna Temple on Chittoor-Tirupati 1st Road, the 3rd respondent, who is the driver of the respondent bus bearing Registration No. TN 30 BE 7799 (which will be hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”), drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same and dashed against the motorcycle of the 1st petitioner, who was the rider of the motorcycle. As a result of which, he fell to the left side, while the deceased, who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle, fell on the right side of the road and came under the wheels of the offending vehicle, which was ran over her body and dragged her to some distance. Thereafter, the offending vehicle fled away without stopping. As a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. It is further averred that on the basis of a report given by the 1st petitioner, the Station House Officer, Chittoor Traffic Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 73 of 2015 under Section 304-A of IPC.
4. It is further averred that the deceased who was aged about 45 years was hale and healthy, and was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Government Elementary School at Vadrampalli Village, Irala Mandal, on a monthly salary of Rs. 40,240/- contributing the entire amount to the welfare of the petitioners. Due to sudden demise, the petitioners lost their love and affection and also suffered shock, from which, they are unable to come out. It is further averred that the accident occurred solely due to negligent driving of the 3rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent, which was validly inured with 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and thereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
5. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the accident took place due to gross negligence on the part of the 1st petitioner, who was the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider, but the petitioners have managed the police and foisted the case against 3rd respondent, who is no way responsible for the accident. In any event, it is pleaded that the amount of Rs. One crore claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. During the course of enquiry, the petitioners examined PWs. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 on their behalf, while the respondents examined, RWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B.1 and B.2.
7. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim application, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 68,51,720/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount awarded, from the date of petition till the date of deposit and costs, holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle by its driver-3rd respondent only. The Tribunal further held that the respondent Nos. 1 to
