Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1186
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, N. TUKARAMJI, JJ.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Yerramshetti Manjushree @ Manju and others - Respondent
M.A.C.M.A.No.282 OF 2021, M.A.C.M.A. No.419 OF 2022, AND M.A.C.M.A.No.518 OF 2022
Decided on : 19-02-2024
Court recognizes the necessity of considering all dependants in compensation assessments and clarifies that failure to wear a helmet alone does not constitute contributory negligence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation determination for loss of dependency, future prospects, and contributions of dependants - The tribunal awarded Rs.44,81,400/- for loss of dependency, which was contested by the insurer for alleged contributory negligence of the deceased. The court found the deceased's age and salary correctly assessed and ruled that all dependants must be considered, awarding Rs.60,10,028/- as just compensation, inclusive of consortium and funeral expenses. (Paras 11, 14, 16)
(B) Contributory negligence - Court emphasized that mere failure to wear a helmet does not automatically imply contributory negligence under the circumstances of the case. (Paras 9, 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, a police officer, died in a motorcycle accident after colliding with a negligently parked lorry. His family sought significant compensation based on his earning capacity.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's evaluation of damages failed to account for all dependants. The court corrected this oversight and outlined appropriate compensation measures.
Issues: The primary issues included the deceased's contributory negligence and the claimants' dependency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the claimants must be recognized as dependants and that the assessment of damages should fairly reflect the deceased's contributions to the family.
Result: Appeals allowed in part, with modifications to the awarded compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the accident and claims (Para 1) |
| 2. contested issues of negligence and compensation claims (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's assessment of evidence and compensation calculation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. final orders and modifications of the tribunal's decision (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
N. Tukaramji, J.
The M.A.C.M.A.No.282 of 2021 has been preferred by the respondent No.3/insurer, M.A.C.M.A.No.419 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner Nos.3 and 4/parents of the deceased and M.A.C.M.A.No.518 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/wife and minor son of the deceased against the decree and order dated 24.07.2019 in O.P.No. 173 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.
2. We have heard Mr. C.M. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.No.518 of 202, Mr. S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioners in M.A.C.M.a.No.419 of 2022 and Mr. N. Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurer.
3. For the sake of facility, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their status before the tribunal.
4(a) The case of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 (for short, ‘the petitioners’) in brief is that on 12.06.2013 after 9 p.m. while Mr. Y.Shamsunder/deceased was proceeding on motorcycle on service road between Narsingi and the then A.P. Police Academy, one lorry came in opposite direction and in the glare of the headlights the deceased could not observe the road and rammed his motorcycle into a negligently parked lorry bearing registration No.MH-12-QA-9569 (for short, ‘the lorry’) and suffered head injury. Immediately he was shifted to the hospital but succumbed to injuries.
4(b) The wife, minor son and parents of the deceased filed claim pleading that the deceased was 32 years old and as Sub- Inspector of Police, Sangareddy used to earn Rs.28,289/- and contribute all his earnings to family. The death of their bread- winner made them destitutes. Hence prayed for granting compensation of Rs.62 lakhs . The tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded Rs.44,81,400/- with interest at 6% per annum by dismissing the petition of the parents of the deceased/petitioner Nos.3 and 4.
5. The respondent No.3/insurer (for short, ‘the insurer’) in appeal contested that the tribunal ought to have observed the negligent driving was on the part of the deceased in striking the parked lorry. The tribunal failed to note that the deceased being police officer, in violation of statutory prescription, was not wearing wearing helmet, which resulted into his death. Thus contributory negligence on his part should have been taken into account and apportioned the liability. That apart, the compensation granted is on higher side. Hence prayed for intervention.
6. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in appeal contested that the tribunal had erred in assessment of income and future prospects of the deceased. Further, as the dependants are four in number 1/4th of the income should have been deducted for personal expenditure. Moreover, the amounts awarded under conventional heads are improper. Therefore, prayed for granting just compensation.
7. The petitioner Nos.3 and 4 have pleaded that their claim of dependency was erroneously rejected by the tribunal for the simple reason that the petitioner No.3 is holding two acres of land. The tribunal ought to have considered that the other claimants have not disputed their dependency thus the tribunal should have awarded compensation. Thus prayed for reconsideration.
8. The pleadings put-forth by the parties are carefully considered and we have perused the materials on record.
9. The insurer’s contention is that the deceased himself was negligent in the accident and otherwise there is contributory negligence as the deceased was not wearing helmet. The eyewitness/PW-2 deposed in support of the petitioners’ claim and asserted that the crime lorry was negligently parked on the service road and at the re
