Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 236
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J
M/s. The SBI General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
K.Therisa – Respondent
MACMA/597/2018
The court determined that the appropriate multiplier for compensation calculation in fatal accident cases should be based on the deceased's age, and that corroborative evidence is essential when a salary slip's authenticity is disputed.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation for death in motor accident - Claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for death of son due to negligent driving of DCM Van - Tribunal awarded Rs.15,73,280/-; Insurance Company appealed against the order - Court reduced compensation to Rs.13,34,600/- with 7.5% interest. (Paras 10, 25)
(B) Evidence - Salary slip as proof of income - Salary slip can be challenged; corroborative evidence may be necessary to establish genuineness. (Paras 17, 18)
(C) Multiplier Method - Selection of multiplier based on age of deceased, not dependents; appropriate multiplier determined as 18. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed compensation for the death of her son in a motorcycle accident caused by the negligent driving of a DCM Van. The deceased was 24 years old and the sole breadwinner of the family. (Paras 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.15,73,280/- as compensation, which was reduced to Rs.13,34,600/- by the appellate court, modifying the interest rate from 9% to 7.5%. (Paras 10, 25)
Issues: The main issues included whether the accident occurred due to negligent driving and the appropriate quantum of compensation. (Paras 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence when a salary slip's authenticity is challenged and determined the proper multiplier based on the deceased's age. (Paras 17, 20)
Result: Appeal allowed in part; compensation reduced to Rs.13,34,600/- with interest at 7.5%.
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2017 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal’) in O.P.No.1874 of 2014, the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 has filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioner filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the death of her son by name “Bala Prasanna” (hereinafter will be referred as ‘deceased’). The reason assigned by the petitioner for the death of the deceased is that on 28.10.2015 at about 5.45 PM while the son of the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle from Secunderabad towards Athwelly, respondent No.1 i.e., the driver of DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TD 1289 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘crime vehicle’) drove the said vehicle at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased from the backside and ran over the body of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries, as such he was shifted to Balaji Hosital, Kompally and from there he was shifted to KIMS hospital, wherein the doctors declared as brought dead.
4. A case in Crime No.643/2015 was registered by Police, Medchal for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code Police against the driver of the crime vehicle.
5. According to the petitioner, the deceased was aged about 24 years, hale and healthy, working as Associate CS (Retension) in Agile, Begumpet, Hyderabad and drawing Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. The deceased used to contribute his income for maintenance of his family and due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioner lost her sole bread earner of the family. Therefore, the petitioner, claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No. DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TD 1289 respectively, for the death of the deceased.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/driver and owner of the crime vehicle were set exparte and whereas the respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition, the manner in which the accident occurred, the age, avocation of the deceased and that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident.
7. It was further contended that there was no valid permit to the said vehicle and that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, on the above grounds the Insurance Company assailed the liability to pay any compensation amount and prayed for dismissal of the case.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death viz., K. Bala Prasanna due to the rash and negligent driving of the DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TD 1289?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
iii) To what relief?
9. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 and 2 were examined apart from relying on documentary evidence under Exs. A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.3, RW1 was examined apart from exhibiting Exs. B1 to B4.
10. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the petitioner/claimant and making respondent Nos.1 to 3 liable to pay the compensation of Rs.15,73,280/- jointly and severally from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the
