THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A No.463 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., aggrieved by the Order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in MVOP No.277 of 2016. By the impugned Order, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.14,89,000 to the claimants on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.02.2016 while the deceased was proceeding on a Mini DCM Vehicle bearing No.TS- 10UA-2397, from Hyderabad to Kurnool, along with others, and the vehicle overturned due to bursting of its rear tyre due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM vehicle.

2. Heard Mr. T. Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance company; and Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the record. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as insurance company and claimants. 3. The fact that the deceased J.C. Mario Princely travelled on the Mini DCM Vehicle bearing No.TS-10UA-2397 on 24.02.2016 and his death on account of the vehicle overturning due to its rear vehicle burst are not in dispute. The police registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2016, against the driver of the subject DCM vehicle, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. The Tribunal, after considering the FIR (Ex- A1), Charge Sheet (Ex.A2), Inquest Report (Ex.A3), Postmortem examination report (Ex.A4), Crime Details Form (Ex.A5) and Motor Vehicle Inspector Report (Ex.A6), and more particularly, the evidence of PW-2, who was travelling with the deceased on the DCM Van on 24.02.2016, recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the DCM Van. RW-1 (the owner of the Mini DCM van) stated that the deceased was not his employee, however, keeping in view the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul¹, and Manuara Khatun vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 22017 (4) SCC 796, the Tribunal held that the insurance company is liable to first pay the compensation and later recover from the owner of the Mini DCM vehicle as per law.

3.1 Further, PW-3 (Proprietor of L & J Civil Engineering Contractors) stated that the deceased was a Welder with their company and they used to pay him Rs.8,000 per month initially and later enhanced the salary to Rs.14,500 per month (under Ex.A-7 Salary Certificate). The Tribunal considered Ex.A-7 and also considered the claim of the claimants wherein the claimants stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000 per month at leisure time (which was not supported by reliable oral/documentary evidence), assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000 per month, and applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi³, and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation⁴ awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,89,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition to the date of actual payment, by the impugned Order. Challenging the same, the insurance company filed this appeal.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000 per month for Coolie work in the absence of reliable evidence; that when the dependents

are between 4 and 6 in number, the deduction towards personal expenses should have been 1/4^th but the Tribunal deducted 1/5^th which is not as per law; that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.60,000 (i.e., at the rate of Rs.15,000 each to the claimants 2 to 5 (children) towards loss of love and affection which is not as per Pranay Sethi (supra); that the interest at 9% per annum is excessive, as according to Sarla Verma (supra), the interest should have been 6% per annum.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, contends that the Tribunal had