Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 770 (AP)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. G. SAROJA

2010-08-16

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2010
JUDGMENT :- G. Srinivas, the son of the 1st respondent, and brother of the 2nd respondent, was going by walk on the left side of the road, at Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, at 10.15 a.m., on 10.5.2000. A scooter bearing No.AP-10-E-6639, owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the appellant, coming from Uppal side, dashed against him. Srinivas was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, and he succumbed to injuries, six days thereafter, on 16.5.2000. Crime No.143 of 2000 was registered against the rider of the scooter by the Police Station, Uppal. 2. Stating that the deceased was aged 23 years and earning Rs.4,350/- per month, as a Mechanic at Modern Engineers, Patel nagar, Hyderabad, the respondents 1 and 2 filed OP No.1598 of 2000, in the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum- V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, as compensation. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter admitting the occurrence of the accident and death of the deceased, on account of the same. He denied his liability to pay the compensation. The appellant herein has also filed counter. The very occurrence of the accident was denied, and the age and avocation of the deceased were disputed. Further allegation was that, the rider of the scooter did not hold valid driving licence. Through its order dated 29.9.2003, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,73,500/with interest at 9% per annum and apportioned the same among the respondents I and 2. The same is challenged in this appeal. 4. One of the principal contentions urged by the appellant is that the deceased was unmarried, and instead of deducting half of his earnings towards his personal expenditure, the Tribunal deducted only one-third. Contentions that were advanced before the Tribunal are also repeated here. 5. The respondents I and 2, on the other hand, opposed the CMA, by placing reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to them, there is no hard and fast rule, that half of the earnings of an unmarried deceased must be deducted. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. According to them, there is no hard and fast rule, that half of the earnings of an unmarried deceased must be deducted. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. Taking into account the content of the pleadings filed by the respondents I and 2, and the counters filed by the 3rd respondent and the appellant, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration : I. Whether the deceased G. Sriniva died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of Ist respondent's vehicle by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitle for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? 8. On behalf of the appellant, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. 41 to 48 were filed. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant, and the certified copy of the insurance policy was filed as Ex.B1. Though the appellant disputed the very occurrence of the accident, the evidence on record clearly established, that an eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW2, and the F.I.R., charge-sheet, postmortem report, inquest report, were marked as Exs. 41 to 44. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged in this appeal. 9. The age of the deceased was detem1ined on the basis of the S.S.C. marks memo, marked as Ex.A5. However, since the deceased was unmarried, the age of his mother, the Ist respondent was taken as 45 years, though she pleaded that she is 43 years old. The wages were pleaded on the basis of the salary certificate issued by the Modem Engineers, marked as Ex. 48. The correctness thereof was not seriously disputed. The salary was Rs.4,350/-. However, the Tribunal took the same at Rs.2,500/- per month. Even from this, one third was deducted towards his expenditure. 10. Strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) = 2009 ACJ 1298 and he urges that the deduction in respect of unmarried persons shall be half. 11. A perusal of the said judgment discloses that, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in respect of unmarried persons, the deduction car be to the extent of 50%, it was not laid down as an absolute principle. 11. A perusal of the said judgment discloses that, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in respect of unmarried persons, the deduction car be to the extent of 50%, it was not laid down as an absolute principle. It was clearly mentioned that, in case the family is large, a different approach can be adopted. 2. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi and others, 2009 ACJ 2349 , which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, almost at the same time, when Sarla Verma's case (supra), was decided, the deduction in respect of the contribution to the family of a deceased unmarried person was restricted to one-third. The deceased in that case was a student, who graduated from a University in United Kingdom. In the instant case also, the deceased was technician, and had a bright future before him. Further, the respondents were already put to substantial disadvantage, on account of arbitrary finding as to the salary of Rs.2,500/-, per month, though Ex.48 clearly disclosed that it was RsA,350/- per month. Since the respondents did not file any cross-objections, that finding remains untouched. 13. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum. It is excessive; and in matters of this nature, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court directed that the interest must be in the range of 7% to 7.5%. 14. Hence, the CMA is partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum, and affirming the award in all other respects. 15. There shall be no order as to costs.