IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.1995 of 2007 Dated:05-09-2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ….Appellant. And Pantadi Veera Venkata Lakshmi and others. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.1995 of 2007 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company directed against the award passed in O.P.No.1388 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 05.05.2007. The petitioners, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased P.Satyanandam, have filed the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,10,000/- for the death of the deceased in motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as a Manager in SVEC Constructions Limited and drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. On 13.06.2001, the deceased along with the Executive Engineer was going to Proddutur to meet the Superintendent Engineer in a TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 09 AF 7477 driven by 2nd respondent and when the jeep reached Vimala School in Govindapalli, the right side tyre of the jeep burst, as a result of which the 2nd respondent could not control the vehicle and the vehicle hit a tamarind tree and turned turtle. The deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. The appellant/3rd respondent opposed the said claim by filing a counter disputing the age, occupation and income of the deceased and pleaded that the accident was occurred due to mechanical defect and the inmates of the private car are not covered by the insurance policy, as such they are not liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident took place on 13.06.2001 at 4.00 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Suma bearing No.AP 9AF 7477 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? The 1st petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the 3rd respondent, but marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. The Tribunal by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Suma and with regard to issue No.2 awarded compensation of Rs.19,29,500/- and held that the 3rd respondent is liable to pay the said compensation along with owner and driver of the said vehicle. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance company has filed the present appeal. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and their liability for the passengers traveling in the vehicle is only to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/- in view of the additional premium paid by them and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. The respondents’ counsel on the other hand supported the award passed by the Tribunal. With regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the Tribunal has taken into consideration of the evidence produced by the petitioners and found that the driver was driving the vehicle at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner; as such he could not control the vehicle when the rear side tyre got burst. The Tribunal further observed that if the driver is going at low speed, the vehicle would have come to halt within a short distance and there is no possibility of hitting tamarind tree and turning turtle. No evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents to show that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Thus, the said finding of the lower Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. With regard to the liability of the Insurance Company, the lower Court has taken into consideration Ex.B.1 policy and observed that the policy covers the liability of public also and when the additional premium is paid, it is agreed that the insurer undertakes to pay compensation for the injuries sustained by the passengers other than the insured and the driver which includes both, as such they cannot disown their liability. A perusal of Ex.B.1 policy issued by the appellant/insurance company, shows that it is comprehensive policy. When the Insurance Company has issued comprehensive policy, it covers their liability to the passengers traveling in the car also. As such, they cannot disown their liability for payment of the compensation to the petitioners due to the death of the deceased. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration of the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- as stated by P.W.2, who is the Manager in SVEC Constructions. P.W.2 has further stated that an amount of Rs.13,452/- was deducted towards income tax from his salary and remitted to the Income tax department under Ex.A.7. Ex.A.5 salary certificate does not disclose about the deduction of income tax from the salary of deceased, but Ex.A.7 shows that income tax was paid by the company for the income of the deceased. Therefore, there is no need to make any further deduction from the salary of the deceased towards income tax. Moreover, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased in his employment, if that is taken into consideration, the monthly income of the deceased would be more than Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration of the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, arrived his annual income at Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.15,000 – Rs.5,000 = Rs.10,000 X 12 = Rs.1,20,000/-) and applied the appropriate multiplier of ‘16’ for the age of the deceased as ‘39’ years. Thus, awarded compensation of Rs.19,20,000/- towards loss of dependency and further awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, in total the Tribunal awarded Rs.19,29,500/- towards compensation. Thus, the lower Court has rightly awarded the above said compensation to the petitioners and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said award of the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:05-09-2011 Ksp