1 APHC010011292019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 8/2019 Between: N Kavitha and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND K Mahaboob Basha and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY 2. The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT:- The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement in M.V.O.P.No.07 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge’s Court, Ananthapuramu, dated 28.12.2017 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.35,62,212/-, as against the claim of Rs.60,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased N. Ravikumar Reddy in a motor accident that occurred on 06.10.2010. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.10.2010. On the date of incident, at about 06.00 a.m., the deceased was travelling from Hyderabad to Proddutur in a ‘Tata Sumo’ bearing No.AP-04/TV 5959 along with the driver of the said vehicle and when they reached Venkatampalli village, a lorry bearing No.AP- 21/W 3105 driven by the 3rd respondent in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed collided with the Tata Sumo, as a result of which the driver of the Tata Sumo died on the spot and the deceased sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Nandyal where he succumbed to injuries at 08.30 a.m., while undergoing treatment. A case in Cr.No.149 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 337 and 304-A IPC was registered by Sirivella Police Station. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, being the owner of the lorry, insurer and the driver of the lorry respectively. 3 4. While the 1st and 3rd respondents remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter denying the averments of the claim petition, the manner of the accident, the validity of the driving license of the 3rd respondent. It was further contended that the deceased was covered under group insurance policy by his employer and the money that was paid to him has to be deducted from any compensation. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether the accident that occurred on 06.10.2010 at 6.00 a.m., near Venkatampalli village, Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool district was due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent of lorry bearing No.AP- 21/W.3105? 2) Whether the deceased died as a result of the said accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 4) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, in support of the case of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to 18, X1 to X4 were marked. R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined in support of the case of the respondents and Ex.B1 to B7 were marked. 7. The Tribunal, relying upon the documentary evidence Ex.A.1 – FIR and Ex.A.4 – charge sheet, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent, resulting in the death of the deceased and that since the offending lorry is involved in the accident, the 1st respondent being the owner of the lorry, the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the lorry and the 3rd respondent being the driver of the lorry, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 4 8. Taking into consideration the yearly income of the deceased as Rs.5,64,486/- and after applying multiplier 13 as per Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the tribunal estimated the loss of income at Rs.48,92,212/-. In addition to that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.35,62,212/- after deducting the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- towards the insurance amount that was paid under accident policy. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. Heard Mr. M. Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.35,62,212/- towards compensation after deducting Rs.14,00,000/- towards the insurance amount paid under the accident policy. As per the law laid down in Vimal Kanwar and Ors., V. Kishore Dan and Ors.,2, amounts pertaining to provident fund, pension and life insurance receivable by the claimants on account of victim’s death do not come within the periphery of MV Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction. In a life insurance policy, the insured contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. The amount received as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, in such a case, the amount received through contributions of the insured cannot be deducted out of the amount 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2013) 7 SCC 476 5 awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. He further argued that the award passed by the tribunal is bad in law as the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- towards insurance paid under the accident policy cannot be deducted from the amount awarded towards compensation. As such, the appellants are liable to be paid a total sum of Rs.49,62,212/- instead of Rs.35,62,212/-. Hence requested to allow the appeal. 11. On a perusal of the entire record, it can be seen that the Tribunal has computed the annual salary of the deceased after deducting income tax as Rs.4,34,220/-. As per the ruling laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 30% of the income has been added towards future prospects which resulted in a total income of Rs.5,64,486/-. As there are three eligible dependants upon the deceased, following the rules stipulated in National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi and Ors.,3 and Sarla Varma V. Delhi Transport Corporation, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses and the remaining amount was computed as Rs.3,76,324/-. As the deceased was aged about 49 years, multiplier ‘13’ was applied and the total loss of dependency was computed as Rs.48,92,212/-. In addition, Rs.40,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.49,62,212/- towards compensation. But, however, as the claimants have already received Rs.14,00,000/- towards the insurance amount paid under the accident policy, the Tribunal, after deducting the said amount of Rs.14,00,000/-, has awarded an amount of Rs.35,62,212/- to the claimants. 3 2017 SC 1050 6 12. In general, a provident fund is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service and the said employee or his heirs will be entitled to receive this amount regardless of the accidental death. A life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured basing on the contract with the insurer, in which the insured also contributes in the form of premium. Once all the premiums are paid, the insurer can receive the said amount as per the contract; if at all the insured dies, irrespective of nature of the death, his legal heirs are liable to be paid the sum by the insurer as per the terms of the contract not on account of any accidental death, but on account of the insured’s death. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which in fact has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As rightly held by the Apex Court (2nd supra), even this Court is of the opinion that when the amount is awarded as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the injury/death, the amount received by the dependents/ claimants towards life insurance policy cannot be deducted from the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting Rs.14,00,000/- received by the claimants towards the insurance policy from the compensation amount which they are entitled to be paid under the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. As such, this appeal is partly allowed and accordingly the compensation amount awarded to the appellants is enhanced from Rs.35,62,212/- to that of Rs.49,62,212/-. However, the directions given by the Tribunal with regard to withdrawal of the amounts, as apportioned by 7 the Tribunal, shall be made proportionately according to the enhanced compensation. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:28.03.2025. Gss