United India Insurance Company Limited v. M. Ramulu And Others

1. On 26-10-1998 in the afternoon one Mallesh Yadav was riding his bicycle from Secunderabadto Begumpet. One lorry bearing No.MMS-4001 came from behind at excessive speed and hit Mallesh Yadav (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'). He died at the spot. As a result, the parents, and siblings of the deceased filed the petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad, for seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the owner of the lorry and United India Insurance Company, which is the appellant, as it had insured the vehicle.

2. The claim was not challenged by the owner of the lorry. The Insurance Company did not dispute the liability, but urged that the claim was exorbitant and excessive and the respondents No. 3 and 4 were not entitled to compensation.

3. The learned Tribunal found that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and therefore, the lorry owner as well as the Insurance Company with whom he insured the said lorry were responsible for giving compensation. The Tribunal found that the deceased was earning about Rs.1,200/- per month, but was contributing about Rs.300/-per month to the family. This finding is not disputed any further The Tribunal found that the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner No. 1) was hale and hearty and was earning and was not at all dependent on the deceased. No compensation was granted in his favour. As far as other respondents are concerned, the Tribunal adopted somewhat curious method of calculating the amount of compensation by applying different multipliers in respect of each of the remaining three claimants. It may be pointed out that respondents 3 and 4 were really minors at that point of time. While respondent No. 3 is the sister of the deceased and was aged 17 years at that time, respondent No.4 is the brother and was aged 11 years. The Tribunal apportioned the contribution of Rs.300/- per month to the family amongst the three aforesaid claimants at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per month each and then applied different multipliers suitable to their ages and worked out the entitlement of each of the claimants accordingly. The appellant-company is challenging the method of calculation of the amount of compensation in respect of all.

4. There is no doubt that respondents 3 and 4 cannot be said to be dependents on the deceased for the whole of their remaining life. Respondent No.3 was sister aged 17 years, she cannot be said to be totally dependent on the deceased. It is the liability of the father i.e. respondent No.l to bring her up and to find out suitable husband and marry her. The Tribunal, however, considered her claim as independent and applied multiplier of 19.60 on the basis that she would be dependent, on the deceased for the whole of her remaining1 life. This approach was clearly erroneous. Similarly, in respect of fourth respondent, considering the age of 11 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 22 on the basis that respondent No.4 would have been dependent on the deceased for the whole of his remaining life. This also is totally erroneous. The consideration in respect of brother and sister is totally different than one for the children of the deceased. Brothers and sisters cannot be said to be dependents on the victim. There is no liability in law to maintain these persons. It is another thing to say that there might have been some augmentation of income of the father by the earnings of deceased. But, there was no liability in law upon the victim/ deceased to maintain either of his siblings when his father was earning and was bound to maintain the children. In the circumstances, the only true dependent was the mother of the victim. The Tribunal has rightly observed that though Rs.1,200/- per month was the income of the deceased, his contribution to the family was Rs.300/- per month because his father was also earning and contributing to the family. Having regard to the fact that Rs.300/- per month was the contribution, the annual value would be Rs.3,600/-. The age of the mother i.e., respondent No.2 was 42 years and therefore undisputably, the proper multiplier in her case will be 13.60 for the whole contributory amount of Rs.300/-. The otlier claimants i.e. brother and sisters are not entitled to any separate compensation for the reasons given above as they were not in law dependent on the victim. If the amount of compensation payable by the owner of the lorry is thus worked out on the basis of multiplier of 13.60 in respect of mother (R-2), The total amount comes to Rs.40,800/-. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that this amount has already been withdrawn by respondent No.2. The award insofar as the grant of compensation separately to respondents 3 and 4 is unsustainable and bad in law.

5. The learned Counsel for respondents contended that the Insurance Company is not entitled to take the defences which are not permissible to it in view of Section 149 ofMotor Vehicles Act. It is true that the Insurance Company cannot take all the defences which are permissible to the driver or owner of the lorry. But, the Insurance Company can take a defence that the method of calculation is totally unwarranted in law and is unsustainable. Otherwise, it is not open to the Insurance Company to challenge the quantum if legal and proper method of quantification is applied by the Tribunal. Had it been mere apportionment between claimants that also was not challengeable by the appellant. Here a separate claim is granted in favour of persons not at all entitled to in law.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed partly and a decree/award for Rs.40,800/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Eight Hundred only) is passed with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till payment of the said amount. It is, however, made clear that if any amount more than what is due under the above decree has already been paid to the respondents, nothing shall be recovered. The excess amount if lying in deposit with the Court, shall be refunded to the appellant. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.