LAWS(TLNG)-2023-2-99

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. MANI MOHINI

Decided On February 20, 2023
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant
V/S
Mani Mohini Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1687 of 2010, filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.2212 of 2013 filed by claimants challenging the quantum of compensation, are directed against the very same award and decree, dtd. 8/6/2010 made in O.P.No.2202 of 2006 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

(2.) For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the claimants laid a claim under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000.00 for the death of one Ch.Venkata Krishna Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in the accident that occurred on 8/3/2006. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding in a Tata Indica Car bearing No.WB 02 T 7410 towards Haldia from Kolkata side and when he reached the village limits of Raksachok, one Truck bearing No.WP 29 1038 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the Tata Indica Car. As a result, the deceased and the driver of the Car sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died while undergoing treatment in Popular Nursing Home at Mechada. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.24 of 2006 was registered against the driver of the Truck. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Vice President at G.M.R. Energy Limited, Bangalore and used to get salary of Rs.35,00,000.00 per annum apart from house rent allowance, transport allowance, special pay, children educational allowance, leave travel concession and medical reimbursement etc. On account of the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants, who are wife and son of the deceased, lost their source of income and earnings of the deceased. Therefore, they laid the claim against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., Truck bearing No.WB 29 1038.