Allowed

Addagatla Pushpaleela v. J. Ravinder Reddy

Telangana HC6 Sept 2010MACMA/4206/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court modified the award by enhancing the compensation amount due to the wrong multiplier applied by the Tribunal, while also adjusting the rate of interest.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced by Rs.3,20,000/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Addagatla Pushpaleela Vs J. Ravinder Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

¶4

M.A.C.M.A. No.4206 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

Addagatla Pushpaleela and others .. Appellant

¶7

AND

¶8

J. Ravinder Reddy and others .. Respondents

¶9

JUDGMENT:

¶10

This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.

¶11

No.1871 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, dated 20-042007.

¶12

The factual background for the appeal is that Addagatla Yellaiah along with his nephew Ramesh Babu was proceeding to Bollikunta on a motor cycle at about 11 A.M. on 03-04-2005 and near Bollikunta cross road, the tractor/trailer No.AP 36U 7930/7931, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed the motor cycle. Yellaiah driving the motor cycle died on the spot and at the age of 50 years, he was working as teacher in Government high school, Shivanagar for a monthly salary of Rs.18,263/-. The wife and two sons of Yellaiah filed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the offending tractor/trailer. The owner did not file any counter, while the insurer contested the claim putting the claimants to strict proof of all the allegations including the possession of valid driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle. The compensation was contested to be excessive.

¶13

The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.B.1 during the enquiry.

¶14

The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the first information report Ex.A.1 and charge-sheet Ex.A.4 as corroborating the claims of P.W.2 about the accident and concluding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. In view of subsistence of Ex.B.1 insurance policy, the Tribunal also concluded that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants justly and adequately. The Tribunal referred to Ex.A.5

¶15

salary certificate and Ex.A.6 service register of the deceased and noted that the date of birth of the deceased was 01-05-1950 showing that he was 55 years of age at the time of the accident and the net salary was Rs.12,533/-while the gross salary was Rs.18,263/-. The Tribunal rounded off the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.18,000/-, deducted one-third towards the personal expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive and on the annual dependency of Rs.1,44,000/-, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 8, calculating the loss of dependency at Rs.11,52,000/-. The Tribunal also considered it appropriate to award Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/towards loss of consortium apart from Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and hence, granted a total compensation of Rs.11,80,000/with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum and proportionate costs and it gave directions regarding the disbursement of compensation.

¶16

The claimants are before this Court complaining against the said award on the ground of non-application of multiplier of 11 and not taking into account the future prospects of the deceased apart from not awarding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and not awarding interest at 9 per cent per annum.

¶17

Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the insurer are heard and none appeared for the owner before this Court.

¶18

The findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the driver of the tractor and the subsistence of a valid insurance policy, are not challenged by either party and the said conclusions have become final.

¶19

If so, the only question left for consideration in the appeal is the justifiable quantum of compensation to be awarded against the

¶20

respondents jointly and severally.

¶21

The age of the deceased at 55 years by the time of the accident was evident from the service register and the salary of the deceased taken at Rs.18,000/- per month by the Tribunal is corroborated by Ex.A.5 salary certificate. As per Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporatio n^[1] , the appropriate multiplier applicable to a person aged about 55 years would be 11 and the Tribunal had applied a multiplier of only 8, which has to be, therefore, upwardly revised. In so far as the grant of interest at 7.5 per cent per annum since the date of the petition till realization is concerned, the same is in exercise of judicial discretion vested in the Tribunal under law, which cannot be interfered with in the absence of any strong and convincing reasons, more so in the absence of any material on record to indicate the then prevailing rates of interest including those charged or paid by nationalized banks or other public institutions. Similarly, grant of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate at the sums granted by the Tribunal also needs no interference, as the figures adopted in different cases offer only a guidance and do not lay down any inflexible rule as observed in Sarala Verma (1 supra) itself. Consequently, the objection of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the insurer against grant of loss of consortium at Rs.15,000/- also needs no further probe.

¶22

If the multiplier of 11 is adopted, the loss of dependency should get enhanced by Rs.4,32,000/-, even without taking the future prospects into account. But the claimants sought for a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- only in the claim petition and the appeal and did not seek to upgrade their claim to any higher amount till now. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced by Rs.3,20,000/-, of course, along

¶23

with reasonable rate of interest to be paid from the date of petition till the date of realization. In the light of the length of time for which the insurer has to pay such interest, the same can be confined to 6 per cent per annum as done in Sarala Verma (1 supra) and the impugned award has to be modified accordingly.

¶24

Therefore, the award, dated 20-04-2007 in M.V.O.P. No.1871 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees three lakh and twenty thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award and no directions need be given at this distance of time regarding disbursement of compensation. The appeal is allowed accordingly without costs.

¶25

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶26

Date: 06-09-2010

¶27

Svv

¶28

[1] 2009 ACJ 1298

Addagatla Pushpaleela v. J. Ravinder Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Addagatla Pushpaleela v. J. Ravinder Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gudipally Balamani Vs Laxmapuram Susheela

Y Visweswara Reddy Vs Payyavula Keshav

Pallepalepu Ana Grace Raja Rajeswari Devi Vs Smt. Rayaprolu Suryabhanumathi

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Innarapu Pedda Yakub

Myparthi Hanumantha Rao Vs Shaik Dandu Mahaboob Vali

Perumalla Chandra Shekar, Vs M/s. Surya Traders Haliya