Allowed

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, v. K. Narayana Reddy

Telangana HC4 Aug 2010MACMA/439/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court modified the compensation awarded by the tribunal. The court directed a one-third deduction for personal expenses from the notional income, reducing the dependency compensation to Rs. 80,000. It also allowed Rs. 4,500 for loss of estate and funeral expenses, setting the total at Rs. 1,24,500 instead of Rs. 1,20,000, and scaled down interest to 6% per a

What did the court decide?

Total compensation fixed at Rs. 1,24,500. Interest rate scaled down to 6% per annum.

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs K… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.439 OF 2007

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

AND

¶10

K. Narayana Reddy and others.

¶11

…RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Appellant: MR. K.S.N. MURTHY

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: MR. T. DAMODAR

¶14

The Court made the following: -

¶15

JUDGMENT:

¶16

This appeal is by the insurance company, which was figuring as second respondent in the claim petition O.P.No.593 of 2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – VI Additional District Judge, Mahbubnagar.

¶17

2. This appeal arises out of the very same accident, which was

¶18

considered in MACMA.No.438 of 2007. The claim petition involved in this appeal relates to the death of the mother-in-law of the deceased in the aforesaid appeal. The compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was sought for in the claim petition. Under the impugned award dated 11.09.2006, the tribunal below has awarded Rs.1,25,000/- in aggregate, which is in question in this appeal at the instance of the insurance company.

¶19

3. Since all other aspects viz. evidence as well as the finding of the tribunal below with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle are already considered in MACMA.No.438 of 2007, referred to above, and since identical evidence is subject matter of this claim petition also, the very same findings are not reiterated in this order. So far as the claim with respect to compensation is concerned, the tribunal below has taken the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and has applied relevant multiplier of 8, as the deceased was aged 55 years and aggregate total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- was granted.

¶20

4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in the present case is that 1/3^rd deduction, which is required to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the second schedule under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) has not been applied.

¶21

5. The quantification of the amount awarded, therefore, requires to be modified only to that extent without disturbing the multiplier of 8 adopted by the tribunal below. After deducting 1/3^rd from the notional income of Rs.15,000/- it would be Rs.10,000/- and applying the multiplier 8, the dependency would work out to Rs.80,000/-,

¶22

as against Rs.1,20,000/- granted by the tribunal below. However, with respect to pecuniary damages the second schedule of the Act itself provides under clause (3) under different heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral

¶23

expenses, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,24,500/-. As already directed by the tribunal, the appellant/insurance company shall pay the said amount to the claimants and shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle without necessity of filing a suit. However, the interest awarded at 7.5% per annum is scaled down to 6% per annum in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION^[1] .

¶24

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 4, 2010 DSK

¶26

[1] (2009) 6 SCC 121

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, v. K. Narayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, v. K. Narayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guntapalli Bullaiah, Vs Guntapally Parvathi

Mopidevi Narasimha rao, Vs Karem Mikhael

Potlapalli Sathaiah Vs Induru Bapu

Shabbir Medical Hall Vs Mohammed Naseeruddin

V.S.Jayakumar Vs The Airport Authority of India

The Special Deputy Collector Lao Vs T.Ranga Sai