Allowed

R.Venkateswara Rao v. Khaleel

Telangana HC12 Mar 2013CMA/1211/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal for a Motor Accident death. The Court fixed the deceased's income at Rs.12,000 monthly and applied a multiplier of 14, granting Rs.10,00,000 total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.10,00,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

R.Venkateswara Rao Vs Khaleel — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1211 OF 2004 JUDGMENT:

¶3

The petitioners in M.V.O.P. No.149 of 1998 assailing the impugned order dated 13^th November,2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation since they were awarded only Rs.6,90,660/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, though they claimed a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of deceased - Rowthu Sathish, who is the son of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3.

¶4

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

¶5

3. The brief facts of the case that led to filing the present appeal are that on 22.06.1995 at about 1.30 a.m., the deceased along with his friends was proceeding from Hyderabad to Kolhapur in a Maruthi car bearing No. TN 01/A 4091 and when they reached near Hudagi village, near Chitaguppa cross Road on National Highway No.9, a lorry bearing No. KA 32/5686 driven by respondent No.1 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed against the Maruthi car, resultantly, the deceased and other inmates including the driver of Maruthi car sustained grievous injuries and all of them died on the spot. The said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and was pursuing part time studies in law and he used to spend most of his time in the business of his father ( petitioner No.1), who is having three air conditioned theatres, hotel and vegetable business. As petitioner No.1

¶6

is a heart patient, the deceased was assisting the business of petitioner No.1 as he was the only son. The income of the deceased was at Rs.15,000/- per month. As such, the petitioners claimed a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the lorry and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the lorry and they are vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners for the acts of respondent No.1- driver.

¶7

4. Respondent No.3 - insurance company filed counter denying the age, income of the deceased, and the business of petitioner No.1 in particular and the averments made in the claim petition in general. It denied the allegations that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the offending vehicle has got valid permit and valid policy. It contended that it is a case of collision between the Maruthi car and the lorry. The petitioners should be put to strict proof with regard to possession of driving licence by the driver of the Maruthi car and the same was in force at the time of accident. Further, the claim of the petitioners is on higher side. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a memo adopting the counter of respondent No.3.

¶8

5. Respondent No.4 filed counter stating that one Ganje Nagarjuna was driving the Maruthi car owned by her son and he also died in the same accident. The deceased Nagarjuna was professional driver under employment of one Iyyapu Kurmarao and his services were lent by her son. She denied that the Maruthi car was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent No.4 and her son are dependents on the deceased Nooli Veera Venkata Srinivasa Bhaskara Rao and filed O.P.

¶9

No.487 of 1995 claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

6. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the relevant issues were framed as to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1- driver of the lorry and as to the entitlement of the petitioners and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation.

¶11

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 besides examining two others as PWs 2 and 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

¶12

8. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,90,660/-. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioners for enhancement.

¶13

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners - appellants and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 - Insurance company.

¶14

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners - appellants contended that the Tribunal committed error in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month when he was assisting the large scale business of his father and that the Tribunal ought to have noticed that there was no rebuttal evidence from the respondents with regard to income of the deceased and the business of his father. The learned counsel contended that the Tribunal though observed that if the deceased would have been alive, he would have definitely improved the business and would have earned more income, failed to award the just compensation. The learned counsel further contended that as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ,^[1] the appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’ for calculating

¶15

the dependency.

¶16

11. The learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 -insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation by giving cogent and convincing reasons, and as such, the impugned order does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

¶17

12. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased was assisting their large scale family business i.e. three air-conditioned theatres and bar and restaurant, apart from vegetable business and was drawing income at Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence rebutting the claim of the petitioners. As per Ex.A.4, the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month and to substantiate the same, they filed Ex.A.5 - certificate issued by PW.2 - Chartered Accountant. However, PW.2 stated that he did not aware whether the deceased was income tax payee or not. Further, the petitioners did not file income tax returns of the deceased to show that he was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶18

13. As per the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of accident. The deceased was the only son to petitioners 1 and 2 and they lost their young son in the accident. Had the deceased been alive, he would have earned more income and developed the family business. The accident occurred in 1995, and if the inflation during that period is taken into consideration, the deceased should have been earning much more than the income fixed by the Tribunal as he was assisting a large scale family business. Since the deceased was assisting the large scale family business, as referred above, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month which is just and reasonable, instead of Rs.5,000/- per month, and therefore,

¶19

this Court has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time accident, as per decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s Case (supra), the personal expenses of the deceased have to be deducted at 50% out of his income and that the application of appropriate multiplier for calculating the compensation is based upon the age of the mother of the deceased. Therefore, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum (6,000/- x12) and as the age of the mother of the deceased was 41 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘14’. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,08,000/- (72,000/-x14) towards loss of dependency. In addition, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,000/towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.6,000/- towards transport charges. Thus the total compensation is arrived at Rs.10,24,000/-. However, since the petitioners have restricted their claim to Rs.10,00,000/- in all counts, they are entitled to a total compensation of.10,00,000/- only.

¶20

14. Therefore, it is held that the petitioners - appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupee ten lakhs) only with interest at 7.5% per annum so far as the enhanced compensation is concerned.

¶21

15. In the result, the C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,90,660/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

B.N. RAO NALLA, J

¶23

Date:12.03.2013 Stp

¶24

[1] 2009 ACJ 1298

R.Venkateswara Rao v. Khaleel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Venkateswara Rao v. Khaleel

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

Smt.Dandala Laxmi Vs Primary Agricultural Coop Society

K.Raja Rao, S/O Late K.S.Ranga Rao, Vs Jaweed Sayeed, S/O Sayeed Ali Toufeeq

M. Seshaiah Vs K.M. Naik

Mr.Y.Lakshmaiah Vs Mr.Y.Veera Babu

Smt.Hameeda Begum Vs Mr.P.Anji Reddy

Dollu Seetha Rama Naidu Vs Puligummi Sattemma