Partly allowed

Smt.Hameeda Begum v. Mr.P.Anji Reddy

Telangana HC12 Mar 2013CMA/1908/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,25,000 to Rs. 3,44,000 by increasing the deceased's monthly income to Rs. 2,400, applying a multiplier of 15, and adding specific heads of claim including loss of consortium.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed. Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,25,000 to Rs. 3,44,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum. No order as to costs.

Smt.Hameeda Begum Vs Mr.P.Anji Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1908 OF 2004 JUDGMENT:

¶3

The petitioners in M.V.O.P. No.891 of 2002 assailing the impugned order dated 11^th February,2003 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation since they were awarded only Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, though they claimed a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased – Mohd.Fareed who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5.

¶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 the deceased was working as cleaner-cum-labourer on a lorry bearing No.AP-9U-4006 and on 29.04.2002 at about

¶6

11.15 a.m., the lorry met with an accident at Dental College, Shivareddypet in Ranga Reddy, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed thereto while undergoing treatment at Government hospital. Therefore, the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the respondents.

¶7

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - owners remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 - insurance company filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶8

5. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the relevant issues were framed as to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry

¶9

bearing No. AP-9U - 4006 and as to the entitlement of the petitioners and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation.

¶10

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1- wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1 besides examining eye witness to the accident as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B.1- copy of insurance policy.

¶11

7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record and after hearing both sides, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and that the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioners for enhancement.

¶12

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

¶13

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners - appellants contended that the Tribunal committed error in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month when the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month while working as cleaner - cum-labourer on the lorry. The learned counsel contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that there are five dependents on the deceased and there is no earning member in the family.

¶14

10. 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

¶15

order does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

¶16

11. PW.1 – wife of the deceased stated that her husband was working as cleaner – cum - labourer on the lorry at the time of accident and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased was maintaining wife and four children at the time of accident. The accident occurred in 2002. The Tribunal ought to have noticed that it is difficult to prove the income of the deceased in the absence of evidence on record on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Further, in usual practice, a cleaner will be appointed by owner of lorry on oral terms. Having regard to the cost of leaving at relevant point of time and that the deceased was maintaining petitioners at the time of accident, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/ per month, which is just and reasonable instead of Rs.1500/-. Therefore, this Court has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month. Since there are five dependents, the income of the deceased has to be deducted at 1/4^th of his income towards his personal expenses. Thus, the loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.1800/- per month and Rs.21,600/-per annum (Rs.1800/-x 12). Since the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident, as per the decision of the Apex Court

¶17

in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^[1] , the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’ to calculate the loss of deppendency. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 3,24,000/-(21,600/- x 15) 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 petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus the total compensation is arrived at Rs.3,44,000/- instead of Rs.2,25,000/- as granted by the Tribunal.

¶18

12. Therefore, it is held that the petitioners - appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,44,000/- (Rupee three lakhs forty four thousand) only with interest at 7.5% per annum so far as the enhanced compensation is concerned.

¶19

13. In the result, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,25,000/- to Rs.3,44,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

___________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:12.03.2013 Stp

¶21

[1] 2009 ACJ 1298

Smt.Hameeda Begum v. Mr.P.Anji Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Hameeda Begum v. Mr.P.Anji 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

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

R.Venkateswara Rao Vs Khaleel

Dollu Seetha Rama Naidu Vs Puligummi Sattemma