Partly allowed

Nemani Ramalakshmi v. Bokka Satyanarayana

Telangana HC27 Jun 2013MACMA/4632/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging motor accident compensation. Court enhanced total compensation by Rs.1 lakh, specifically granting Rs.15,000 extra for loss of consortium, and allowance for future salary enhancement in a private employment context.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs.1,00,000, including an additional Rs.15,000 to the wife for loss of consortium; miscellaneous petitions disposed of.

Nemani Ramalakshmi Vs Bokka Satyanarayana — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶4

M.A.C.M.A.No.4632 of 2008

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

Sri Nemani Perayya Sastry was employed as Senior Officer (Operation) in Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals, Kakinada. When he was returning home on 21-04-2006, at about 4:00 p.m., on a scooter bearing No.AP 5 6775, a tourist Bus bearing No.PY 04 4689 dashed the scooter from behind at Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada.

¶7

He was run over by the Bus and was declared dead, when he was immediately shifted to Hospital. The Bus was owned by the 2^nd respondent, insured with the 3^rd respondent and was driven by the 1^st respondent.

¶8

The wife, daughter and son of Perayya Sastry, appellants 1 to 3, respectively, filed M.V.O.P.No.258 of 2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (for short ‘the Tribunal’), East-Godavari, at Kakinada, claiming a sum of Rs.24,50,550/-, under various heads.

¶9

Through its order dated 08-08-2008, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,17,978/-, and apportioned the same among the appellants. Not satisfied with that, the appellants approached this Court, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned

¶11

counsel for the 3^rd respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal as well as this Court.

¶12

On behalf of the appellants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were filed. The salary certificate and insurance policy were filed as Exs.B-1 and B-2. No oral evidence was adduced on their behalf.

¶13

The death of the deceased, on account of the accident, was proved by filing Exs.A-1 to A-5, which included postmortem report; F.I.R., and the charge-sheet (Exs.A-3 to A-5).

¶14

On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1^st respondent.

¶15

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took into account, the salary certificate of the deceased, marked as Ex.X-1, which is almost similar to Ex.B-1. According to this, the deceased was being paid, basic pay of Rs.9,535/-, together with monthly emoluments of Rs.13,110/-. 1/3^rd of it was deducted towards his personal expenses, and the dependency was taken as Rs.8,740/per month. Since the age of the deceased was 48 years, multiplier - 7.68 was chosen. The loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.8,05,478/-. The appellant was awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as loss of consortium, and a sum of Rs.2,500/- was awarded towards funeral expenses.

¶16

This Court is of the view that though the Tribunal has correctly decided the emoluments of the deceased and applied the proper

¶17

multiplier, it did not take into account, the future increases in the salary. The deceased had almost 12 years of service, ahead of him. His salary cannot be expected to be static.

¶18

Having regard to the fact that the establishment is a private one, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.85,000/- can be awarded towards the future enhancement of the salary of the deceased.

¶19

The loss of consortium was awarded at Rs.10,000/- and funeral expenses were awarded only at Rs.2,500/-. No amount was awarded towards loss of estate; and the amount awarded towards loss of consortium is meager. Hence, we are of the view that the 1^st appellant deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, in addition to the amount of Rs.10,000/-, awarded towards loss of consortium.

¶20

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Out of this amount, Rs.15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand only) shall be exclusively awarded to the 1^st appellant.

¶21

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶23

S.V.BHATT, J. Dt.27-06-2013. KO

Nemani Ramalakshmi v. Bokka Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nemani Ramalakshmi v. Bokka Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kota Sridhar Vs Kota Uma Jyothi

P.Savithri (died) Vs Spl Dy Collector

G. Eswara Reddy Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Adi H.Banaji Vs Old Parsi Fire Temple Trust

Aruri Laxmaiah, Vs Vemula Satya Murthy

Pillela Mallikarjuna Vs Pillela Srilakshmi , Rami Setty Srilakshmi