Partly allowed

Gillala Manjula, v. P.Ravi Kanth

Telangana HC9 Dec 2014MACMA/1646/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment addressed two appeals regarding compensation for a motor vehicle accident. The court enhanced the awarded compensation to Rs. 6,00,000 from the Tribunal's award of Rs. 5,19,743 for the claimants. Simultaneously, the rate of interest was reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum based on prevailing bank rates, applying this new rate to both the original and enhanced amounts.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,19,743 to Rs. 6,00,000; interest rate reduced from 9% to 7.5% p.a.

Gillala Manjula, Vs P.Ravi Kanth — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.4887 of 2004 & 1646 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT :

¶2

The above two appeals one preferred by the claimants (MACMA No.1646 of 2008) and the other preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the order/award dated 12.05.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.194 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad awarding compensation of Rs.5,19,743/- with interest at 9% p.a. against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶3

2) Heard Sri T.Damodar the learned counsel for the claimants and Sri R.Venkat Rao learned standing counsel for the insurance company in the respective appeals. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

¶4

3) The contentions of the learned counsel for the claimant in the grounds of appeal that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is utterly low to enhance as prayed for in the claim petition. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned standing counsel for Insurance Company that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and prayed to set aside the award of the Tribunal.

¶5

4) Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

¶6

1. Whether the quantum is unjust either excessive or utterly low and what is the just compensation to arrive and what rate of interest with what observations?

¶7

2. To what result?

¶8

POINT No.1:

¶9

5) There is no dispute with regard to the date of accident, the manner of accident and the liability of the insurer and the only dispute is

¶10

the quantum of compensation. Even though the Appellants claimed Rs.3,750/- per month towards income, for no basis, even as per Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Biha r^[1] in the absence of proof of earnings, minimum Rs.3,000/- to be taken and the accident dated 24.04.2002 and even Rs.3,200/- taken and if 1/3 deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.25,600/- per annum. Now coming to the age of the deceased, as per the post mortem report, Ex.A-4 aged about 24 years and as per Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^[2] , the multiplier applicable is 18 and after applying the multiplier, loss of dependency would comes to Rs.4,60,800/-, apart from which an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funereal expenses and the 1^st claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, in total the claimants are entitled a sum of Rs.5,95,800/rounded to Rs.6,00,000/- for the accidental death of the deceased.

¶11

6) Coming to the rate of interest, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. From the settled proposition of law in TN Transport 4 ] Corporation v. Raja Priya^[3] , and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh^[ that while awarding reasonable rate of interest the steep fall in the bank interest rate since past several years has to be kept in mind and awarded therefrom interest at 7.5% p.a. as reasonable. The appellate Court also got the discretionary power under Order LXI Rule 33 C.P.C to award reasonable rate of interest from the drastic fall in bank rate of interest in bank rate as laid down by the Apex Court in DDA Vs. Joginder S. Monga^[5] . Thus under Section 171 of the MVAct interest is awarded at 7.5% per annum from date of claim petition till realization. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.

¶12

POINT No.2:

¶13

M.A.C.M.A.No.1646 of 2008

¶14

7) In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,19,743/- to Rs.6,00,000/- and by reducing the

¶15

rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition, on the awarded amount in the appeal, till the date of deposit by the respondents. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.

¶16

M.A.C.M.A.No.4887 of 2004

¶17

8) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition on the compensation awarded in the appeal supra in M.A.C.M.A.No.1646 of 2008. There is no order as to costs in the appeal

¶18

9) Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

¶19

_______________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶20

Date:09-12-2014 ksh

¶21

[1] 2001 (8) SCC 197

¶22

[2] 2009 ACJ 1298 [3] (2005) 6 SCC 236 [4] 2013(4)ALT 35(SC) [5] (2004)2 SCC-297

Gillala Manjula, v. P.Ravi Kanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gillala Manjula, v. P.Ravi Kanth

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

Yedavalli Shyam Prasad Vs Chilakala Venkateswar Rao

National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Manne Laxmi

The Chairman, Apsrtc Vs Kandregula Venkateswara Rao

M. Tholashamma Vs P. Bade Saheb

N.Madhu s/o Narayana Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Gandi Subbarayudu, Unsound Mind, rep by G.Bala Subbaiah Vs S.Ravindranath Reddy