Allowed

Mudireddy Anji Reddy v. T. Venkanna

Telangana HC23 Sept 2014MACMA/2511/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal quashed a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs.65,000 and awarded Rs.3,41,000. The court applied a multiplier method to calculate loss of earnings based on the deceased's income, adding standard amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses, and modified the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,41,000 with interest at 9% per annum; deficit court fee directed to be paid before execution.

Mudireddy Anji Reddy Vs T. Venkanna — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.2511 of 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

Dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.65,000/- out of the total claim of Rs.2,50,000/- by order dated 16.06.2005 passed in O.P.No.981 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Nalgonda, (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity), the claimants preferred this appeal.

¶5

The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal and for the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

¶6

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶7

On 08.08.2003 at about 05:30 PM, the deceased – Mudireddy Sathemma and some others were travelling in an Auto bearing registration No.AP-24-U-3830 from Narketpally to Shapally village. When the said auto reached the outskirts of Shapally village, the driver of the auto drove the same in rash and negligent manner and at high speed as a result of which, the auto dashed against a stone and turned turtle. The in-mates of the auto, including the deceased, sustained injuries and the deceased was

¶8

shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad. However, the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad after 20 days of the accident. Contending that the deceased was hale and healthy and energetic and was working as a vegetable vendor and also as an agriculturist and earning Rs.3,000/per month and due to the sudden demise of the deceased, they have lost their livelihood and suffered irreparable loss, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶9

The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent contested the matter and filed counter denying the material averments contained in the claim petition.

¶10

The Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:-

¶11

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-24-U-3830 resulting to the death of Mudireddy Sathemma?

¶12

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and by whom?

¶13

3. To what relief?

¶14

On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced except marking the copy of the Insurance Policy as Ex.B.1.

¶15

On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal, on

¶16

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and the said finding is not in dispute in this appeal. On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability and also awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate of the deceased, loss of love, affection, care and guidance of the deceased towards the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.65,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and apportioned the same between the claimants. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶17

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation under no fault liability but ought to have adopted multiplier method in awarding compensation. It is also his submission that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads is also is too meagre.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal had appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and passed a reasoned award and there is nothing to interfere with the same.

¶19

The only point that arises for consideration in this

¶20

appeal is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation.

¶21

According to the claimants, the deceased was doing vegetable business and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal disbelieved the same on the ground that the claimants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on this aspect. In case of people doing petty business or daily wage workers, they are not expected to any adduce any documentary evidence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of P.W.1, I consider it just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. If 1/3^rd is deducted towards her personal expenses, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 9. Thus, the total loss of earnings would come to Rs.2,16,000/- (Rs.24,000/x 9). In view of the latest judgments of the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of estate and they are also entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶22

Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,41,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fourty one thousand only) (Rs.2,16,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/-). The amount now awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and shall be shared

¶23

equally by all the claimants.

¶24

It is settled law that irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants, the Courts may award compensation which appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the compensation now awarded is more than the claim of the claimants, the claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court fee before obtaining the decree.

¶25

The award of the Tribunal is modified as above and the appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

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

¶27

____________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar

¶28

23^rd September, 2014 Bvv

Mudireddy Anji Reddy v. T. Venkanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudireddy Anji Reddy v. T. Venkanna

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

C. Triveni, Vs Hyderabad Metropalitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

K. Laxmipathi Raju Vs Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Pedabaliyarasimhuni Srinivas Vs The Election Officer and Commissioner, Salur

M/s Madiha Metal Works Vs Transmission Corporation of a.P.Limited

Abdul Hai , Ashwaq Vs The Commissioner, Bhainsa Municipality, Adilabad

Gayatri Apartments Welfare Association, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its