Partly allowed

Kotte Anjavva v. Shaik Ahmed

Telangana HC5 Oct 2017MACMA/2374/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claim appeal, the court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court applied a multiplier of 15 and corrected the calculation for loss of dependency, estimating the total compensation for six dependents to be Rs. 5,30,000 with interest fixed at 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,30,000 including loss of dependency, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses; interest fixed at 7.5% per annum; compensation to be shared equally among appellants.

Kotte Anjavva Vs Shaik Ahmed — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

[Special Original Jurisdiction]

¶3

THURSDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

MACMA.No. 2374 OF 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kotte Anjavva & Ors. … Appellants/claimants
V/s.
Shaik Ahmed & Anr. … Respondents-Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Sri P.Radhiv Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents: : Sri B.Devanand for R-2

¶9

The court made the following: [Order follows]

¶10

¶11

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶12

MACMA.No. 2374 OF 2005

¶13

O R D E R :

¶14

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants

¶15

against the award and decree dated 14/3/2005 passed in OP.No. 714 of 2001

¶16

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [I-Additional District Judge],

¶17

Nizamabad seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶18

Heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the

¶19

learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-New India

¶20

Insurance Company Limited, Nizamabad, and perused the record.

¶21

The counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased was

¶22

36 years old and was doing agriculture and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶23

The appellants are dependents, who are six in numbers. The Tribunal award

¶24

compensation of Rs.4,14,000=00 under various heads. The Tribunal has

¶25

wrongly assessed the earnings, loss of dependency and also awarded

¶26

meagre compensation towards loss of consortium, love and affection,

¶27

transport and funeral expenses and ultimately prayed to award the compensation as claimed.

¶28

On the other hand, the standing counsel appearing on behalf of

¶29

second respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal had

¶30

rightly taken the age of the deceased as 40 years and applied 16 as the

¶31

¶32

relevant multiplier. There is no infirmity and there are no grounds warranting

¶33

interference by this Court and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶34

There is no contention with regard to rashness and negligence on

¶35

the part of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No. AHT-5657 by its driver

¶36

and causing death of the deceased, Kotte Chinna Sailoo. There is no dispute

¶37

with regard to appellants 1 to 6, as dependents of the deceased. The only

¶38

point for determination is enhancement of compensation.

¶39

The point for determination is “whether the appellants are entitled

¶40

for enhancement of compensation as contended ?”

¶41

It is evident from the record that the deceased was agriculturist.

¶42

The document Ex.A-3 postmortem examination report marked on behalf of

¶43

the appellants would show that the deceased was 40 years old as on the date

¶44

of accident. The Tribunal had applied the multiplier 16, fixed the monthly

¶45

income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month, deducted 1/3^rd towards

¶46

personal expenses of the deceased and arrived loss of dependency at

¶47

Rs.24,000/- per annum and awarded Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of

¶48

dependency. Further the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

¶49

consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards

¶50

transportation and funeral and in all the total compensation awarded

¶51

Rs.4,14,000=00.

¶52

¶53

In view of the facts and circumstances, it is appropriate to rely on

¶54

the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & ORS. V/s. DELHI

¶55

TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR ., reported in 2009 [6] SCC-121

¶56

for determination of compensation to the appellants. The appellants are six in numbers and they are dependents on the deceased, therefore, 1/4^th is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive. As per Ex.A-3 Postmortem Examination Report, the age of the deceased is 40 years and the appropriate multiplier for the age of 40 years is

¶57

There is evidence on record to show that the deceased was an

¶58

agriculturist and the Tribunal has rightly taken monthly earnings as Rs.3,000/-

¶59

per month.

¶60

In view of the above, the compensation payable to the appellants

¶61

towards loss of dependency is calculated as hereunder :

¶62

Rs.3000/- x 12 = 36,000/- x 15 = 5,40,000=00 – ¼ = 4,05,000/-

¶63

The compensation payable towards loss of dependency is Rs.4,05,000/-.

¶64

The first appellant is not the wife of the deceased, therefore, she is entitled to

¶65

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. The appellants

¶66

are entitled for another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection.

¶67

Further the appellants are entitled to Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of

¶68

¶69

dead body and funeral expenses. In all the appellants are entitled for total

¶70

compensation of Rs.5,30,000=00.

¶71

The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the

¶72

compensation awarded. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶73

Court in RAJESH AND ORS. V/s. RAJBIR SINGH AND ORS¹ . wherein the

¶74

interest granted by the Apex Court is 7.5% p.a. Therefore, the appellants are

¶75

entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation.

¶76

On such deposit, the appellants shall share the enhanced compensation

¶77

equally. The other terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal are

¶78

maintained accordingly.

¶79

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶80

Petition shall stands disposed of.

¶81

DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶82

05/10/2017 I s L

¶83

¶84

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶85

MACMA.No. 2374 OF 2005 (PARTLY ALLOWED )

¶86

Date: 05/10/2017 Circulation No. Court Master: I s L

Kotte Anjavva v. Shaik Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotte Anjavva v. Shaik Ahmed

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

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nagisetty Ashalatha

Cheyyeti Babu Rao Vs D. Pandavulu

Uppe Nageswara Rao Vs D. Pandavulu

Gudala Ravi Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gangarapollu Jayashree Vs The State of Telangana

M.Anjaneyulu Vs Smt. Ramisetty Krishna Kumari