Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Gutta Manjula and 4 Other

Telangana HC19 Feb 2021MACMA/2874/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the appeal by New India Assurance Company against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order awarding Rs. 7,82,000/- compensation for the death of the deceased, accepting the Tribunal's assessment of income and quantum.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding Rs. 7,82,000/- compensation was confirmed.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{DT' JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶5

M.A. M.A. NO: 2874OF 11

¶6

AppealunderSectionlT3oflr/,V.Act,againsttheorderanddecreemadein [/voP No.235 0f 2008 dated 08/03/2010^{0n the file of the court of the chairman,Motor} Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-^{lll Additionalchief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

The New lndia Assurance^{companyLimited,Representedby its Divisional Manager} S P Road' secunderabad

¶9

...A''ELLANT/ REspoNDENT^No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

1 sNilT. GUTTA MANJULA,^{W/o. Late Rajender Reddy housewife} 2 Gutta tt/alla Reddy, S/o.^{G. Ratna Reddy} 3 Smt. G.Suiatha. Wfo. G.^{l,4allaReddy housewife} 4 M;;i", c^Ak;li;t kumar^{Reddy, S/o.-LateG.RajenderReddy,aged about 3} years, being lr,4inor, Rep,, by^{his Mother and natural guardlan'tlrst Hesponoenl} Smt G.lvlanjula ririLE"rp,i"o"nts/^{claimants are Fl/o.H.No. 12-2-376,GSI M_allikarjunaNagar,} H;fui;;ra;, L.e.Nagat,^{Hyderabad. Presentlv R/o. H.No 1-20124'Barkatpura'} Hyderabad)

¶12

.......Respondents/ claimants

¶13

It//s. Hindustan cocacola^{Beverages Pvt. Limited, Representedby its lvlanager} SV.t t". t OO, nmeenpu"r,^{Patanclejuvu, lt/edak district - 502319}

¶14

Sitr"tJO "t ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT^NO'1

¶15

For the Appellant : SRI^{B.NARAYANAREDDY, Advocate}

¶16

For the Respondent Nos.1^{to 4 : SRI K.L.N.RAO,Advocate}

¶17

Forthe Respondent No.5^{: SRIS.LAKSHMINARAYANAREDDY, Advocate}

¶18

The Court delivered the^{following: JUDGIVENT}

¶19

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.No.2874 of 2O11

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the order, dated 08.03.2010, passed in O.p.No.235 of 200B by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal,), whereby, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.7,82,000/towards compensation to the respondents 1 to 4-claimants with interest at 60lo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶23

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellantInsurance Company, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4-claimants and perused the record.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and that the grant of compensation at Rs.7,82,000/- is arbitrary and excessive and ultimately, prayed to reduce the same.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4-claimants would contend that the Tribunal is justified in granting the compensation at Rs.7,82,000/- and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶26

There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceasedG.Rajendra Reddy in a motor accident that occurred on 16.11.2007

¶27

near Raghavendra Tiffin Center,^{L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District,} due to the rash and^{negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing} No.AP-9U-6132. The only dispute^{is with regard to the quantumof} compensation.

¶28

As per the evidence available^{on record, the deceasedwas} 32^years old and he^{was worklngas Office Manager in M/s.AVM} Enterprises, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.^{The Tribunal took his monthly} income at Rs.6,000/-, deducted^{1/3'd thereof towards his personal} expenses, applied multiplier'16'^{and assessed the compensation at} Rs.7,82,000/-. The^grant of compensation^{at Rs.7,82,000/- under} different heads for the death of^{the deceased is not excessive.} There is no infirmity in assessing and^{awarding the compensation.} There are no^grounds to interfere with^{the same' The appealis} devoid of merit and^{is liable} to^{be dismissed'}

¶29

In the result, the appeal is dismissed^{confirming the order,} dated 08.03.2010,^{passed in O.P.No.235 of 2008by the Chairman,} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III^{Additional Chief Judge,City} Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶30

The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,^{pendingshall stand}

¶31

closed. No costs.

¶32

Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶33

SECTION OFFICER

¶34

To 1. The Chairman, [/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records) ?. 9n" QQ^to !r!^{B.NarayanaReddy,Advocate (OPUC)} 3. One CC to Sri S.Laxmi Narayana Reddy, Advbcate (bpUC) 4. One CC to Sri K.L.N.Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies kj. \ >,r-

¶35

HIGH COURT

¶36

DATED:1910212021

¶37

-1fE Sfr'",;
{
I
k
f,o
O 2 0 APH ?021 o
'2.,
, aFsp .jc

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

MACMA.No.2874^{of 2011}

¶40

DISMISSING THE MACMA.

¶41

v Di

¶42

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶43

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry ONE

¶44

PRESENT

¶45

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTIGE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶46

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2874 OF 2011

¶47

Between:

¶48

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager S.P.Road, Secunderabad

¶49

...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

¶50

S[/T. GUTTA IVANJULA, W/o. Late Rajender Reddy housewife

¶51

Gutta l,4alla Reddy, S/o. G. Ratna Reddy

¶52

Smt. G.Sujatha, W/o. G. l,4alla Reddy housewife

¶53

Master G.Akshat Kumar Reddy, S/o. Late G.Rajender Reddy, aged about 3 years, being l\4inor, Rep., by his [,4other and natural guardian, firat Respondent Smt G.lr/anjula

¶54

(The Respondents/ claimants are R/o.H.No. 12-2-37 6, GSI lrlallikarjuna Nagar, Bandlaguda, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Presently Rl/o. H.No. 1-20124, Barkatpura, Hyderabad)

¶55

. -....Respondents/ Claimants

¶56

Ir//s. Hindustan Cocacola Beverages Pvt. Limited, Represented by its Manager Situated at Sy.No. 169, Ameenpur, Patancheruvu, Ir/edak district - 502319 ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT NO.1

¶57

Appeal under Section 173 of lt/.V,Act, against the Judgment and decree of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 08/03/20'10 made in IVVOP No.235 of 2008.

¶58

This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri.K.L.N.Rao, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri S.Laxmi Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.5.

¶59

DECREE: This Court doth Order and decree that the decree of the Lower Court be and hereby confirmed and this Appeal is dismissed and this Court doth further Order and decree that there be no Order as to costs in this Appeal.

¶60

Sd/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i GD SECTION OFFICER

¶61

¶62

The Chairman, fi/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courl, Hyderabad.

¶63

Two CD Copies Kj. \ *2"

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910212021

DECREE

MACMA.No.2874 ol 2011

¶68

DISMISSING THE MACMA,

¶69

),,

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Gutta Manjula and 4 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Gutta Manjula and 4 Other

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

Tipirisetty Koteswara Rao Vs Baleboina Guravaiah

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad Vs Garlapati Bharathi and 2 Ors, Khammam District

Sri v.Purushotham Reddy and 8 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

BandiButchaiah , ButchiBabu Vs Sri T.Raghu

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyd. Vs Smt. S. Anitha and 2 Others

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs Smt Rehalamma and 6 Others