Partly allowed

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Tasleem Sultana and 5 Others

Telangana HC8 Jun 2022MACMA/1816/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal partly, modifying the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's order. The Court recalculated the deceased's income net of tax and adjusted the multiplier, reducing the total compensation from Rs. 55 lakhs to Rs. 52.30 lakhs for the legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs. 52,30,000; apportioned among five respondents; interest at 7.5% per annum granted from date of petition.

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Tasleem… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

rHE HoNouRABaa ,*i.luorr,"a JUWADT sRrDEVr

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 181 6 0F 2013

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Judgment/Decree in N4.V.O.P.No.2344 of 2O1i dated 1t_2_2013, on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-XlV Additionat Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The United lndia lnsurance Company.Ltd.,, Rep. by its Manager, Tp Claims Hub, Church Build ing. Ramkote, HyOeiabjd.

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶11

AND

¶12

Tasleem Sultana, W/o. Late Rafiq, age 40 years, Occ:Housewife.

¶13

N4ohd, Aslam,, S/o. Late Rafiq, age 17 years, Occ:Student.

¶14

Nausheen,, D/o. Late Rafiq, Occ:Student,

¶15

Thiseen,. Dio. Late Rafiq. age 14 years, Occ:Student.( euadrathunnisa Uegum., W/o. Late l,4ohd. Jahangeer, age 64 years.

¶16

RR. No. 2 to 4 are being minors rep. by their mother and natural guardian sml Tasleem Sulthana Respondent No.1

¶17

All are R/o. 1 9-3-301/B/1 i , Bibika Cheshma, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

¶18

....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶19

K.Appala Swamy,, S/o. Late Narsimhlu, age: Major, Occ:Not Known to 9pg9l_lqnt^{, R/o. 14-183, KonuruRoad,Ch6epurupay, Vizianagaram} District. 535202.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1

¶21

¶22

MACMAMP. NO : 4292 0F 2013

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all f.rdher proceedings inctuding execution of order and decree dl. 1110212013 passed in OP.No. 2344 of 201 1 on the fite of the [/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-CL m-XlV Additionat Chief Judge (FTC) City Civit Court.

¶24

For the Appellant : SRl. E VENUGOPAL REDDY, Advocate

¶25

For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: SRI V JAGAN MOHAN, Advocate

¶26

For the Respondent No.6 : NONE APPEARED

¶27

The Court delivere,J the following : JUDGMENT

¶28

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER and THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶29

M.A.C. M.A. No.1816 0f 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT: (Per r-ton'bte o.. .tust ce shameem akrher)

¶31

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited, challenging the order, dated 11.02.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.2344 of 20tI by the Chairman, Ivlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief ludge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

¶32

2, Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellantInsurance Company, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to S/petitioners in MVOP, and perused the record.

¶33

Learned Standing Counsel for the a ppella nt-I nsu rance Company would contend that as per the service record of the deceased, his date of birth was 15.06.1966 and the date of occurrence of the subject accident was 26.09.2011. Thus, the deceased was 46 years old as on the date of the subject accident and death and the appropriate multiplier applicable is '13'. However, the Tribunal erroneously took multiplier '14', by taking the age of the deceased as on the date of the subject accident as

¶34

L'r.\ ..1\i.l<sup>I \l ( \lr !r.'!lr -! :^j l

¶35

¶36

45 years. Further, the Tribunal^{failed to deduct 10o/o incometax} payable fron the salary of the deceased and^{erroneously granteda} total compe lsation of Rs.55,00,000/-^{and ,.ritimatelyprayed to} reduce the^{(:ompensation} awarded^{by the Tribunalby taking the} age of the deceased as on^{the date of the subject accident as 46} years and calculate the compensation after^{deductinqthe income} tax payable.

¶37

4, On the other hand, the^{learned counsel for the respondent} Nos.1 to 5/petitioners in^{MVOPcontended that the Tribunal rightly} took the age of the deceased^{as on the date of subject accident as} 45 years and rightly^granted a^{compensationof Rs.55,00,000/-} with interest @ 7.5%^per annum^{fromthe date of petition till the} date of depc)sit wlth costs, by^{taking all the relevant factorsinto} consideration. There are no^{circumstancesto interfere with the} impugned order and ultimately^{prayed to dismiss the appeal by} confirming ttre order under challenge.

¶38

It is n()t in dispute that the^{deceased- M ohd. Rafiqdiedin the} subject accident that occurred on^{26.09.2011,due to rash and} negligent oriving of the driver of^{the offendinglorry bearing} registration hlo.AP- 20-TA- 2688.^{Further, both the learned counsel} did not dispute with regard to^{the Tribunaladding 30o/o to the}

¶39

Dr.S., J &JS,J MACI\IA No.l8I6 ol20Il

¶40

¶41

income of the deceased towards future prospects. It is also submitted by both the sides that the Court below had granted mea9re amount under the conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

¶42

In view of the above submissions, the only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal to the respondent Nos.1 to 5/petitioners in MVOP, is liabte to be reduced as prayed for?

¶43

POINT:

¶44

7, To substantiate their claim, the respondent Nos,1 to S/petitioners in MVOP got examined^pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the appella nt/Insu ra nce Company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.Bl and 82 were marked. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through PW.2.

¶45

The Tribunal, placing reliance on Ex.A12-SSC Memo of the deceased and Ex.A1o-original employment ID card of the deceased issued by Central Power Distribution Company of AP Limited, took the age of the deceased as 45 years as on the date of the subject accident, took the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.33,513/- after deducting Rs.200/- per month towards professional tax; added 3Oo/o of the income towards future .?

¶46

-.--.*

¶47

l)r.., J .\ .l, l \t1( \t\ \o t3t5 0f trti .l

¶48

prospects and calculated the annual income of deceased as Rs.5,22,802.80 ps. The Tribunal further deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenditure, applied multiplier '1.4' taking the age of the deceased as 45 years and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs.54,89,429l-. The Tribunal further added an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of cons,:rtium and accordingly calculated the compensation of Rs.55,O9,429/-, but however restricted the compensation to 55,00,000/- which was claimed by the respondent Nos.1 to S/petitioners; in MVOP in their claim petition.

¶49

9, As seen from the material placed on record, the date of birth of the deceesed is 15.06.1966 and the date of occurrence of the subject acci(lent is 26.09.2011. Thus. the deceased was aged 45 years 3 months as on the date of the subject accident. Therefore the Tribunal correctly took the age of the deceased as 45 years as on the date of the subject accident, The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased (45 years) as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationl is'14'. Therefore, applying multiplier.14'to the age of the decea:;ed as on the date of subject accident by the Tribunal

¶50

'AlR^{2oo9sc 3io.r}

¶51

D.S,l, J & JS. J tlACllA lo,l6l6 o{2011

¶52

¶53

cannot be faulted. There is no dispute^{that thedeceasedwas a} Government servant and income tax assessee as on the^{date of his} death in the subject accident.^Therefore, as^{rightlycontendedby} the learned Standing Counsel for the appella nt/Insu^rance Company, l0o/o of the annual income^(after deducting Rs.1,60,000/- towards standard deduction^{prevailing)is required} to be deducted towards income tax. The Tribunal did not deduct the same. Furthermore, the Tribunal^granted an^amountof Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. which^are on lower side.

¶54

Having regard to the oral and documentary^evidenceon record, this Court deems it appropriate to take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.33,513/-^(monthly salary of^Rs.33,713l- minus professional tax of Rs.200/-). Thus, the annual^{income of} the deceased comes to^(Rs.33,513/- x t2)^{Rs.4,O2,156/'.As} observed supra, l0o/o of the annual income is^required to^be deducted towards income tax^(after deducting standard^deduction of Rs.1,60,000/- which was^prevailing then).^{Thus,the totalloss} of earnings of the deceased^per annum^{comes to (Rs.4,02,156/'} minus Rs.24,216/-) Rs.3,77,940/-. Since^{thereare five} deperidants on the deceased,^l/4tn amount^{should be deducted}

¶55

Dr.S^,1s,ls,^I Itr\CtL\ )o^{l8l6ot l0ll}

¶56

¶57

towards^{personal expenditure'Thus the net annual1n66ms of the} deceased^{wouldcometo(Rs'3,77'940l-minus Rs 94'485/-)} Rs.2,83,455/-.^{Since the deceased was a Governmentservant as} onthedatehisdeathinthesubjectaccident,anaddltionof300/o amount^{is rerluired to be added to his net annual salary'which} cornes to^{Rs.135,037/-, Thus, the ccntributionof thedeceased to} his family^{per annum comes to(Rs 2'83'455/- +85'0371-)} Rs.3,68,4g2/'^{As observedsupra'the appropriatemultiplier} applicable^{to the ageof the deceased (45 years)is '14' Thus' the} total loss^{of dependencywould come to (Rs'3'68'492/- x74)} Rs.51,58,888/'.^{Followingthe verdict of the l']on'bleApex Court ir} NationallnsurancecompanyLimitedvs.PranaySethiand others2,^{w(l grant} an amount^of Rs.70,000/-^{under the} towards loss^{of estate,} conventional^{h eads,} i.e., Rs.15,000/Rs.40,000/-^{towards loss of consortiumand Rs'15'000/- towards} funeral expenses.^{Thus, in all, the respondentNos lto} s/petitioners^{in MVOP are entitled for acompensation of} Rs.52,28,88U/-,roundedofftoRs'52'30'000/-(Rupeesfiftvtwo lakhs thirty^{thousand only) The Tribunal grantedinterest@ 7 50/o} per annum on the^{amount awarded as compensationfrom the date} of^{petitiontill the date of deposit, which is just ancl reasonable'}

¶58

: (2017) l6 Suprerlc Coun Cascs 6s0

¶59

DI.SA, J& JS. J ttrctl.\ \o.l8l6 ol ZOII

¶60

¶61

Accordingly, the appeal is altowed in part, modifying the order, dated 11.02.2013, passed in t".tvop No.2344 of 2011 by the Tribunal, reducing the compensation from Rs.55,00,000/_ awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.52,3O,OOO/-. The said amount of compensation carries interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realisation, besides costs. On deposit of the compensation/ the respondent Nos.1 to s/petitioners in MVop are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the accrued interest. The other terms of the order under challenge remain unaltered. The apportionment of compensation shall be as under:

¶62

Rs.20,00,000/- I
Respondent No.1 (wife) (including loss of consortium of
Rs.40 000
Respondent No.2 (so n Rs.9,10,000/-
Res ondent No.3 dau hter Rs.9,10 000/-
ondent No.4 dau hter Rs.9,10 ooo/ -
_3e,s?!! dent No,5 [lother Rs.5,00,000
TOTAL
Rs.5 2 30,ooo

¶63

Ivliscellaneous^petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall

¶64

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

SD/-K.ONESIM,, ASSISTANT^REGIS-TBA( //rRUE coPY// sEcrtoN ofrcen

¶66

To, 1. The Chairman, l,4otor Accidents^{ClaimsTribunaloum-XlVadditional Chief} Judge(FTC), City Civil^{Court Hyderabad.(with records)} 2. One CC to SRl. E^{VENUGOPALREDDY,Advocate.} IOPUC]

¶67

One CC to SRl.^{V JAGAN MOHAN, Advocate.} [OPUC]

¶68

Two CD Copies

¶69

One Spare Copy

¶70

SB J

HIGH COUR'T

DATED:08/0612022

JUDGMENT

1 HE STA
k
J
t, y
o 21 JUil zCU a
*
SPA'I C

¶76

MACMA.No.1816 of 2013

¶77

PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

<br>,

¶79

¶80

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶81

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶82

PRESENT

¶83

THE HONOURABLE OR.^{JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} AND

¶84

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI^SRIDEVI

¶85

.A.C.M.A.NO: 1816 OF 201

¶86

Appeal Under Section 173 of^{I\4.V. Act against the Judgment/Decree} in M.V.O.P.No.2344 of 2011 dated^{11-2-2013,on the file of the Court of the} Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-Cum-XlVAdditional Chlef Judge, (FTC), City} Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶87

Between

¶88

The United lndia lnsurance^{Company Ltd.,, Rep. byitsl,4anager,TP Claims Hub,} Church Building,^{Ramkote,Hyderabad.}

¶89

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^NO.2

¶90

AND

¶91

Tasleem Sultana,^{W/o. Late Rafiq, age 40 years, Occ:Housewife'}

¶92

Mohd. Aslam,, S/o.^{Late Rafiq,age 17 years, Occ:Student}

¶93

Nausheen,, D/o.^{Late Rafiq,Occ:Student,}

¶94

Thiseen,, D/o. Late^{Rafiq,age 14 years,Occ:Student}

¶95

Quadrathunnisa^{Begum,,W/o. Late Mohd Jahangeer,age 64 years}

¶96

RR No. 2 to 4 are^{being minors rep. by their mother andnaturalguardian smt} Tasleem Sulthana^{RespondentNo.1}

¶97

All are FJo. 19-3-30'l/B/11,^{Bibika Cheshma, Falaknuma, Hyderabad'}

¶98

....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶99

K.Appala Swamy,,^{S/o. Late Narsimhlu' age: Major, Occ:NotKnown to} appeilant, R/o. i+-tgg,^{KonuruRoad,Cheepurupally, VizianagaramDistrict'} 53s2o2

¶100

.'.RES'.NDENTS/RESP.NDENT^No'1

¶101

¶102

Appeal Llnder Section^'173 of l\4.V. Act against the Judgment/Decree in M.V.O.P.No.2344 of 2O11 dated 11-2-2013, on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶103

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E VENUGOPAL, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri V JAGAN N4OHAN, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and of the respondent No.6 not appeared either in^person or by Advocate.

¶104

This Court doth Orier and Decree as follows:-

¶105

That the l/otor Accidents Civil lMiscellaneous Appeal be and hereby^is allowed inpa rt.

¶106

That the order dated 11.02.2013^passed in |V.V.O.P.NO. 2344 of 2011 by the Tribunal be and hereby is modified reducing the compensation from 55,00,0001 awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 52,30,0001^(Rupess Fifty Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only)

¶107

That the said amount of compensalion carries interest at the rate of 5% per annum lrom the date of Petition lists the date of realization besides costs.

¶108

That on deposit of compensation, the respondents I to 5 /^{Petitionersin} MVOP are^permitted to withdraw the entire amount along^{with the accrued} interesl.

¶109