Partly allowed

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Guru Latha

Telangana HC16 Sept 2022MACMA/2356/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident case from Rs. 64,01,368 to Rs. 72,87,380 by increasing future prospects to 50% and interest to 7.5% per annum. The insurance company's appeal was dismissed upholding the Tribunal's finding of negligence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 72,87,380 with interest at 7.5% per annum; Insurance company appeal dismissed.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs M. Guru Latha — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁸¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI^DEVI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE^{M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

MACM A.Nos.17 and 2356 ot 2019

¶7

MACMA.No s.17 and 2356 of²⁰¹⁹

¶8

These Appeals are Under Section^{'173 of MotorVehicles Act against the} Order and Decree made^{in Iv1.V.O.P.NO.1250of 2013 Dated30-07-20'18on the} file of the Court of the Chairman,^{tr,4otorAccident Claims Tribunal} -cum-^Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City^{Civil Court,Hyderabad.}

¶9

MACMA.No.17 ol 2019 Between:

¶10

Smt. M.Guru Latha, w/o Late M.Ravi,^{Aged30 years, Occ House wife,}

¶11

M.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o^{Late M.Ravi, Aged 13 years,OccStudent.} being a Minor RepresenteO^{Oy his motherand natural GuardianSmt M.Guru} Latha (Who is the 1st^{petitioner herein)}

¶12

M.Keerthana, D/o Late M.Ravi,^{Aged'l 1 years,Occ Student Representedby} his mother and natural Guardian Smt^{lvl.GuruLatha (Who is the l st petitioner} herein) All the above^petitioners 1 to^{3 areresidingat Danterapally (Vii)} Sanjeevrao Pet Post, Giddalur Mandal,^{PrakasamDistrict.}

¶13

Smt M.Baleeswaramma, w/o Late M.Subba^{Reddy Aged58 years, occ House} wife Now Rl/o 1-8-270, Near Vegetable Market, Chikkadapally,^Hyderabad.

¶14

..,APPELLANTS/CLAIM PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

V. Sivakumar Reddy, S/o.V.Gangireddy, Aged Major,^{Occ Owner oJ crime} Lorry F/o Agasta Lingayapalli, Yerraguntla Cuddapah,^{Kadapa, A.P.}

¶17

Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its^Div.Officer, O/a Sai Datta Arcade, 3-6-517, 4th floor, street 6, Himayat^{Nager, Hyderabad-} 29

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

MACMA.No. 2356 of 2019

¶20

Between:

¶21

Shriram General lnsurance Co. Ltd,^{Representedby its DivisionalOfficer,} Office at H.No.4-1-37011 , Beside^{Hotel Jaya lnternational, ReddyHostel} Road, Abids, Hyderabad

¶22

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

¶23

AND

¶24

'1 . M. Guru Latha, W/o Late M. Ravi, Aged 25 years, Occ. Housewife

¶25

M. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o Late^{M. Ravi,AgedB years, Occ. Student}

¶26

M. Keerthana, D/o Late M. Ravi,^{Aged 6 years, Occ. Student} (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minors are being Represented^{by.their Mother} ind Natural Guardian M. Guru^{Latha i.e. Respondent No.1 herein)}

¶27

All the above are Rl/o Danlerapally^{Village, Sanieevarao Pet Post,Giddalur} Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶28

...RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 4/PETITIONERS

¶29

M. Baleeswaramma, W/o Late M. Subba^{Reddy,Aged53 years,Occ.} Housewife, Now R/o^1-B-27O, near^{VegetabletVlarket, Chikkadapally,} Hyderabad

¶30

V. Sivakumar Reddy, S/o V. Gangireddy,^{Age. Major, Occ. Owner of Crime} Lorry, Rl/o Agasta Lingayapalli, Yerraguntla, Cuddapaj,^Kadapa,A.P.

¶31

...RESPONDENT No.5/RESPONDENT No.1

¶32

lA NO: 1 OF 2019 in MACMA.No.2356 of²⁰¹⁹

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed herein the High Court may^{be pleased to condonethe delay of} 150 days in filing the appeal against Order and Decree dated 30-07-20'18^passed in M.V.O.P.No.1250 ot 2013.

¶34

lA NO: 2 OF 2019 in MACMA.No.2356 of 2019

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be^pleased to stay the operation of Order and Decree dated 30-07-2018^passed in M.V.O.P.No.1250 of²⁰¹³ on^the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City'Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶36

Counsel for the Appellants in MACMA.No.171201 I and of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in MACMA.No.2356/2019 : SRI SRINIVASA RAO VEERAMACHANENI

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in MACMA.No.1712019 and of Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 in MACMA.No.2356/2019 : SRI A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA.No.1712019 and of Appellant No.5 in MACMA.No.2356i2019 : NONE APPEARED

¶39

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶40

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶41

AND

¶42

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶43

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.17 and 2356 of 2019

¶44

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'bte Justice G. Sridevi)

¶45

These two appeats are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.17 of 2019 fited by the petitioners/ ctaimants seeking enhancement of the compensation and M.A.C.M.A. No.2356 of 2019 fited by Shriram Gener-a[ lnsurance Company Limited, are directed against the very same order and decree, dated 30.07.20'18 passed in M.V.O.p.No..l250 of 2013 on the fite of the Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunat-cum-Xlll Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short^,,the Tribuna[,').

¶46

2" For the sake of convenience, the parties witt hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunat.

¶47

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the wife, chitdren and mother of one Marthata Ravi @ M.Ravinder Reddy (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), fited a petition ctaiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicte accident, that occurred on 24.01 .2013. lt is stated that on 24.0'l .2013, the deceased and his friend Murati went to Markapuram for work and white they were returning on bike, at g:30

¶48

¶49

¶50

GSD, J and MGP..l Macma. l7 and2i56 201 9

¶51

P.M., and when they reached near Jingamgundta vittage, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasham District, they dashed the torry bearing No.Ap 04 W 1899 from back side that was stopped in the middte of the road without using stop tights in red color, showing the red cotour barricade etc. As a result of which the rider of the motor cycte died on the spot and the deceased sustained injuries. lmmediatety after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Guru Raghavendra Hospitat, Kurnoo[ for treatment and while undergoing treatment he died on 01.02.2013. The petitioners spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses. lt is atso stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 29 years and was working in lndian Army and used to earn Rs.29,0g0/- per month. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners [ost their source of income. since the accident occurred due to negtigent parking of the driver of the Lorry in the night in the middte of the road without taking any precautions such as btinking parking tights, the petitioners fited the aforesaid O,P against the respondent Nos.l and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the Lorry, respectively.

¶52

Before the Tribunat, the first respondent remained ex parte. Fhe second respondent fited counter denying the averments made in the ctaim-petition inctuding the manner in which the accident occurred, age, income and avocation of the deceased. lt is atso

¶53

¶54

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_I7 and2356 2019

¶55

contended that the amount ctaimed is highty excessive and prayed to dismiss the ctaim-petition.

¶56

After considering the orat and documentary evidence avaitabte on record, the Tribunat hetd that the accident happened due to the rash and negtigent parking of the driver of the offending vehicte-Lorry and accordingty awarded an amount of Rs.64,01,36g/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition titt the date of reatization to be paid by respondent Nos. l and Z jointty and severatty. Challenging the same, the present appeats came to be fited by the petitioners and the lnsurance Company respectivety.

¶57

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶58

Learned Counsei appearing for the petitioners woutd submit that as per the principles taid down by the tr,pex Court in Nationol lnsuronce Company Limited Vs. pronay Sethi ond othersl, the petitioners are entitted to future prospects at 50% instead of 40% as his emptoyment is permanent in nature. lt is atso submitted that the .^{petitioners atso entitled to Rs.77,000/-} under conventional heads" lt is atso contended that the petitioners are entitted to interest a|7.5% per annum instead of 6% as awarded by the Tribunat..-

'^{2017 AcJTtoa}

GSD, J and MGp. J Macma 17 and2356 2Ol9

¶64

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the lnsurance Company submits that the Tribunat faited to appreciate the fact that the accident occurred due to coltision of the bike with the stationed lorry from behind, the Tribunat ought to have hetd that both the rider of the bike and the driver of the Lorry are equatty responsibte for the accident. lt is further submitted that the compensation towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages have been rightty granted by the Tribunat and the same need not be enhanced.

¶65

lnsofar as the manner in which the accident took ptace is concerned, the Tribunat while answering issue No.1 has taken into consideration the evidence of p.W.2, who was an eye witness to the accident coupted with Ex.A1_First lnformation Report and Ex.A2charge sheet, has categoricatty hetd that the accident occurred due to negtigent parking of the torry in the middte of the road without taking any precautions. To contradict the said evidence, the insurance company did not choose to produce any evidence to show that the driver of the torry parked the torry by the side of the road by taking a[[ the precautions. Thus, taking into consideration the orat and documentary evidence avaitabte on record, the Tribunat has rightty come to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the bike and the accident occurred onty due to

¶66

)

¶67

GSD, J and MGp, J Macma 17 andZ3 56 2019

¶68

the negtigent parking of the torry. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunat that the accident occurred due to the rash and negtigent parking of the lorry.

¶69

't0. lnsofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as per Ex.X2-satary certificate, the deceased was working as Lance Naik in lndian Army and drawing salary of Rs.3'1,418/- per month. ln order to prove Ex.X2, satary certificate, the petitioners examined p.W.3, the concerned drawing officer of the deceased. As per the post mortem examination, the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, considering Ex.X2, satary certificate, the Tribunal has rightty taken the income of the deceased at Rs.31,41glper month. Apart from the same, as the deceased was aged about 30 years, the petitioners are entitled to addition of 50% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon,bte Supreme Court in Pronay Sethi (Supra) instead of 40% as adopted by the Tribunat. Therefore, monthty income of the deceased comes to Rs. 47,127/. (Rs.31,418/- + Rs.t5,709l-). From this, 1/4h is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased fottowing Sorla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as there are four dependents. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and tiving expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family woutd be Rs.35,345/- per '?^{2oo9 ecJt298(s(')}

¶70

¶71

GSD. J and MGp,.l Maoma_ I 7 and23 56_201 9

¶72

month. Since the deceased was aged about 30 years, in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Sorla Verma (supra), the suitabte muttiptier woutd be^,1 7, . Apptying muttiptier ,.17,, the total loss of dependency woutd be Rs.35,345/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.72,10,380/-. That apart, the petitioners are also entitted to Rs.77,000/_ under the conventional heads as per pranay Sethi,s case (supra). Thus, in att the petitioners are entitled to Rs.72,g7,3g0/-.

¶73

lnsofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunat is that the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunat from the date of petition titt realization, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others3.

¶74

Accordingty, M.A.C.M.A.No. 17 of 2019 fited by the petitioners is atlowed in parr and the M.A.C.M.A.No.2356 of ZO19 fited by the lnsurance company is dismissed. The amount awarded by the Tribunat is hereby enhanced from Rs.64,01,36g/_ to Rs.72,87,380/.. The enhanced amount shatt carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition titl the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The enhanced

¶75

3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

¶76

---=---._7

¶77

¶78

GSD, J and MGp, J Macma-I7 ancl2356 2019

¶79

amount shatl be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their share amount without furnishing any security. There shatt be no order as to costs.

¶80

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha[[ stand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPYII

SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR (lD

¶85

SECTIOi{ OFFICER

¶86

Il:"tiSff ?*,,Y1"?l;!.;'Xr I I Additional chier Judge, citv civir court, 2. 1 One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Ve_eramachaneni, Advocate [OpUC] one cc to sriA Ramakrishna Rto,jv, A;rtlliJroEltt 4. Two CD Copies One Spare Copy gbr \k

¶87

HIGH COURT

¶88

DATED: 1610912022

¶89

( ol' t '<br>/t, o^.<br>3 7 e ,:,,,,
t ',rt 2w
t);
:I- i-
_

¶90

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶91

MACMA.Nos.17 and 2356 of 2019

¶92

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.17 OF 2019 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.2356 OF 2019 wrTHouT cosTs

¶93

@
\s

¶94

[³²⁸¹ I

¶95

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

¶96

FRIDAY,THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OFSEPTETUBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶97

PRESENT

¶98

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICEG. SRI DEVI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶99

MACMA.Nos.17 and 2356 of 2019

¶100

MACMA .No.17 of 2019 Belween:

¶101

Smt. fvl.Guru Latha, w/o^{Late lvl.Ravi, Aged30 years, OccHouse wife,}

¶102

M.Vishnu Vardhan Reddv,^{S/o Late M.Ravi,Aged13 years,Occ Student'} - U"ing i Mino'. Represent6d by his mother and natural Guardian Smt lr4.Guru Laiha (Who is the 1st^{petitioner herein)}

¶103

M.Keerthana, D/o Late^{M.Ravi, Aged 11 years, Occ} 9tudent^{Representedby} his mother and natural Guardian^{Smt M.Guru Latha (Who is the 'lst petitioner} herein) All the above^{petitioners1 to 3 are residingat Danterapally (Vii)} Sanje6vrao Pet Post, Giddalur^{Mandal, PrakasamDistrict.}

¶104

Smt M.Baleeswaramma,^{w/o Late tr4.SubbaReddyAged 58 years, occ House} wife Now R/o 1-8-270, Near^{Vegetable lt/arket, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad'}

¶105

...APPELLANTS/CLAIM PETITIONERS

¶106

AND

¶107

V. Sivakumar Reddy, S/o.V.Gangireddy,^{Aged Major, Occ Owner of crime} lorry nyo Agasta Lingayapalli, Y6rraguhtla^{Cuddaiah, Kadapa, A.P.}

¶108

Shriram General lnsurance^{Company Limited, Representedby its Div.Officer,} O/a Sai Datta Arcade, 3-6-517,^{4th flbor, street 6, Himayat Nager, Hyderabad-} 29

¶109

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶110

MACMA. No. 2356 of 2019

¶111

Between:

¶112

Shriram General lnsurance Co.^{Ltd, Represented by its DivisionalOfficer,} Office at H.No.4-1-37011 ,^{BesideHotel Jaya lnternational, ReddyHostel} Road, Abids, Hyderabad

¶113

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

¶114

AND

¶115

M. Guru Latha, W/o Late^tVI. Ravi,^{Aged 25 years, Occ. Housewife}

¶116

M. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o Late^{M. Ravi, Aged 8 years, Occ. Student}

¶117

M. Keerthana, D/o Late M. Ravi, Aged^{6 years, Occ. Student} (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minors are being Represented^{by.their tr4other} ind Natural Guardian [v1. Guru Latha^{i.e. RespondentNo.1 herein)}

¶118

All the above are R/o Danterapally Village,^{Sanjeevarao Pet Post,Giddalur} Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶119

...RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 4/PETITIONERS

¶120

M. Baleeswaramma, W/o Late M. Subba^{Reddy,Aged53 years, Occ.} Housewife, Now R/o 1-8-270, near Vegetable^{Market, Chikkadapally,} Hyderabad

¶121

V. Sivakumar Reddy, S/o V. Gangireddy,^{Age. Major, Occ. Ownerof Crime} Lorry, R/o Agasta Lingayapalli, Yerraguntla, Cuddapaj,^{Kadapa, A.P.}

¶122

...RESPONDENT No.S/RESPONDENT No.1

¶123

These Appeals are Under Section 173 of^{MotorVehicles Act against the} Order and Decree made in Ir/.V.O.P.NO.1250^{of 2013 Dated 30-07-2018on the} file of Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil^{Court,Hyderabad.}

¶124

These Appeals coming on for hearing and upon^{perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the^{Lower Court and the material papers in the} MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^{Srinivasa Rao Veeramachaneni,} Advocate for the Appellants and Respondent Nos.1 to 4^{in tvlACMA.No.2356l2O19} and of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the^{RespondentNo.2 in} lr/ACMA.No.17l2O19 and of Appellant Nos.1 to 4 in MACMA.No.2356l2o19.and^none appeared for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA.No.1712019 and^{Appellant NO.5in} MACMA.No.2356l2O19.

¶125

o This Court doth order and decree as follows:

¶126

That the lvlotor Accident Civil ltliscellaneous Appeal No.17 of 2019 filed by the petitioners be and hereby is allowed in part.

¶127

That the tvlACMA.No.2356 of 2019 filed by the insurance company be and hereby is dismissed.

¶128

That the amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.64,01 ,3681 to Rs.72,87,3801 (Rupees Seventy two lakhs eighty seven

¶129

'^{thousand three hundred eighty only.}

¶130

That the enhanced amount shall carry interest al7.5o/o^p.a. from the date of petition till the date or realization.

¶131

That the respondents be and^{herebyare directed to deposit the said enhanced} compensation amount^{within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this}

¶132

Judgment.

¶133

That the enhanced amount shall be^{apportionedin the manner as orderedby the} Tribunal.

¶134

That on such deposit, the^petitioners be^{and hereby are permittedto withdraw} their share amount without furnishing any^security.

¶135

That save as aforesaid, the decree^{of the Lower Court shall stands confirmedin all} other respects; and

¶136

That there be no order as to costsⁱⁿ these^appeals.

¶137

SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUry REGISTRAR //rRUE COPY/I Qg

¶138

SECTION OFFICER

¶139

To,

¶140

'1 . The Chairman, MACT -+um- Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶141

1. Two CD Copies 3. One Spare Copy gbr .pr,'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610912022

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.Nos.17 and 2356 of 2019

¶146

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.17 OF 2019 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.2356 OF 2019 WITHOUT COSTS

¶147

1\ a

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Guru Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Guru Latha

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

Gafoor Sab Vs The Govt. of Telangana State through the Special Deputy Collector (L.a.)

The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Vs Bandela Chinnamma

T. Chinna Narsimha simha Vs Land Acquisition Officer Cum Special Deputy Collector

The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs v.Manemma

V. Venkateswara Rao Vs The Special Grade Deputy Collector

Land Acquisition Officer, Vs Noonavath Veeranna