Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Bilkuis Sultana

Telangana HC9 Jun 2022MACMA/3112/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a motor accident compensation order, the High Court held that while the multiplier was correct, the deduction for personal expenses should be 1/5th given 12 dependants. Reducing total compensation to Rs.42,20,000 and apportioning it among the family members following recent Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs.46,00,000 to Rs.42,20,000 payable to the deceased's family with 7% interest from the date of petition.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Bilkuis… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO:3112 oF 2016

¶7

Appeal under section r73 of M.V.Act, against the Judgmenu decree in op No. 570 of 2010 dared 19/1or2o15 on the fire of the court of the xilr Additionar District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶8

cn:- eliance GeneralInsuianceCo.^Ltd., Rep.by itsDivisionalManager, Officeat:6-4-8 VijethaSanjev Opp:Gandhi I losptial,^Mushcerabad, ,^FirstHloor, ani Apzirtments, l <br>I I^{Hydcrbad-500020.i}	.....Appellant/ RespondentNo.2
And , :
I-.,6ilkuisSultana^{w/olateMohd. Moulana,} ,/ Aeedrbout42^year(l"'wifc) - 'l .t ,-fHasitaBegum D/olateMohd.^Moulana, Agedabout 26^year 2 Reshma Begum D/o^{IateMohd.Moulana,} r Agedabout 24Years \j!./Ash*uBegumD/olateMohd.Moulana" , Agedabout 21^years		) I { i\|
\y'N-".., Begum D/olateMohd. Moulana, r Aged about19^years II6.-.Sul.huBegumD/olateMoltd. Moulana, P'^{eeedabout15 years}
7.Mohd.Hussian S/o^{lateMohd. Moulana,} ,r/Aged about 12years Respondents6and7 arebeing^n.rinorsRep Bytheir motherand natLtral^guardian Respondent No.Iherein) espondentsIto7are R./o^{II.No. l6-59,} I gi,RangaRed{y District.	)i	I i
I 1 t \|	i: i

¶9

¶10

	'.:2^-.. I/ C.viiayan rni@NashrinFalhima ' WolateMrhd.Moulana. Agcd.abort43 years, occ: Service Mohd.SartarAliS/ol,ateMohd. Moulana Agedabou.20years 0.SajanBcg,rnrD/oLateMohd. Moulana Agedabortl9years 7^{Il.Salrna Be;um D/oLateMohd. Moulana} Agedabort16years (Respor dentNo.IIbeingminorrep. byhe{mother and natrralguardianRespondentNo.8herein) /tZ.^{h:kiyaf egumWolate Sd.SardarAli} ' Aged abo rt72 years, /I Respondcrls8tol2areR/oDirsampally village, DomaMardal,Rangal{eddyDistrict.....RespondentsItol2l "; PetitionersIto12 \|
\|3.Harshad ihanS/oNot known, R/oH.Nr.l-12,DaddapurVillagc, DomaMrndal,RangaIteddyIlistrict I ..RespondentNo.l 3/ dent\ ,.r^l
Fort Forth	he Appeilant:iRt A.RAMAKRISHNAREDDY,Advocate eRespondenNos.1to11: SRI K.GOVERDHAN REDDY,Advocate
The C	ourt deliveredtrefollowing: JUDGMENT

¶11

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

¶12

M.A.C.M.A.No.3112 of 2O16

¶13

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'bte Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

¶14

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Llmited, challenging the order, dated 19.10.2015, passed in MVOP No.570 of 2010 by the XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶15

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellantInsurance Company, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.l to 11 in MVOP and^perused the record.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel for the appella nt-Insurance Company would contend that as on the date of the subject death, the deceased was 51^years old and^{the appropriate} multiplier applicable is'11'. But the Court^{below erroneously} took the multiplier'13'. Further,^the Court^{belowdeducted 1/6th} of the earnings of the deceased towards^{his personalexpenses.} The deceased had 12 dependants.^{Hence,the Courtbelow} ought to have deducted 1/5th of the^{earnings of the deceased} towards his^personal expenses. Further,^{the Court below}

¶17

¶18

Dr.sA.J&JS.J It \Clu.{ No.3ll? of20l6

¶19

)

¶20

granted an )xorbitant amount of Rs.z,77,710l- under the conventional 1eads, i.e., loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, los; of estate and funeral expenses. As per the decision of t re Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company L imited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the respondent t\os.1 to 1l/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 are entitled for Rs.70,000/- r nder the conventional heads and ultinrately^prayed to reduce th -. compensation awarded by the Corrrt below by taking the ab ove submissions into consideration

¶21

4, On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to lUpetitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP contended that the Court below is justified in taking the age of the deceaseC as 50 years as or the date of the subject accident and applying multiplier '1:i' to the age of the deceased. There is documentary evidence to that effect. Furthermore, the Court below is justified in granting an amount of Rs.2,7i,710/- under' the conventiona heads following the authoritative decisions prevalent at that point of time. The Court below rightly granted a compens rtion of Rs.46,00,000/- with interest @ 7o/o per annum fron the date of petition till the date of recovery to the respondent Nos. 1 to 1l/petitioner Nos. 1 to 1 I in MVOP, by

¶22

DiSA,J&JS.J MA( M,\ No.3l t2 0r2016

¶23

¶24

taking all the relevant factors into consideration. There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned order and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order under challenge.

¶25

It is not in dispute that the deceased-Mohd. Moulana died in the subject accident that occurred on 09.09.2009, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto bearing registration No.AP-28-Y-8033. Further, both the learned counsel did not dispute with regard to the Court below adding 30o/o to the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

¶26

In view of the above submissions, the only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the compensation of Rs.46,00,000/- granted by the Court below to the respondent Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP, is liable to be reduced as prayed for?

¶27

POINT:

¶28

To substantiate their claim, the respondent Nos.1 to 11lpetitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP^got examined^PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A9. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance

l)LSA, J^&.1S,., \r A('\tA \o.Jl l2 0f 2016

¶34

Company, RV's.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to 83 were marked. Ex.).1 was marked on behalf of the Court.

¶35

The Cc urt below, basing on the oral and documentary evidence on ecord, took the age of the deceased as 50^years as on the date lf the subject accident, took the net salary oF the deceased as Rs.25,564/-, added 3Oo/o of the income towards future prosp, rcts, deducted 1/6th of the amount towards^personal expenses ar rd calculated the annual income of deceased as Rs.3,32,300'-, applied multiplier '13' and calculated the total loss of deperdency as Rs.43,20,290i-. The Court below further added an i mount oF Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,00C /- towards loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/towards los ; of love and affection, Rs.46,7lO/ - towards loss of estate, Rs.:,000/- towards clothing and accordingly awarded the compensati rn at Rs.46,00,000/- with interest @ 7o/o per annum from the d. te of petition till the date of recovery.

¶36

As s( en from the material placed on record, the date of birth of thr: deceased is 10.06.1959 and the date of occurrence of the sub'ect accident is 09.09.2009. Thus, the deceased was aged 50 y,)ars 3 months as on the date of the subject accident. Therefore the Court below correctly took the age of the

¶37

Di.SA, J & JS, J MACMA No.3t l2 of Z016

¶38

)

¶39

deceased as 50 years as on the date of the subject accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased (50 years) as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationl is '13'. Therefore, applying multiplier'13'to the age of the deceased as on the date of subject accident by the Court below, cannot be faulted. Further, there is no dispute that the deceased was a Government servant as on the date of his death in the subject accident. Therefore, the Court below righty added 30Yo of actual income towards future prospects. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the Court below taking the salary of the deceased as Rs.33,233l-^per month as on the date ofhis death.

¶40

The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that since the deceased had 12 dependants, the Court below ought to have deducted 1/5th of the earnings of the deceased towards his^personal expense! instead of 1/6th. Admittedly, the deceased had 12 dependants. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (1 supra), where the number of dependant family members exceeds six (6), one-fifth (1/5th) of amount is required to deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. However, '^{AIR 2oo9sc 3l04}

¶41

Dr.SA.,i & JS. J 1|( rl,\ )lc.J112 .f l0l6

¶42

¶43

the Ccurt be low deducted 1/6th of amount to^/ards^personal exoenses of t re cieceased, u,rlrich is erroneous;

¶44

LL. Further , the Court below granted an amount of Rs.2,7l,7lO/- under the convention heads, i.e., loss of consortium, oss of estate, funeral expenses etc., which is on higher side. In a recent decision in Nstional Insurance

¶45

Company L rnited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court Eranted an amount of Rs.7C,000/- under the conventiona heads, i.e., Rs.15,000/- tourai-ds loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/towards fun:ral expenses. Hence, the Cou;t below granting an amount of 1.s.2,71,710/- under the conventional heads requires variation.

¶46

Havin q regard to the oral and docu..nentary evidence on record, thi: ; Court deems it appropriate to take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.33,233l-. As observed supra, 1/5th of th r amount is deducted towards persorral expenses of the decear ed. Thus the monthly earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.33,233l- minus Rs.6,647/-) Rs.26,586/- and the annual inctme of the deceased comes to (Rs.26,586/- x 12)

¶47

'120171^{l6 Sup} "nre^{CounCases 680}

¶48

D..SA,J&JS,J MACMA No.ll12 of20t6

¶49

¶50

Rs.3,19,032/-. As observed supra, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is'13'. Thus, the total loss of earnings would come to (Rs.3,19,032/- x 13) Rs.4L,47,416/-. Following the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (2 supra), we grant an amount of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads, i.e., Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the respondent Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.1 to 11 in MVOP are entitled for a compensation of Rs.42,t7,416/- rounded off to Rs.42,20,000/- (Fourty Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand only). The Court below granted interest @ 7o/o per annum on the amount awarded as compensation from the date of petition till the date of recovery, which is^just and reasonable.

¶51

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order, dated 19.10.2015,^passed in MVOP No.570 of 2010 by the Court below, reducing the compensation from Rs.46,00,000/- to Rs.42,20,0001-. The said amount^of compensation carries interest at the rate of^{7o/o per annum from} the date of^petition till realisation, besides costs.^{On deposit of} the compensation, the respondent^{Nos.1 to 11/petitioner Nos.1}

¶52

¶53

Dr.SA.,l & JS-.1 \lA(litt,,\ 10..]l l2 ol llll6

¶54

to 11 in MV )P are permitted to withdraw the eirtire amount along with tl e accrued intei'est. The other terms of the order under challe rge remain unaltered. The apportionment of compensatiol r shall be as under:

¶55

RespondertNo.1(firstwife)	Rs.17,00,000/- (includinqlossofconsortium of Rs.40 0(.0
RespondetNo.8 second wife	89.9_,9S,, ^000/-
RespondentNcs.2to7 and9 to
11 I	Rs.1,80,000/-each
sons and⁽aughter5[9inall)
TOTAL	RS.+1,i:o,9-oo/-

¶56

Miscell,rneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal,

¶57

shall stand c osed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

¶59

Sd/.T KRlSH KUMAR I) =PUTY ISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶60

'1 . The Xlll Additic nar District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at r-.B.Nagar. (with records)

¶61

One CC to Sri , .Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶62

One CC to Sri l(.Goverdhan Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)-'

¶63

Two CD Copie: ;

¶64

One Spare Co1 y

¶65

Ki A-,r -ht

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/06/2022

$ff}

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3112 of !016

¶73

PARTLY ALLOWIN J THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.

Afr)

p0
?

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶79

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶80

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶82

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 3112 OF 2016

¶83

¶84

I
Ltd.,
Rep.by its Divisional t\4anager,
Office at:6-4-8. First Floor.
Vi jetha Sanjevani Apartments,I
Opp: Gandhi Flosptial Musheerabtd,
Hyderbad- 500 020. . . ...Appellant/
Respondent No.2
And
I
Sultana w/o late Mohd. Moulana , I
I bout 42 vear ( 1"t wifi) , II
Begum D/o late Mohd. Moulana, I
boul 26 year
Reshma Begum D/o late Mohd. Moulana,
Aged about 24 years
/gsnma Begum D/o late Mohd. Moulana,
Aged about 21 years
y'N-"" u Begum D/o late Mohd. Moulana.
'
Aged about 19 years
6;-.Saleha Begum D/o late Moird. Moulana.
/
Aged about 15 years
7 Mohd. Hussian S/o late Mohd. Moulana,
Aged about 12 years.
I
Respondents 6 and 7 are being minors Rep.
By their mother and nattrlal guardian
Respondent No. I herein)
Respondents I to 7 are fuo H.No. 16-59,
I Parigi, Ranga Reddy District.
I
I

¶85

¶86

¶87

	v :.z.'.
f' /	^/
	Mohd.Sarr arAliS/oLate Mohd. Moulana Agcdabou20years
0	.SaianBegrmD/oLateMohd. Moulana Agedabou19 years
I1	.Sahna Be; .unrD/oLateMohd. Moulana Agcd abot :16years I
il	(ResporJent No.)Ibeingmirorrep.byhe4mother and nahralguardian RespondentNo.8 herein) I
/l^z '/	^{. *uuiyuB :gumWolarc Sd.SardarAli} AgedaborI 72years. I
	llesponder,s8to l2areR/o Dirsampallyvillage, I)orrraMar dal.RangaRcddyDistrict.....RespondcntsItol3l PetitionersIto l2
3.	IlarshadIhanS/oNot known, R/oH.Nol-12,DaddapurVillage, DornaM:ndal,RangaRcddy District. dent No.1i/ pondent No.I

¶88

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the JudgmenV Order and decree made in MVOP No. 570 of 2010 dated 19/10/2015 on the file of the Court of the Xlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶89

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing, and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K.Goverdhan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 1 1 .

¶90

This Court doth Order and decree as follows :-

¶91

That the appeal be and hereby is allowed in part modifying the order dated 19l1Ol2O'15 passed in MVOP No.570/20'10 by the Court below, reducing the compensation from Rs.46,00,0001 (Rupees forty six lakhs only) to Rs.42,20,000^ (Rupees forty tvvo lakhs twenty thousand only)

¶92

That the said amount of compensation be and hereby carries interest at the rate of 7"/o per annum from the date of petition till realization besides costs.

¶93

on deposit of the compensation the respondent Nos. l to 11/ petitioners No.1 to 11 in MVOP be and hereby are^permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the accrued interest.

¶94

That the other terms of the order under challenge be and hereby remain unaltered.

¶95

The apportionment of compensation be and hereby shall be the Respondent No.1 (first wife) Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs only) (including loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/-) (Rupees forty thousand only) Respondent

¶96

No.B (second wife) Rs.9,00,0001 (Rupees nine lakhs only) and Respondent Nos.2 to 7 and 9 to^'l 1 (sons and daughters) (9 in all) Rs.1 ,80,000/- each (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only)

¶97