Partly allowed

Syed Ahamed v. Jaidi Pedda Ganga Reddy

Telangana HC21 Mar 2022MACMA/3555/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by claimants enhancing compensation from the Tribunal. The court found negligence by the tractor driver and enhanced loss of dependency award applying a multiplier of 18 and adding future prospects, despite the insurer's appeal.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants amounting to Rs.4,86,600/- from Rs.2,23,700/- with interest at 7.5% per annum; the appeal by the insurer was dismissed.

Syed Ahamed Vs Jaidi Pedda Ganga Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 3555 & 3856 OF 2009

¶6

Appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 1-09-2009 in MVOP No.1043 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

¶7

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 3555

¶8

Between:

¶9

Syed Ahamed, S/o. Lalcha, aged about 59 years, Occ: Nil.

¶10

Smt. Waheeda Begum, W/o. Syed Ahamed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Household.

¶11

Channu Bee, D/o. Syed ahamed, aged about 22years, Occ:Household All are Rl/o. Badguna Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Jaidi Pedda Ganga Reddy, S/o. Pedda Saya Reddy, Occ:Tractor and Trolley bearing No. AP.No. AP 25 U 8185 & AP25J 6212 No. Badguna Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶15

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager Branch Office, Beside Hotel l,4ayuri, Godown Road, P.B.No. 3'l4,Nizamabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 3856

BETWEEN

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager Branch Office, Beside Hotel Mayuri, Godown Road, P.B.No. 314,

¶21

...APPELLANT /RESPONDENT No.2

¶22

AND

¶23

Syed Ahamed, S/o. Lalcha, aged about 59 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Badguna Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶24

Smt. Waheeda Begum, W/o. Syed Ahamed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o. BAdguna Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District

¶25

Channu Bee, D/o. Syed ahamed, aged about 22 years, Occ:Household, R/o. BAdguna Village, Nandipet lvlandal, Nizamabad District.

¶26

.....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶27

Jaidi Pedda Ganga Reddy, S/o. Pedda Saya Reddy, Occ:Tractor and Trolley bearing No.AP25U B185 & AP25J 6212 No. Badguna Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶28

....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1

¶29

MACMA MP.No. 5804 of 2009 in MACMA No. 3856 of 2009

¶30

Petition Under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in presence of the Judgment and the Decree dated 01-09-2009 passed in O.P.No. 1043 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

¶31

MACMA No.3336 of2010 :

¶32

BETWEEN

¶33

Syed Ahamed, S/o. Lalcha, aged about 59 years, Occ: Nil.

¶34

Smt. Waheeda Begum, W/o. Syed Ahamed, aged about 52 years. Occ: Household.

¶35

Channu Bee, D/o. Syed ahamed, aged about 22 yearc, Occ:Household All are R/o. Badguna Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶36

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT 1.3

AND

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch IVanager Branch Office, Beside Hotel lrlayuri, Godown Road, P.B.No. 314, ...RESPONDENTS-1 /PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶41

Jaidi Pedda Ganga Reddy, S/o. Pedda Saya Reddy, Occ:Tractor and Trolley bearing No.AP25U8185 & AP25J 6212, Respondents 1to 4 are R/o. Badguna Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶42

.....Respondent -4 /Respondent -2

¶43

Respondent-2 is not necessary for this petition.

¶44

Petition Under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 15.1'1.2009 in MACI,4A No. 5804 of 2009 in IVACMA No.3856 of 2009.

¶45

For the Appellants : SRl. AZAR SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate

¶46

For the Respondents: SRI E VENUGOPLA RAO, Advocate

¶47

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶48

¶49

r' ,//

¶50

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶51

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3555 OF 2009 & 3856 OF 2009

¶52

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶53

These two appeats are being disposed of by this common^judgment, since M.A.C.M.A.No.3555 of 2009 fited by the appeltants/ctaimants seeking for enhancement of the compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.3856 of 2009 fited by the United lndia lnsurance Company Limited for setting aside the order of the Tribunat, are directed against the very same order and decree, dated 01.09.2009 passed in 0.P.No.1043 of 2005 on the fite of the Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunat (l Additional District Judge), Nizamabad (for short, "the Tribunat").

¶54

For the sake of convenience, the porties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶55

The facts in issue are as under:

¶56

The ctaimants fited a petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents 1 and 2 seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Syed Mohin Pasha in a motor vehicte accident

¶57

¶58

GSD, J MACMA Nos.-IJJJ of 2009 & 38s6 of 2009

¶59

that occurred on 19,05.2005 due to rash and negtigent driving of the driver of the Tractor and Troltey bearing No.AP-25-U-61 85 and AP^- 25- J-6712.

¶60

Before the Tribunal., the 1't respondent remained ex porte and the 2nd respondent fited counter denying the averments made in the ctaim-petition.

¶61

After anatyzing the evidence avaitabte on record, the Tribunal hetd that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Troltey bearing No.AP-25-U-6185 and AP-25-J-6212 by its driver and AS accordingty awarded an amount of Rs.2,23,7001compensat'ion to be paid by the respondents^'l and 2^jointty and severatty. Chattenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeats are fited by the ctaimants for enhancement of compensation, white the 2nd respondentinsurance company for dismissaI of appeat.

¶62

Learned Counsel for the ctaimants mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶63

¶64

;

¶65

GSD, J MACI,IA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 385 6 of 200q

¶66

is on lower side and prayed to award future prospects in the tight of the^judgment rendered by the Hon'bte Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case.

¶67

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-lnsurance company contended that the decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabitities of the case; that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the tiabitity on the appettant-lnsurance Company; that the amount awarded is exorbitant. Accordingty, prayed for setting aside the impugned order in the O.P and dismiss the appeat.

¶68

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the TribunaI has framed lssue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negtigent driving of the tractor by its driver, to which the Tribunat, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupted with the documentary evidence, has categoricatty observed that the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of

¶69

¶70

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009

¶71

tractor by its driver and has answered in favour of the ctaimants and against the respondents. Further, the insurance company has not produced any evidence on record to show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accrdent occurred due to the rash and negtigent driving of the driver of tractor.

¶72

A perusal of the evidence on record woutd disctose that the Tribunat, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency, considered the income of the deceased at Rs.2,4001-, which appears to be too meagre, and hence the income of the deceased is considered at Rs.3,000/- per month. Further, since the deceased died of bachetor, the Tribunal taking into consideration of the age of the mother of the deceased as 54, apptied muttiptier 11 . ln view of the^judgment of the Apex Court in Sorlo Vermo v. Delhi

¶73

( t

¶74

¶75

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009

¶76

Transport Corporationl the suitabte muttiptier wou[d be '18' as the deceased was 20^years as on the date of accident. lf the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month is taken, and, if 40o,4 of the income is added to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, the total income of the deceased woutd be Rs.4,200/- per month. Since the deceased died of bachetor, 50% of the amount towards his personal and living expenses is to be deducted, thereby contribution of the deceased would be Rs.2,100/- per month and Rs.25,200/- per annum. Apptying muttiptier '18' the total loss of dependency would be Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.25,200/- X muttiptier '18'). Further, apart from the said amount, the ctaimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventionaI heads such as funeraI expenses and loss of estate. Thus, in att the claimants are entitted to Rs.4,86,600/-.

¶77

'^{2oo9AcJ1298(sc)}

¶78

¶79

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009

¶80

Accordingty, M.A.C.M.A.No.3856 of 2009 fited by the lnsurance Company is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.3555 of 2009 fited by the claimants is attowed in- part by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribuna[ from Rs.2,23,200/- to Rs.4,86,600/-. The

¶81

ctaimants are entitted to interest @ 7,5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition titt the date of reatization. The amount of compensation shatl be apportioned amongst the ctaimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunat. There shatt be no order as to costs.

¶82

Consequentty, miscellaneous petitions, if doy,

¶83

pending in these appeats, shall stand ctosed.

¶84

¶85

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT ryEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ChSECTION OFFICER

¶86

To,

¶87