Allowed

Dyagala Uma Sri v. Komati Anil

Telangana HC17 Feb 2023CRP/2703/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition against a Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a review application. The court set aside the previous order and enhanced the compensation awarded for loss of dependency by applying the correct multiplier (13 instead of 12) as per Supreme Court guidelines for the deceased's age group.

What did the court decide?

CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED. Judgment and decree modified by enhancing compensation from Rs.22,40,000/- to Rs.33,72,331/- payable by respondents within two months with interest.

Dyagala Uma Sri Vs Komati Anil — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOr 2703 OF 2022

¶7

Petition filed under Section 1 15 of CPC against the Order dated 14.1O.2022ⁱⁿ l.A.No. 612 of 2022 in O,P.No. 77 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the MACT - cum -^{Principal District andSessions Judge, at Kamareddy.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dyagala Uma Sri, W/o Late Subash, Aged about 40^years, Occ. Housewife R/o H.No.4-4-2, Yellareddy Village, I,4andal, Kamareddy District.^(CAUSE TITLE AIVIENDED AS PER C,O., DT.2111012024 VIDE IA.NO. 1/2024^IN cRP.NO. 270312022)

¶10

Dyagala Harshith Kumar, S/o Late Subash, Aged about 18^years, Occ. Student.

¶11

Dyagala N/ahalaxmi, D/o Late Subash, Ag ed about 10 years, Occ. Student. (Petitioner No.3 is minor and under the U uardianship of her natural mother i.e., petitioner No.'1 herein)

¶12

Dyagala Kistaiah, S/o Balaiah, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Nil.

¶13

5, Dyagala Laxmi, W/o Kistaiah, Aged about 57^years, Occ. Housewife, All are r/o H.No.4-4-2, Yellareddy Village, Mandal, Kamareddy Dist.

¶14

...Petitioners

¶15

AND

¶16

Komati Anil, S/o Venkatesham, aged ltlajor, Occ. Driver, R/o H.No.1-106, Repaka Village, tMothkur lvlandal, Nalgonda Dist^(driver of crime^vehicle)

¶17

Pakeeru Upender, S/o Yadagiri, aged l/ajor, Occ.^{Business cumowner} Skoda Car bearing No.TS08ET173B, R/o H.No.9-21^{1113133,Ashoknagar} Colony, Boduppal, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy Dist

¶18

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,^Rep. by^{its Branch} Mdn-ager, O/o. Ramdas Complex, Vinayaknagar, Opp.^{First LadyMayor} Road, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad.

¶19

(Respondent Nos. 1 as 2 are not necessary Parties )

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

Gounsel for the Petitioners : Sri Nambi Krishna

¶22

Counsel for Respondents :^---

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶25

C.R.P.No. 2703 of 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, in I.A.No.612 of 2022 in O.P.No.77 of 2018 dated 14.10.2022.

¶28

The revision petitioners/claimants filed the aforesaid I.A.No.612 of 2022 under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking to review the judgment and decree, dated 11.04.2022, passed in O.P.No.77 of 2018. It is stated that the Tribunal^has taken the^age of the deceased as 47 years on the date of accident, but the Tribunal had erroneously applied the multipiier^'12' instead of '13' which is applicabie to the age of the deceased as^per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma €s others Vs, Delhi Transpot"t Corporution €t anotherl. If the same is applied,^the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.30,97,331/- {Loss^of dependency to the family of the deceased .e.,^Rs.2,38,256 /^{- X}

¶29

'^{(2009) (6) sccr2r}

¶30

¶31

'13' (Multiplier)]. However, the Claims Tribunal^{by oversight} awarded Rs.20,25.000/- under the head of^{loss of dependency.} Hence, the petitioners requested the Court to^{review of the} judgment and decree of the Tribunal.

¶32

The Claims Tribunal, by docket order, dated^"14.09.2022, dismissed the said application holding^{that the amount of} compensation awarded by the Tribunal is^{higherthanthe} amount claimed by tire petitioners/claimants^and that^the petition for review ls a belated one.

¶33

Aggrieved by the aforesaid docket order, the petitioners/ claimants preferred the present revisio& inter alia, contending that the Claims Tribunal has committed material illegality and irregularity in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for review of the^judgment and decree dated 11,.04.2022 passed in O.P.No.77 of 2018 and that there is^a typographical error in caiculation of the loss of dependency and also in applying the correct multiplier. Therefore, the petitioners requested this Court to set aside the impugned docket order of

¶34

¶35

the Claims Tribunal and^{review the judgment and decree of the}

¶36

Tribunal passed in O.P.No.77^{of 2018.}

¶37

Heard the learned Counsel^{appearing on eitherside and} perused the record.

¶38

A perusal of the^{judgmentof the ClaimsTribunal passed} in O.P.No.77 of 2018 dated^{11..04.2018would disclosethatthere} is an error aPParent on^{the face of recordregarding application} of appropriate multiplier^{andcomputation of loss of dependency} to the family of the^deceased.

¶39

In the instant case, the^{deceasedwas aged 47 yearson the} date of accident. The^{Claims Tribunalhas appliedthe multiplier} of'12' for arriving^{at loss of dependency to the family of the} deceased. However,^{as per the guidelineslaid down by the Apex} Court in Sarla Vermn's^{c4se (1 suPra) for the age groupof 46 to} 50 years, the correct^{multiplier to be appiiedis '13' The} Tribunal, in my view,^{has erred in not applying the correct} multiplier to arrive^{at loss of dependency to the family of the} deceased. Applying^{the multiplier ol '13' to the loss of}

¶40

¶41

dependency^{of Rs.2,38,256/-} Per^{annum, as fixed by the Claims} Tribunal, the total^{loss of dependency to the family would come} to Rs.30,97,331/'l(Rs.2,38,256/-^{X '13' (Multiplier)l'The rest of} the amounts^{awarded,under the other heads i'e} '^Rs'15'000/- towards funeral^{expensesand Rs'2,00,000/- towards lossof} consortium, by^{the ClaimsTribunal shall remain rrnaitered'} Thus, the^{petitioners/claimants are entitled tototal} compensation^{of Rs.33,12,331/'towards compensation'}

¶42

Accordingly, the^{C.R P. is allowed by setting aside the} impugned order,^{dated 1'4.10.2022, passed in I A'No'612 of 2022'} Further, the^{judgment and decree, dated L104'2022' passed in} O.P.No.77 of^{2018 is modified by enhancingthe compensation} amount awarded^{by the Tribunalfrom Rs'22'40'000/-to} Rs.33,72,331/^{-, payableby respondents1 to 3 jointly and} severally. The^{enhancedamount shall carry interestal7 '5o/o pet} annum from^{the date of orderpassedby the Tribunal till tlle date} of realization.^{RespondentNo.3 is directedto depositthe} amount along with^{accruedinterest within a periodof two} months from the date^{of receipt of a copy of this order'The}

¶43

¶44

¶45

enhanced amount^{shall be apportionedamongthe} Petitioners/ claimants in the same^{proportion inwhichoriginal} compensation amounts were^{directedby the Tribunal.Further,} the claimants are dkected to^{pay Deficit CourtFee on the} enhanced amount. There^{sha1lbe no orderas to costs'}

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions,^{ifany,pending,shall stand}

¶47

closed.

¶48

Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶49

1^{NOTE: This Orderis amended as per the} \ 99yf^{orde_r dated21.10.2024passedin} ' l.A.No. 1 of 2024 in CRp.No, 2ZO3 o,f 2O2i by correcting the name of 1"t petitioner as :'Dyagata^{Uma Sri', insteadof ',Dyagala} Uma Rani". This amended^'oider substitutes the earlier order despatched on 11.04.2023

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

To,

¶52

I Sd/- T. JAYAS/EE ASSISTANT RESISTfrAR \Y SECTION OFFICER

¶53

¶54

l The MACT - cum - principar District and sessions Judge, at Kamareddv.'.^{rv"'|q'|vvvr'} 2. One CC to Sri Nambi Kridhna, navocite fOiUCi3. Two CD Copies

Njb @x

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710212023 2111012024

¶59

HE STA ,c
(;;
(
)
J r
3 14 i,iijt zili4
i f)
FSo,'r ''."'1-
,-?'

¶60

AMENDED ORDER

¶61

CRP.No.2703 of 2022

¶62

CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶63

tph
r}r9W

Dyagala Uma Sri v. Komati Anil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dyagala Uma Sri v. Komati Anil

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

E.Ramachandra Rao Vs the State of a.P.,Rep. by P.P., and 2 Others

Sunkara Subba Rao Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Parsi Shashank Vs T.Linga Reddy

Ragir Narasimha Vs the State of A.P.

Chakinam Vishalakshi Vs Yeshwanth Pawar

Smt. Kyasaram Gangamani Vs Sri Kyasaram Balreddy