Dismissed

M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, v. Vasa Thirupathaiah

Telangana HC28 Jul 2023MACMA/1048/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 3,61,000. The Court held that despite errors in calculating income and using the mother's age for the multiplier, the award did not warrant interference as the accident occurred seven years prior and no cross-appeal was filed for enhancement.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs pending.

M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Vasa… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS CELLANEOUS^{APPEALNO:1048OF 2011}

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of^{Motor VehiclesAct against the Judgment} and decree in oP No. 158^{of 2007 dated. 13-1-2011 0n the file of the court of the} chairman Motor Vehicle^{Accidentsclaims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Districtand} Sessions Judge, R.R. District at^{LB Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. National lnsurance Company^{Limited, Rep by its Regional Office, D.O.-ll'} Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶10

..PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Vasa Thirupathaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Occ:^{Business R/o. H.No8-13-7lA'} Ganeshnalar, Kattedan Village,^{Rajendernagar Rev. Mandal, R.R. District.}

¶13

2 Vasa Saraswathamma, Wo.^{Thirupathaiah, Occ: Housewife,R/o H N9} - - 8-13-7tA, Ganeshnagar, Kattedan^{Village, Rajendernagar Rev. Mandal, R.R.} District.

¶14

3 Vasa Bharathi, D/o. Thirupathaiah,^{Occ: Studenl R/o-H.No. 8-13-7!A'} Ganeshnagar,'Kattedan^{Village, Rajendernagar Rev. Mandal,R R. District.}

¶15

4 Vasa Bhavani, D/o. Thirupathaiah,^{Student, R/o.H.No. 8-13-7lA'} Ganeshnagar, Kattedan^{Viltage, Raienderl.agar-!ev-} ]yandal,^{R.R. District.} (Res No. 1-to 4 were the^{petitioners in OPNo.158 of 2007)}

¶16

(R3 & R4 are Minors represented by^{Father R1)}

¶17

5 M/s. Transport Corporation of^{lndia Limited, Rep-byits Manager Door No..} 306, A.B. Chambeis, S.P.Road, Secunderabad^{Occ Owner of the Lorry (Res} No. 5 was respondent No. 1 in OPNO.^{158of 2007)}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

MACM AMP. NO: 1890 0F 2011

¶20

Petition under Section.l:1 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support_or *re petitiJn, ir'""n'ig;i"r.t may be preased to grant stay of all further proceedings inciuding executiJn or the order and decree dated 13-1-2011 passed in op ruo-. rca or jdof iilir"'ri[ or Motor vehicres Accidents claims Tribunar - cum - r Additionar oistrict a'slsliois .rrage Ranga Reddv at LB Nagar, Hyderabad pending disposal of ttre main frlln-CVn

¶21

Counsel for the Appeltant: SRt. N J SUNIL KUMAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 4 : SRl. M VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.S : None appeared

¶24

The Court detivered the foltowing: JUDGMENT

¶25

1 i I I i

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU

¶27

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1048 OF 201r

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

Being aggrieved by the award in O.P.No.l58 of 2OOT on the file of Chairman, Moror Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter be relerred to as Tribunal) dated 13.01.2011 by which the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,61,000/- towards compensarion on account of the death of one Vasa Srikanth (hereinafter be referred to as deceased), the 2"d respondent in the above referred O.P.No. 158 of 2OO7 filed this appeal and challenged the said award on the following grounds:

¶30

The order and decree of the Tribunal is highly illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and weight of evidence. The Tribunal grossly erred in coming to conclusion about the income of the deceased as Rs.4,OOO/per month without any authentic evidence and ought to have considered the income as Rs.3,OOO /- pe, month,

wtH

",r

DIACMA No.1O4a of 2. 11

¶35

thereby, awarded excess arnount towards compensation The Tribunal lailed to see that in view of the settled pnnciple of law where the deceased is bachelor, 50o% of his rncome sha.ll be deducted towards his personal expenditure. But, in the case on hand the Tribuna_l considered 2/3 of trle lncome ald awarded excess amount. The appellant further claimed that the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,6l,OO0/- without following the settled principle of law and the actual amount to which the re spon de n ts/ claim an ts are entitled to is Rs.2,3g,OOO/-, thereby there is an excess amount of Rs. 1,22,OO0/_ and the same shall be reduced.

¶36

¶37

Before adverting the various contentions raised by the appellant in the present appeal, it is just and necessary to give a brief history of the above referred o.p.No. r5g of 2007.

¶38

3 The respondents/claimants who are parents ald other dependents of the deceased have hled the said petition against the appellant herein and one M/s.

¶39

MACMA^{No.1O48oI 2O1 I}

¶40

Transport^{Corporation of India Limited' at Secunderabad} being represented^{by its Manager'seekingcompensation of} Rs.1O,O0,OO0/-^{with costsand interest @ 18% per annum} on account^{of death of the deceased in a road traffic} accident.^{Accordingto thepetitionI-rled bythe} respondents/claimants^{it rvas a-lleged that on 29 ' 1 1'2006} at about^{O6:15A.M the deceasedwas proceeding on his} scooter towards^{Chandrayangutta bus stop for dropping} hismotheranda.fterdroppingheratbusStophewas proceeding towards^{Katedan from Chandrayangutta' and} when the^{deceasedreached Maheshwara Oil Mills' in the} meanwhilethedriverofthelorrybearingNo.AP-09-U-5212 drovehisvehicleinrashandnegligentmannerandgave dash to^{the scooter,due to which the deceasedfell down} and received^{bleeding injuries'He was immediately shifted} to Relief^{hospital and from there to NIMS hospital'But' he} died at^{O9:30 A.M' on the same day' A complaint was} lodged with^{police Rajendranagarand a case inCrime} No.l196^{of 2006 was registered against the driver of the} said lorry

¶41

¶42

MACMA No. tO4B oJ" 2O1t^\.

¶43

¶44

The respondents/claimants have filed the petition alleging that the deceased was a businessman. There was a kirana shop under the name and style of Satya Sai Kirana shop at Ganeshnagar, Katedan and he was earning Rs. I5,OOO/- per month, which he used to contribute for the maintenance of his family. Thereby, they sought for compensation from the owner of the lorry and the insurer.

¶45

The owner of the vehicle who is shown as l,r respondent remained exparte. The 2na respondent i.e., appellarlt herein opposed the petition and filed a detailed counter q,ith a specific plea that compensation claimed by the respondents is highly excessive. The Insurance company is not liabre to pay any amount as compensation, thereby sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶46

The Tribunal framed the following issues for enquiry:

¶47

Whether the deceased namely V.Srikant died in a lorry accident on 29.11.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.Ap-09_U_ 5212 (Tata make) by its driver?

¶48

What was the age and income of the deceased?

¶49

¶50

¶51

hIACtttA^No. ro4a^{oJ 2O11}

¶52

Whether the^{petitioners are entitied toclaim} compensation?^{If so, how much amount and from} which of the resPondents?

¶53

To what relieP

¶54

During enquiry^{PWs I to 3were examined and} Exs.Al to A6^{were marked. The Insurance Companyi'e',} the appellant^{hereindid not adduce any oral evidence, but} marked a copy of^{policy as Ex.Bl.The Tribunal having} appreciated the^{contentions of both parties aldtheir} respective evidence,^{allowed the petitionin part and} a'*,arded Rs.3,6^I ,O00/-.

¶55

Heard both Parties.

¶56

g. Now the point^{for considerationis:}

¶57

Wltether the Tribunal^{committedang error while} computing the compensation,^{thereby granted excess} amount and the same^{needs to be reconsidered or} reduced as^praged for?

¶58

10, POINT:

¶59

As could be seen^{from the ground s on which this} appeal is filed,^{the main contention of the appellant herein}

¶60

-ri

¶61

¶62

MACMA No.1O4a oJ 2O11

¶63

rs with regard to the alleged wrong calculations, income of the deceased and deductions applied by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation amount.

¶64

1 1. The appellant has claimed that even though there is no acceptable evidence, the Tribunal considered monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,OO0 / _ ana instead of applying 5Oo/o of the income as personal expenditure of the deceased applied onry r/3 of the income as expenditure of the deceased and awarded excess amount of Rs.f ,22,000/.

¶65

It is true the Tribunal calculated monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,0OO/-. However, as could be seen from the award, even though it was contended by the respondents that the deceased being partner of a kirana shop, earning Rs.2O,OOO /_ per month in spite of the evidence of pW3 to that effect ignored the same and considered the mon thly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. It may be a fact that no income tax returns or axy documentar5r evidence has been produced before the Court below for considering the income of the

¶66

ffi

¶67

MACMA No.7048^{of 2O11}

¶68

deceased as Rs.4,0OO/-.^{Accordingto the evidence of PW3} the deceased was running a kirana^{shop in partnership} and in support of the said business,^{they liled original} license issued by Municipal^{Council,Rajendralagarwhich} is marked as Ex.A6. PW3 categorically^{deposed beforethe} Court that they are earning^{Rs.20,OOO/-each per month} alter deducting the entire expenditure.^However,the Tribunat did not accept^{the evidenceof PW3 with regard to} the total income of the^{deceased.But, having considered} the business license and oral^{evidence, came tothe} conclusion that the deceased^{could earn Rs'4,000/- per} month. The Tribunal did not^{add any other amountas} future prospects. Now it is settled^{principal of law that} even in case of a self employed^{or a businessman,having} taken the age of the^{deceased into consideration'The} Tribunal could have added^{some percentage of the income} of the deceased towards future^{prospects. Therefore, even if} the contention of the appellant that the^{deceased could} have earn Rs.3,OOO/- per month is taken^into consideration, still the respondents^are entitled^{to claima}

¶69

¶70

MACMA No.1048 of 2Ot 1

¶71

mrnlmum of 4Oo/o of the said income as future prospects, and if it is added the income of the deceased would have been more than Rs.4,O0O/_ per month.

¶72

It is true the Tribunal has deduc ted I / 3 of the lncome of the deceased towards his personal expenditure, ald it is an admitted fact that the deceased was a bachelor. At the same time the Tribunal took the age of the mother of the deceased for applying the multiplier, instead of considering the age of the deceased. In the judgments of Honble Apex court and various High courts, now it is settled law that while considering the compensation in case of the deceased the age of the deceased sha_[ be taken into consideration, but not the age of the dependants as was applied by the Tribunal below.

¶73

In a judgment between Giasi Rorm crrrd crnother a. ICICI Lombard. Genero;l Insurance Compang Llmited and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.7O25_7O 26 of 2022 (SLp (c) Nos.2OO35-20O36 of 2019), the Honble Apex Court, having referred the judgment in Rograr sund.aram Artiance

¶74

¶75

MACMA No.1O4a^{of 2Ol1}

¶76

I t

¶77

-:7

¶78

Insurance Compang^{Limiteda. Mandala Yadagiriand'}

¶79

Othersl, held^{that the age of the deceased, but not the age} of the defendants^{in case of the death of bachelorshall be} taken into^{consideration for applying the multiplier'But, in} the case on hand,^{the Tribunal took the age of his mother'}

¶80

Therefore, if^{the Courtconsidered the age of the} deceased, definitely^{the appellantsherein could have} earned more^{compensation.They did not hle any cross-} appeal for enhancement^{of the compensation' The Tribunal} having accepted the^{evidenceof PW3 and other material} placed before it, cal-ne^{tocorrect conclusionwhile} computing the^{compensation amount. Even though l/3of} the income is^{deducted, if the age of the deceased was} considered, the^{compensationwould have been more than} Rs.3,6 1,OOO/-^{as was awarded by the Tribunal below' This} accident occurred^{about 7 years ago. The compensation} which was awarded on^{13.01.2O11is dehnitely not an} appropriate compensation.^{Therefore,there are no merits} in the appeal^{as such it is liable to be dismissed'}

'^{(2O t9) 5 SCC554}

MACMA No- 1O4a of 2O1 1

¶85

¶86

16 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be

¶87

no order as to costs

¶88

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if

¶89

arty, shall stand closed.

¶90

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: /

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The chairman Motor Vehicre Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-r Additionar District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District at LB Nagar, Hyderabad (with records, if any)

¶96

One CC to SRt. N J SUNTL KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl

¶97

One CC ro SRt. M VtJAyA KUMAR GOUD, Advocate [OeUCl 4. Two CD Two CD Copies

¶98

Two CD Two CD Copies

ADK

, I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810712023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1048 ot 2011

¶106

STATE ots
I
v
q
t2 stt ?s8 C)
C') A'
i
e

¶107

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶108

@ir'.r

¶109

\4.¹³

¶110

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶111

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY^{EIGHTH DAYOF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶112

PRESENT

¶113

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU}

¶114

MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO:1048OF2011}

¶115

Between:

¶116

M/s. National lnsurance Company^{Limited, Rep by its Regional Office,D.O.-ll,} Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶117

..PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶118

AND

¶119

Vasa Thirupathaiah, S/o. Narsaiah,^{Occ: Business R/o. H No.8-13-7lA'} Ganeshnalar, Kattedan^{Village, Rajendernagar Rev. Mandal, R.R. District.}

¶120

Vasa Saraswathamma,^{Wo. Thirupathaiah, Occ: Housewife,R/o.H N9} - - - A-li-tA, Ganeshnagar, Kattedan Village, Rajendernagar Rev. Mandal, R R. Diskict.

¶121

Vasa Bharathi, D/o.^{Thirupathaiah, Occ:Student, R/o, H N.o, B:1?-7!'.} . . - Glneshnagar,'Kattedan Village, Rajendernagar Rev. Mandal, R.R District'

¶122

Vasa Bhavani, D/o. Thirupathaiah,^{Student, Rl/o. H.No. 8-13-7lA'} Ganeshnagar, Kattedan^{Village,Rajendelnagar,RevMandal,R R. District.} (Res No.^'1 to 4 were the^petitioners in OPNo^{158of 2007)}

¶123

(R3 & R4 are Minors represented by Father^Rl)

¶124

M/s. Transport Corporation^{of lndiaLimited, Re.p^by it! Manager Door No'} 306, A.B. Chambeis, S.P.Road,^{Secunderabad Occ Owner of the Lorry (Res} No. 5 was respondent No.^{1 in OPNO.158of 2007)}

¶125

...RESPONDENTS

¶126

Appeal filed Under Section^{',l73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgmentand} decreeinOP NO.^{158o1r 2007dated. 13-1-2011onthefileof theCourtof the} chairman Motor Vehicle^{Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-l AdditionalDistrictand} Sessions Judge, R.R. District^{at LB Nagar, Hyderabad}

¶127

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearingand uponperusing the groundsof} appeal, the Judgment^{and Decree of the LowerCourt and the materialpapers in} the case and upon hearing^{the arguments of sRl. N J SUNIL KUMAR,Advocate for} the Appellant and of SRl.^{M VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD,Advocate for the Respondent} No. 1 to 4 and none appeared^{for the respondent no.5.}

¶128

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶129