Partly allowed

S. Sharada and 2 Others v. Ch. Papaiah and Another

Telangana HC7 Aug 2023MACMA/1142/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of 50% contributory negligence but enhanced the compensation by correcting the deceased's income from Rs.3,000 to Rs.5,000, applying a multiplier of 17, and adjusting for future prospects, resulting in a total award of Rs.3,93,500.

What did the court decide?

The award is enhanced from Rs.1,29,500 to Rs.3,93,500 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

S. Sharada and 2 Others Vs Ch. Papaiah and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

<br>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST ./. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1142 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal u/sec.173 of M.V.Act. against the Decree and Order Passed in O.P.No.731 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dt.18-10-201 0.

¶8

Between:

¶9

S. Sharada, Wo Late Devraj Household R/o 19-5-32l13161N1, N.M. Guda, Kishna Bagh Hyderabad

¶10

S. Vishwanath, S/o Late Dev Rai Student R/o. 19-5-32113161N1, N.M. Guda, Kishna Bagh Hyderabad

¶11

S. Chandra Shekar, S/o Late Dev Raj Student PJo. 19-5-32113/6/A/1, N-M. Guda, Kishna Bagh Hyderabad

¶12

.,,APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Ch. Papaiah , S/o Chennaiah Major Fl/o H.No. 40/790-78, Nehru Nagar, Kurnool , A.P.

¶15

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, United Building Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants No.1to 2 :Sri. Kurella Ramalingeswara Swamy

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2; V Krishna Rao

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No1 : None appeared.

¶20

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA^'ESHWAR^RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.1142 0F 2()ll

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This M.A.C.M.A is liled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants / petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18.10.2010, passed in O.P.No.731 of 2OO9 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-Il Additional Chief Judge City Civil Courts,

¶25

Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal")

¶26

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that on 13.O1.20O9, S. Shiva Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was proceedings towards Hyderabad from Jedcharla on his motorcycle beaiing No.AP l2G 7747 and when he reached in front of a Dhaba (Hotel) at about 07:3O PM, a lorry bearing No.AP-2 lT-1441, which was stationed in the middle of the road without taking precautions, and due to the focus of lights of vehicles coming in opposite directions, the deceased dashed against the stationed lorry. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, and from there

¶28

{

¶29

2 I{RN.J .lAcMA I l4l_201^I

¶30

to Osmania General^{Hospital,Hyderabad, where he} succumbed to^{injuries while undergoingtreatmenton} 15.O1.2009.^{The petitionersfiled the aforesaid O.P. claiming} compensation of^{Rs.6,O0,O00/- for the deceased'sdeath.}

¶31

Before the Tribunal,^{respondentNo.1 remainedex parte-} Respondent^{No.2 hled a counterdenying the allegationsmade} in the petition.^{They mainlycontendedthat the deceased} drove the motorcycle^{rashly and negligentlymanner and} cdused the accident.^{Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the O'P'}

¶32

5 To prove their case,^{petitionersexamined PWs 1 and 2} and got marked Ex.Al^{to A5.On behalf of the 2'd} respondent, no oral^{evidence was adduced, but Ex'B1/copy} was marked.

¶33

Considering the claim,^{counter and the evidence,both} oral and documentar5r^{broughton record, the Tribunal,} though assessed that^{the petitioners are entitledtoa} compensatiorr of^{Rs.2,59,OOOl-,allowed the O'P' inpart} awarding compensation^{of Rs. l,29,5OOl- only, togetherwith} interest at 7.5o/o^{p.a. from the date of the petition tillits} deposit as it found that^{there was contributorynegligence at} 507o on the part of the^{deceased.Challengingthe sameand}

¶34

\ \

¶35

RRN.J N,IACMA I I.T2 2OI I

¶36

¶37

¶38

the quantum of compensation as meagre, the^{petitionershave} liled the present appeal

¶39

7 . Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants had submitted that the Tribunal erred in attributing SO'k of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased even though it was stated that the driver of the lorry parked the offending vehicle in the middle of the road without any precautions. Learned counsel for the petitioners / appellants further submitted that at the time of death, deceased's age is 26 years, and he was a goldsmith, earning Rs.6,OO0/- per month. The tribunal considered the monthlv income of the deceased at Rs.3,OO0/- only. It was also contended that the Tribunal did not award future prospects on the income of the deceased, and the age of the mother of the deceased was considered for multiplier instead of considering the age of the deceased. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶41

Learned bounsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and no

¶42

¶43

RRN,J MACNIA I 142^201I

¶44

interference is^{requiredby this Court and prayedto dismiss} the appeal

¶45

¶46

Having considered^{the rival contentions of both parties'} this Court is of the^{considered view that the Tribunalwas} justified in finding that the^{deceasedcontributednegligencein} causing the accident,^{and the liability was apportioned on the} driver of the offending^{vehicle and the deceased at 50%o each'} as the Tribunal^{rightly relied on the decision in Anuradha} Kaushik Vs Varun^{Ground Water DevelopmentCorporationI} l2OO7l^{ACC 3O5 (DB), whereinatanker was parked} negligently in^{the middle of the road' No red signalwas given} indicated^{parking,and the van, the deceasedwas travelling in} came ald hit the tanker^{from behind'On these facts' it was} held that the drivers^{of both vehicles were liable, and the} Court apportioned^{the liability between the two partiesas 50-} 50. As in the^{case on hand, the Tribunal observed that the} accident occurred^{in front of a Dhaba (hotel) and it was on a} National Highway.^{The time of accident was 7'3O p'm'' at that} time, there^{would be heavy traflic and a several vehicles would} go on the way. PW.2, an^{eyewitness, did not say that there} were no lights near Dhaba^{or that the vehicle, whichwas} parked, was not visible.^{He only stated that the lorry driver}

¶47

¶48

RRN.J MACMA I I42 2OII

¶49

¶50

did not put on the parking lights^{or red signals.Since the} accident occurred on a Highway with^{heavy trafhc and} occurred in front of a Dhaba^(Hotel), one can^{see the iorry} atleast from a distance of 25 meters even though^parking lights are not put on. In the^present case, the^{petitionersare} entitled to only 50% of the compensation.

¶51

I 1. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had granted compensation in terms of II^{Schedule(Section} 163-A) prevailing at that time, considering the age of^the deceased as 26 years. The learned counsel for^{the petitioners} contends that the Tribunal had considered the^meagre monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,OOO/- which is to^be enhanced. The petitioners failed to adduce any^evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.6,00O/- per month. However,ⁱⁿ the absence of any income proof, considering the deceased^to have been working as a goldsmith, being a skilled labour, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased^at Rs.5,000/- as per the decision in Sanobo,nu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport^Servicer wherein it was held as follows:

¶52

'^{zot+(tl ,rLor to (sc)}

¶53

RRN.J I{ACNI r\ I l{l^201I

r! I rl

I I I i

"Hauing regord^{to nature of job that deceasedwas} performing as skilted polisher, it tuould^{be just ond} proper to take his monthlg income^{as Rs 5,000/}

¶58

To this, the deceased age is^{26 years,if he was alive, he may} continue another several^yea-rs the^{same work, to that extent,} future prospects of 4Ooh^{are to be added as per the decision of} the Honlrle Supreme Court in^{National Ins4ranceCompang}

¶59

Ltd. Vs. Pranag Sethiz as the^{deceased was aged 26 years'} The Tribunal wrongly took the^{age of the deceased'smother} for applying the appropriate^{multiplier.But, in view of the} Apex Court^judgment in^{Munna Lal Jain V.Vipin} Kumar Sharrnaz when the^{deceasedwas a bachelor, the} age of the deceased^{must beconsideredwhile} determining the multiplier^{and not the motherage'As} such, the appropriate multiplier^{as per the decisionof the} Apex Court in Sorla Venna^{Vs. Delhi Transport} Corporationa is 17.

¶60

The annual income of^{the deceased, includingfuture} prospects, would come to Rs.84,000/- {Rs.5,000/-+4Oo/o^{x l2l}

¶61

' 1:o^{rz; rr sccoso}

¶62

' :o rs1o1 scc l+z

¶63

' 1:oooy^{e scc tzr}

¶64

RRN.J MACMA I I42 ]OII

¶65

¶66

(

¶67

for the age group of 26 years. Since the deceased was a bachelor, a deduction of SOYc' of the income towards personal expenses, which the deceased might have spent for himself, is proper. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,14,OOO/- (Rs.8a,000/- Minus 5O%o x 1,7)

¶68

The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,OOO/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1O,O0O/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,0O0/towards love and affection. However, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi supra and Magma Insurd.nce Compang Ltd.

¶69

1S Vs. Nanu Ram @1 Chuhru Rams. The l"t petitioner awarded Rs.4O,OOO/ towards loss of filial consortium, + Rs. 16,5OO/- (Rs. 15,000/10%) towards funeral expenses and Rs.16,5OO/ (Rs.15,OOO/- + lOo/ol towards loss of estate

¶70

In all, the compensation amount assessed comes to Rs.7,87,000/-. However, as this Court has upheld the frnding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence at 5O%o on the part of the deceased, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.3,93,5OO/- only.

¶71

52O18 Law Suit (SCl 90a

I I I I I I i

I I I I I l l

RRN.' lvlAci,lA I 142 2{Jl I

¶77

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, and the compensation amount avarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.l,29,5OO/- to Rs.3,93,5OO/- (Rupees Three Lakh, Ninety Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) with interest @7.5^{o/o p.a. from the date of petition tillthe date of} rea-lization. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with the manner and ratio as determined by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs

¶78

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. rrl . SD/- P.PADMANABHA REDDY l, i ASS]STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Ei II t \U/ I sEcnorvoFFrcE I

¶79

To, I
1 T Ie Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum ll Additional Chief Judge, City
Cit/il Court, Hyderabad. (with records if any)
2. Ofie CC to SRl. Kurella Ramalingeswara Swamy Advocate [OPUC]
a. ofielcc to SRl. V Krishna Rao Advocate IOPUCI
4 T{o-CD Copies
trT - <'- 2.,'("'
Irt
x
*
, i-

¶80

¶81

RRNJ,,", "arl DATED:07^f.

¶82

10812023

¶83

I
l
taIf
tvr ',1*F
I
}t
l-.'
I
l, 1 lT
f, t'
JUDGMEN ?
MACMA.N .1142 of 2011

¶84

Ii.
!
:,;.
.1 it{
-{ 1.
:.tY'
:1
,i
Ii
Ta
I
t
ii
M.A.C.M:A S PARTLY ALLOWED.
.r:,1. .,. *1,
,
.tit \ !
'!,
3 u- >5
{
i

¶85

{ G STATE oA
(
o
f stt ?tl8
2?_ AT
*
i
DEs-lP i 5

¶86

) i I i l l I

¶87

<br>

¶88

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
; AT HYDERABAD
t
,:' MONDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
: TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREi
PRESENT
!
.THE
ONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVlL MtscELLAN
EOUS APPEAL NO:1142 oF 2011
Between:
1
. Sharada Wo Late Devi
ucta,,Kishna ergh Hyo"rroJEj Household R/o 19-5-32113/6/4/1, N.M
2 Vishwanath, S/o Late
.;i:, uda;Kishna Bagh HyderabadDev Raj Student No. 19-5-32/13/6/4/1, N_[/.
i
3 chandra Shekdr, S/o Late Dev Ra
,ti:: .M. G uda, Kishna Bagh Hyderabad j Student No. 19-S-32t13t6tN1 ,
{
? ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS
AND. 1
l_
5 ,;.
t
:.:, . .l:
C
.,. rnl1', Nagar, Kurnool., hl Papaiah iS/o.Chennaiah A.p. Major Ri/o H.No. 401790_78, Nehru
H:,l:', j?:li"1i"'J'6,],fu:,?.8T.1{"r"ilTJ,f,
lrl,is;?tirsResionar
J
..,RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
lu/sec.'l73 of M.V.Act against the Decree and Order pa ssed in
O.P.No.73 1. ot 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribun al Cum ll
Additional Ghief Jud ge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dt. 1 8-j O-201 O.
This peal coming on for hearin g and upon perusing the Memorand um of
Appeal, th orders of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and
Advocatefor upon hearithe g llantthe Respondent the and :arguments of V KrishnaNo.1of Sri none appeared.Sri.Rao, Advocate Kurella Ramalingefor the swara respondent No.2, Swamy, Advocateand of

¶89

¶90

The Court ma de the following: JUDGMENT

¶91

1 AIfromThat the d in the Motor compensatiAccident Ci on vil amount Miscellaneous awardedAppeal be by the Tribunal and herebis y enhancedis partly I Rs.1,29,5001 to Rs.3,93,500/- (Rupees Three Lakh, Ninety Three

¶92

Tho USAN d and five H undred only) with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶93

1. coststThatithe respondentsand interest afteNo.'l r deducting the amountand 2 are directed to ifadny, already eposit the said amount deposited withinwith 3. twoThatmo nths from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 4.irThat! in '.accoall ther respects; n ance ve as aforesaidsuch with the mannei and deposit;andrthe the petitioners aredecree of theration asdLower Courtpetermined emitted to bshall stands confirmedy withdraw the Tribunal;the same tn

¶94