Allowed

Dayyala Bikshapathi and 3 Others v. E.Narsimha Yadav and Another

Telangana HC24 Nov 2023MACMA/1250/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in a motor accident matter, enhancing compensation from Rs. 4,37,000 to Rs. 12,52,400. The court considered future prospects of a self-employed deceased aged 26 awarded loss of dependency, conventional heads, and filial consortium to parents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 12,52,400 with interest at 7.5% per annum. Insurance company directed to deposit the entire amount within one month.

Dayyala Bikshapathi and 3 Others Vs E.Narsimha Yadav… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY ,TFIE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE'SUDHA

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN^{EOUSAPPEAL NO: 1250 OF 2013}

¶6

Appeal Under S€ction 173 of Motor^Vehicles Act^{against the order and decree} in M.V.O.P.No.2480 of 201O dated^{0110212013on the file of the Court of the} Chairman Motor Accident^Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll^{AddilionalChief Judge, CityCivil} Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . Dayyala Bikshapathi, S/o Sathaiah, Occ^{Nil (died),}

¶9

Smt.D.Rajamani, Wo D.Bikshapathi,^{Housewife,Rl/o H.No.306'Pedda} Amberpet, Near Hanuman Temple,^Hyderabad.

¶10

3- D.Swapna, D/o D.Bikshapathi,^{House hold,Rl/o H.No.306, Pedda Amberpet,} Near Hanuman Temple, Hyderabad.

¶11

D.Prashanthi, D/o D.Bikshapathi,^{Occ Student, R/o H.No.306,Pedda} Amberpet, Near Hanuman^{Temple, Hyderabad.} (Petitioners 2 to 4 are L.Rs. of 1s'^petitioner Recorded as^{per Memo in} sRNo63/20'13dated07'01'2013)

¶12

...A,'ELLANTS/A,'L..ANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

E. Narsimha Yadav, S/o E.Rama Swamy,^{Occ Owner of crime vehicle,Rl/o} H.no.5-1 9/23, Jafferguda, Batasingaram,^{Hayathnagar, R.R.District}

¶15

The Manager, Oriental^lnsurance Co.Ltd,^{G2-976, 1st Floor, Pavani Estates,} P.8.No.74, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/OPP. PARTIES

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRl. C. MOHANPRAKASH}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl.^{MEDURIVARA PRASADARAO}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶20

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE P.SREE SUDIIA

¶23

M.A.C.M. A.No.125O of2O13

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

This appeal is frled against the Order dated 01.O2.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.248O of 2O1O passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Cirril Court, Hyderabad.

¶26

The appellants/petitioners frled M.V.O.p.No.2480 of 2010, claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,0O0/_ for the death of the deceased in the road tralfic accident occurred on 18.O8.2O1O. The deceased was running a shop in the name arrd style of Raviteja Engineering Works and earning Rs. 15,OOO/- per month.

¶27

The Trial Court considering tJle oral and documentar5r evidence granted Rs.4,37,OOO/- with interest @ 60/. per annum from the date of petition to till tJ.e date of deposit. Challenging the quantum of compensation as meagre, the petitioners have filed the present appeal.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners further contended that tJle age of the deceased was 26 years, the trial taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,OOO/_ and

¶29

¶30

his future prospects were not added. Therefore, requested the Court to modifu the award of the trial Court.

¶31

As per tJle guidelines of the Hon,ble Apex Court in dictum of Sa;lrr Vertna Vs. Delhi Tro;nspor.t, CorTtoration,t if the deceased was unmarried, 1/3'd of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses as there are three dependants. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.48,OO0/- per annum and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of Natlonal Insurance Compang Limtted Vs. pranag Sethp, held ttrat t.Ile future prospects of income of the self-employed deceased shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering tJre age of the deceased, 4Oo/o of the income has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.67,2OO/-. This sum if multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.l7, it would come to Rs.11,42,4O0/-. Thus, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to Rs.11,42,400/- under the head 'loss of Dependency'.

¶32

' lzoosy^{o scc tz r}

'1zorz1^{to scc eao}

1i U

... -_- ,

Besides, the appellalts are also entitled for compensation under tonventional heads, as prescribed in ttre dictum of Natlonal Ins..trance Campang Limited. Vs. Pranqy Sethi, i.e., Rs.15,O0O/_ towards loss of Estate and Rs. 15,OO0/- towards funeral charges.

¶38

F\rrther, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of tonsortium, given in the authority of Magma General Insirtr:olnce Compang Ltmited us. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhnt Ram & othert* , and in the authorit5r between tlnited. Indlo: Insurance Compang Limited. as. Satinder l(aur @ Sa:trrullnder Kaur and. others+, fortilied that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents as larental consortium, and to the parents as, 'filial consortium, for tJle .loss of their grown_up children, to compensate their agony, love and alfection, care and companionstrip of deceased children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.SO,OOO/_ as frlial consortium to the petitioner No. 1.

¶39

'(zots)^ta scc ro o lzozoy I scc oa+ ---

¶40

¶41

(-<br>

¶42

Therefore,^{the appellants/petitionersare entitled for the}

¶43

compensation^{in the following terms:}

¶44

1	GssofdePendencY	Rs.11,a2,aOO/-
2	Conventional^Heads	Rs.30,OOO/-
J	FilialConsortium	Rs.80,0OO/-
	TOTAL	Rs.12,52'4OOt-

¶45

g. In the result,^{the appeal is allowed by enhancingthe} compensation^{amount fromRs'4'37'OO0/ - to Rs' 12'52'4O0 / -} (Rupees Twelve^{Lakhs Fifty TwoThousand and Four Hundred} only) with^{interest at the rate of 7 '5'/o per annum to the} enhanced^{amountfrom the date of frling tJle petition tjll date} of realization.^{Though the respondent Nos'1and 2 are jointly} and severally^{liable to pay the compensation'respondent} No.2/Insurance^{Companyshalldeposittheentire} arnount^{within a period of one month from the date of} order. As on tfre^{date of flling the appeal' the} respond.ent^{Nos.3 and 4 who are brother and sister of} thedeceasedhada.lreadyattainedtheageofrnajority, entitled^{foraPPortionment'} as such^{tl.eY are not} No.2 is entitled^{to withdraw} Petitioner^No.2 /^aPPellant ttre entire^{arnount with the interest accruedon it' The}

¶46

¶47

appellants /p etitioners are directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no

¶48

order as to costs.

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions pending, i1 any, shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/. K. VENKAIAfl / ASSISTANTREGISTRAR / Y

//TRUE COPY//

pEcTtoN oFFICER

To,

The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-x I Additionar chief

¶55

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶56

One CC to SRt. C MOHAN PRAKASH Advocate [OpUC]

¶57

One CC to SRt. MEDURT VARA PRASADR RnO AOvocaie [OpUC] 4. Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies

¶58

Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies

kvr/jak

"f
k

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411112023

SIATE o
Y
q o
t [ [ls 81t
oo
B€

¶66

JUDGMENT

¶67

MACMA.No.1250 of 2013

ALLOWED

e^cs8r> D1 ffi

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶72

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY^{FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYTHREE}

¶73

PRESENT

¶74

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEP.SREESUDHA}

¶75

MOTOR ACCIDENT CI^{VIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO: 1250 OF 2013}

¶76

Between:

¶77

1 . Dayyala Bikshapathi,^{S/o Sathaiah' Occ Nil (died)'}

¶78

Z. Srnt.O.n";amani,^{W/o D.Bikshapathi, Housewife,Rl/o H'No-306,Pedda} Amberpet, Near Hanuman^{Temple, Hyderabad.}

¶79

e. D.Swapna, D/o D.Bikshapathi'^{House hold,Rl/o H.No 306, Pedda Amberpet'} Near Hanuman^{TemPle, HYderabad.HYderabad.}

¶80

Near Hanuman^{TemPle, HYderabad.HYderabad.}

¶81

1. D.Prashanthi, D/o^{'D.Bikahapathi,Occ Student, Rl/o H No 306,Pedda} Amberpet, Near^{HanumanTemple, Hyderabad.} (Petitioneis 2 Io 4 arc L.Rs.^{of 1'r petitionerRecordedas per Memoin} sR'No'63/2013dated0701'2013'

¶82

...oppELLANTs/AppLtcANTS

¶83

AND

¶84

E. Narsimha Yadav,^{S/o E.Rama Swamy,Occ Owner of crimevehicle' R/o} H.no.5-19/23,^{Jafferguda,Batasirgaram, Hayathnagar, R R''District}

¶85

2.TheManager,OrientallnsuranceCo.Ltd,6-2-gT6,lstFloor,PavaniEstates' P'B'No74'Khairatabad' Hyderabad

¶86

...RESpoNDENTs/opp.^pARTrEs

¶87

AppealUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorderanddecree inM.V.o.P.No.24Socrf2olodatdollo2t2ol3onthefileoftheCourtofthe chairman Motor Accident^{claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional chiefJudge,city civil} Court, Hyderabad.

¶88

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearing and uponperusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decreeof{he Lower Court andthe material papers in the} case and upon hearing the^{arguments of sri. c. Mohan Prakash, Advocate for the} Appellant and of Sri.^{MeduriVaraPrasada Rao,Advocate for the RespondentNo'2} and of None appeared^for the^{Respondent No.1.}

¶89

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶90

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be^and hereby^{is Allowed} by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.4,37,0001 to^{Rs.12,52,4001} (Rupees Twelve lakhs fifty two thousand and four hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o^per annum to the enhanced amount from the date of filing the^petition till date of realization;

¶91

That the respondent No.1 and 2 be and hereby Jointly and Severally liable to pay the compensatiorr;

¶92

That the Respondent No.2/lnsurance company shall deposit the entire amount within a^period of one month from the date of order;

¶93

That the respondent No.3 & 4 who are brother and sister of the deceased as on the date of filing the appeal had already attained the age of majority as such they be and hereby not entitled for apportionment;

¶94