Allowed

Bojja Radha Bai and 4 others v. P. Prasad and 2 others

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023MACMA/1272/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal filed by claimants challenging the compensation order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court enhanced the compensation by factoring in future earning prospects, correcting the multiplier, and revising consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 8,58,000/ to Rs. 16,98,960/-; interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded.

Bojja Radha Bai and 4 others Vs P. Prasad and 2 others — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N Oi 1272OF 2023

¶6

Appeal Under SectionlT3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No. 413 of 1999 dated^'10.06.2002 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- l"rAdditional District Judge, at Nalgonda. Between:

¶7

1 Bolja Rqdha Bai, Wo. late Srihari, (since died), R/ o. Dandu Matkapuram Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶8

2, B. Aliveni, D/o. late Srihari, aged about 36 years,

¶9

B. Devi Prasad, S/o. late Srihari, aged about 35years, Occ Private employee,

¶10

B. Krishnaveni, D/o. late Srihari, aged about 32 years,

¶11

B. Aswini, D/o. late Srihari, aged about 30 years, All FI o. Dandu Malkapuram Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶12

NOTE: Appellants 2 to 5 are LRs of mother i.e. Appellant No.1 B. Radha Bai

¶13

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 P. Prasad, S/o- P. Venkateshwarlu, aged. Major, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.59A-'1-3/5, K.P. Nagar,Vijayawada,(Owner of the Lorry bearing No.ABC 2060)

¶16

2 The New lndia Assurance Co. Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Prakasam Bazar, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶17

3 B. Pendamma, Wo. Narsimha, (since died) Rl/o. Dandu Malkapuram Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶18

(Respondent No.3 not necessary party)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants :^{Sri T. VISWARUPA CHARY}

¶21

¶22

Counsel for Respondent No.2 :^{Sri KOTASUBBA RAO}

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No.'l :^Noneappeared

¶24

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.^LAXMAN

¶26

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL} No.l272 OF 2023

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

1S 1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous^Appeal filed by the appellants claimants challenging the Order and Decree, dated 10.O6.2OO2 in OP No.413 of 1999 on the file of^the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal^(l Additional District Judge) at Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as "Iribunal')

¶29

The main grievance of the appellants is that the Tribunal while calculating the loss of earnings of the deceased did not consider the grant of future prospects in the earning capacity of the deceased, who was permanent employee in Railways.^The other grievance is that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier and the appropriate multiplier was '15', however the Tribunal has taken multiplier as '12.79' and the Tribunal has not granted compensation under various conventional heads.

¶30

Since, none appeared for respondent No.2 Insurance Company, Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel is appointed^as Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 to assist the Court. In pursuance of such directions, he appeared and opposed the enhancement of compensation.

¶31

Heard both sides

¶32

llL. .l ttAC.V.4 No.l27 2 ol )02-l

¶33

¶34

The unchallenged facts are^{that the accident occurred on} account of rash and negligence^{drivingof driver of Lorry ownedby} respondent No.1 and the^{vehiclewas insured with respondent} No.2. The policy was in^{force on the date of accident' It is also} not in dispute that the^{deceased was the Railway employee, he} was drawing monthly^{sa1aryof Rs.8,228/-.The Tribunalhas not} considered the future^{increasein the earningcapacity of the} deceased. The deceased^{was 4O years old at the time of accident'} If the individual^{was between40 to 5O years, 307o of the monthly} income is taken as future^{prospectsof the deceased' Therefore,} 3O%o ofthe income^{of the deceasedcomes to Rs.2,468/-'The total} monthly incomc of the deceased^{comes to Rs.10,696/- (Rs'B,228+} 2,4681. The annual^{income of the deceasedcomes to} Rs.1,28,352/-^(Rs.10,696 x^{12). The appropriate multiplier for} the person age group^{between 36 to 4O is '15'' The total loss of} income of the deceased^{comes to Rs.19,25,280/-.}

¶35

The deceased survived by^{six (06) dependants'l/4tt' of the} income of the deceased^{shall be deductedtowardspersonal} expenses of the deceased.^{After deduction of 1'f 4tr'' of income of} the deceased, which comes^{to Rs.14,43,9601- (Rs'19,25,280-} Rs.19,25,280 x ll4l. The^{total loss of income of the deceased} comes to Rs. 14,43,960/-.

¶36

AIL..1 3 V:4C-VA No.12 72 ol 2023

¶37

7 The Tribunal awarded loss o[ consortium of Rs.15,000/_ to the wife alone and also awarded Rs.2,oo0/- towards funerar expenses. The claimants are entitled for consortium of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.40,000 6) and also awarded Rs.l5,O00/_ towards funeral expenses.

¶38

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by enhancing compensation from Rs.g,5g,OO0/_ to Rs.16,98,960/-. The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7'5%oper annum from the date of firing of the o.p. till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally Iiable to deposit the enhanced amount to the credit of O.p. aiong with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount in the proportions, as hxed by the Tribunal. The amount shall be paid to the appellant on payment of dehcit Court fee on the compensation. I There shall be no order as to costs. Miscelaneous petitions I pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT GISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶40

sEcTto OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The Chairman, Motor Accident^{Claims Tribunal -cum- l"tAdditional District} Judge, at Nalgonda.^(with records,^{lf any)}

¶43

One CC to^Sri T.^{VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶44

One CC to Sri KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

!4 .i

HIGH COURT

Dhreo,r lrost2ozg

UUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.1272 ot 2023

¶52

r):.
+
t
c
3i .jI
-l ,.,
*
cEsr rit.,\'- )/'

ALLOWING THE APPEAL

,ry{'o

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶58

MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶59

PRESENT

¶60

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶61

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS CELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 1 272 0F 2023}

¶62

Between:

¶63

: 1. Bojja Radha Bai, W/o. late Srihari,^{(sincedied), F/ o. Dandu Malkapuram} Viliage, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶64

B. Aliveni, D/o. late Srihari, aged about^{36 years,}

¶65

t 3. B. Devi Prasad, S/o. late Srihari,^{aged about 3syears, Occ Private} employee,

¶66

B. Krishnaveni, D/o. late Srihari, aged about^{32 years,}

¶67

II 5. B. Malkapuram Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Aswini, D/o. late Srihari, aged^{about Nalgonda 30 years, District.All R/ oDandu}

¶68

NOTE: Appellants 2 to 5 are LRs of mother^{i.e. Appellant No.1B. Radha Bai}

¶69

...APPELLANTS/PETITION ERS

¶70

AND

¶71

P. Prasad, S/o. P- Venkateshwarlu, aged^. Major,^{Occ. Business,Rl/o.} H.No.59A-1-3/5, K.P. Nagar,Vijayawada,(Owner^{of the Lorry bearing} No.ABC 2060)

¶72

The New lndia Assurance Co. Limited,^{Rep. by its Branch lvlanager,} Prakasam Bazar, Nalgonda Town and^District.

¶73

,|I

¶74

¶75

B. Pendamma, Wio. Narsimha,^{(sincedied)Rl/o. Dandu Malkapuram} Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶76

(Respondent No.3 not necessary^party)

¶77

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶78

Appeal Under Sectionl T3 of^{Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decreein} O.P.No.413 of 1999 dated 10.06.2002^{on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor} Accident Claims Tribunal^{-cum-1'r Additional District Judge' at Nalgonda.}

¶79

ORDER: This appeal coming on^{for hearingand uponperusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree^{of the Lower Court and the material papersin the}

¶80

case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent^No.2. This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

¶81

That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed by enhancing compensation^from Rs.8,58,0001 to Rs.¹ 6,98,9601^-

¶82

That the compensation shall carry interest at 7.5%^per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization

¶83

i 3. That Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are iointly and severely liable to deposit the enhanced amount for the credit of O.P. along with accrued interest within a period of two months from the ate of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶84

That, on such deposit the appellants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount in the proportions as fixed by the Tribunal

¶85

That the amount shall be paid to the appellant on payment of deficit court fee on the compensation; and

¶86

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶87

Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEc N OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal +um- l"rAdditional Diskict Judge, at Nalgonda.

¶92

Two CD Copies

TYH/NJB

I ,

HIGH COURT J DLr=r,, 1tost2o23

¶97

I
r
I
i
* I
DECREE
),
M CMA.No.1272 of 2023
+ I
ALLOWING THE APPEAL
€,
1't '.o.

Bojja Radha Bai and 4 others v. P. Prasad and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bojja Radha Bai and 4 others v. P. Prasad and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mekala Sanjanna ( died) Vs Kudukuntla Kousalya

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukka Virupaksham and 7 Ors.

Malluri Revathi , Kalyani and 4 Ors. Vs Mukka Virpaksham and 3 Ors.

Addula Gopal Reddy Vs Kodiganti Shanker Reddy

M.Balamani and 2 Ors. Vs Mr.a.Mahesh Kumar and Anr.

Mohd. Parvez Vs A.P. State Electricity Board