Allowed

Muppalaneni Subhadra and Another v. G Venkanna and Another

Telangana HC3 Nov 2023MACMA/1285/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, enhancing death compensation from Rs. 4.28 lakhs to Rs. 10.52 lakhs based on income evidence and application of judicial precedents. The Court dismissed the insurance company's counter-appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 10,52,800/-; insurance company directed to deposit amount within one month; interest awarded.

Muppalaneni Subhadra and Another Vs G Venkanna and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

MACMA NO: 1285 AND 1377 OF 2013

¶7

MACMA NO: 1377 OF 2013

¶8

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No-728 of 2010 dated 2810212013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman [/totor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lst Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cumXV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1. Muppalaneni Subhadra, W/o Late Rama Rao, Occ - Household, Ryo Vanasthalipuram, R.R.Dist.

¶11

Guntu Nagarajuna , Kumar, Wo., Veeranjaneyulu,, Occ - Household, Rl/o Vanasthalipuram, R.R.Dist. * : !', ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

G. Venkanna, S/o Buchaiah, Ri/o Kattanagur Village & Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. 2. The Divisional Manager National lns Co Ltd, D.O.4, ll Floor, Twin Citys Market Complex, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyd-O1.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPON DENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants: MR. CHANDRAIAH SOMAVARAPU

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: MR. P. BHANU PRAKASH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED

¶18

MACMA NO: 1377 OF ml3

¶19

¶20

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.728 of 2010 dated 2810212013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lst Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cumXV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶21

Between:

¶22

'1. The Divisional Manager, National lnsurance Company Limited, National lnsurance Company Limited D.O.4, ll Floor Twin Cities Market Complex Mojam Jahi Market Hyderabad - 500 001

¶23

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶24

AND

¶25

1 Muppalaneni Subhadra, Wici. Late Rama Rao, Occ House hold R/o Vanasthalipuram Ranga Reddy District.

¶26

2 Guntu Nagaraja Kumar, W/o. Veeranjaneyulu, Occ House hold R/o Vanasthalipuram Ranga Reddy District. I

¶27

t^{...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERSNO.1 & 2}

¶28

G. Venkanna, S/o. Buchaiah, Fi/o. KatPrrfgrl Vitl"g" and Mandal of Nalgonda Diskict. . :.; 't I . ].nespottoENTs/RESpoNDENT No.1

¶29

Counsel for the Appellants: MR. P. BHANU PRAKASH

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.l & 2: MR. CHANDRAIAH SOMAVARAPU

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: NONE APPEARED '. 1

¶32

The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT^'

¶33

¶34

l:
ti't ,sJ.il t {i

¶35

{
? -l
1,
!
lt )
etIt ?Tq Ii
i
&
l

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No s.12 85 & 1377 of2o13

¶38

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶39

These appeals are filed against the Order dated 28.02.2013 in O.P.No.728 of 20 1O passed by the. learned I - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶40

The petition uide O.p.No.72B of 2OtO was fited by rhe petitioners/claimants claiming cornpensation of Rs.9,OO,O0O/for the death of the deceased M.Naresh, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.09.2009. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation ol Rs.4,28,OOO/- along with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Order, they pr-eferred M.A.C.M.A. No.l2g5 of 2013.

¶41

The lnsurance Company has also filed M.A.C. M.A.No.1377 of 20 lO agai nst the same Order in O.P.No.728 of 201O ancl disputed th<l quantum of compensation

¶42

¶43

awarded by the triai Court and requested thc Court to set aside the Order of the trial Corrrt.

¶44

Heard arguments of both side s ancl peruscd the en tire evidence on record.

¶45

5- Parties herein are relerrcd as petitioners and respondents as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶46

The brief facts of rhe case are rhat on 29.09 _2OO9, when the deceased M.Naresh, r.tas procecding on a bike along with one V.Kishore, as a pillion ridcr to his residcnce at Chowtuppal from his work place in Lingojiguda and when he reached outskirts of Lingogiguda, a mirri lorry bearing No.Ap 24 X 9360 came from opposite direction and dashed them by crossing the middle line of the road. As a result, the deceased M.Naresh died on the spot and the rider V. Kishore sustaincd fracture to head bone and subsequently he was also died. The potice registered a case in Cr.No.268 of 2OO9 and filcd a copy of the inqucst under Ex.A2 and a copy of the Charge shcet under Ex.AS.

¶47

As the present appeals arc prefcrrcd only against the quantum of compensation granted by the triat Court, thc issue

¶48

regarding rash and ncgligencc of rhc riclcr o[ the vehicle need not be gone into

¶49

The petitioner No. I cxamincd trr:rse l[ as p.W. 1 and got examined P.Ws.2 & 3 and marked tixs.A I to A2 I on their behalf and Ex.B 1 was marked on behall' ol' tlrt' rr;spondents.

¶50

The learned Counscl lbr thc pr'ritroncrs mainly contended that though they got cxaminc<l tht.t rnPlovcr o[ the deceased as P.W.3 and also [rlccl Ex.A(: srtlrrrr (.(,r'rili(izltc to show that deceased was earning Rs.(>,500i 1tr.r r.r'r<.rn th, the trial Court without assigning any reasons t:rkcrr his salary as Rs.4,0O0/per month. Therclore, requestcd tlt is Corrrt ro take his salary as Rs.6,50O/ - per month.

¶51

Considering thc cvrdcncc ol l,!\i..] ancl also the salary certificate filed ur-rder trx.A(r, rhis (l(,ull lin(ls Lhat it is just and reasonable to Lakc rhe salan, OI- tlrr. rlr.cczrsccl as Rs.6,5O0/- as on the date o[ incident arrd thr-ts llrc annual income of the deceased would comes ro Ils.78,OO0I (lrs.6,5Oo/ - x 12 = Rs.78,o0o/-).

¶52

¶53

As per thc guidclincs ol thc Ilon'ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarlor Verrnq Vs. Delhi Transport Carporatiott,l if the deceased was Bachclor', hall ol lris income has to be deducted i.e-, Rs.39,00O/- tos,ards his pcrsonal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the dcct:ased altcr deducting personal expenses would comcs kr lts.39,000/, per annum (Rs.78,000/2 = Rs.39,0OO/-) ancl thc I lorr'bk' r\pcx Court in thc dictum of Nationa.l Insurq.nce Cornpang Limited Vs. prcndg Seth?, held that the futurc pt-/)sl)ccrs ol' thc income o[ the selfemployed deceased shail also bc inclucled in detcrmination of the compcnsation.^'l'htrs, considcring thc age o[ the deceascd i.e., 23 years, 40o% oI t.ht: inconrt: i.c., Rs. l5,trOO/- has to be added towards futurc prospcols and thus the ermount would become Rs.54,6O0/- (lts.39.OriO + Rs.15,6O0: Rs.54,600). This sum if multiplied with rhc rnulriplier 18, as applicable to the age of the deceased i.c.23, it rr.or-rld comcs to Rs.9,82,80O/(Rs.54,600 X 18 = Rs 9,ti2,800/-). 't'hus, peritioncr No. I is entitled to Rs.9,82,80O/- trnclcr tl.re hcad^,Loss of Dependency,.

¶54

'1zoo9;^{o scct2r} :120 rz; to scc o8o

¶55

Besides, petitioner No. I^{rs also ctrtitlcd lor compensation} under 'conventional^{heads' as prcscribr:din the dictumof} National Insurance^{CompangLimited Vs. Pranag Sethi, i'e',} Rs. 15,000/- towards^{loss o[ I']sL:'rlc :l1d Rs.15,0OO/- towards} funeral charges.

¶56

Further, the^{FIon'blcSLtllrr-trttr(lor-trt, [>-v rciteratingthe} comprehensive interpretzltion^{rll''t tltrstrt-tium' given inthe} authority of Magma^{GeneralInsuranceCornpang Limited' us'} Nanu Re;m Allas Chuhru^{Ratn & other*,:rndin the authority} between tlnited^{IndiaInsuranceCompangLlmitedas'} Sqtinder Kaur^(d Satuinder^{Kantr and other*, fortified that} the amounts for^{loss o[ cottsorlittnlsht-rllb<: au'arded to the} children who^{lose Lhe carc ar)(l} l)r'ol'^{( ti()rl ol thcir parents as} 'parental consortium'^{ancl to tllc} I)ir|t^{r)ts as, 'lili:rlconsortium'} for the loss of their^{grorr tt'tl1l clttltlrt rl, to c()mpensatetheir} agony, love and^{affection,catc :rtld t'ornpanionshipof deceased} children. AccordinglY,^{itisjustancl re:tsonabletoaward} I^()\ ,l^I'( l:' iilrl I^{t onsortiurn.} Rs.40,O0O/- to Peti[ioncr^No.I

¶57

t (zo t8) t8 scc t lo o 12o2oy 9 scc rraa

¶58

¶59

Therefore , pctitioncr No. i is elltitled for the compensation

¶60

amount in thc lollowing tcrms:

¶61

I Loss of dcpcndcncy Rs.9,82,8OO/Il Convcn tirinzrI hcads l Iis.30,O0O/ - 3 I FilialCons,rrt itr rn [or. pirrt.n ts Its.40,0O0/TOTAL Rs. rO,s2,8OO/-

¶62

In the resu.lt, M.A,C.M.A.No.12g5 of 20i3 is allowcd and M-A.C.M.A.No.l3T7 ot 20l3 is dismissecl. .I.he amount of compensation grantcd b.v tl-rc trial Courr is cnhanced from Rs.4,28,000/- ro Rs. i (),ii.2,8C0/. (l?upces .I.en Iakhs Fifty tu,o thousand Eight hurtrdr.rr .rrrr.,) r,,ith intr:rest at [hc ratc of T.S,yo per annum from thc cliltc oi filirrg thc pctition till thc datc of rcalization. Though, Ilcspondcnts No.1 and 2 arc jointty and severally liablc L() il:r,, compensarion, rcspondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a pericrcl of r-;ne month from thc date of this Judgment. l)etitionr:r No.12 is a marriecl sistcr and not dependent on dcccarsr:rl,;rs such shc is r-rot cntitled for any compensation_ On sr iCh tlcposit, pc_,til ioncr No. I is permitted to withdrarv the cntirc amour-rt zrlong with interest accrured on it. 'l.l-r<: pctitioners ar.c also clirected to

¶63

¶64

pay the deficit Court fec on tll(] crrlrar-rccd amount. There

¶65

shall be no order as to cosLs.

¶66

Miscellaneous pctitions ltcnclrrre, it any, shall stand

¶67

closed.

¶68

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTNAT REGISTRAR I, :i //TRUE COPY// I 3 rr:^rj- fl',' f ,;:;tisecTION OFFICER I ,,i, i ': i. ,1 .,lTo, IIt1,.tit, T 1.^j The Charrman,^,MACT-cum-l '?Addi tional Metropolitan Sessions JudgecumXV Additional Chief Judge, H yderab ad (Wi(h Records) i 2. One CC to Mr. CHANDRAIAH SOMAVARAPU, Advocate [OPUC]. :, 3. One CC to Mr. P. BHANU PRAKASH, Ad\ocate [OPUCI. 4. Two CD Copies

¶69

I iij { t.. I I '1i. . t, '1.';t:', rt-'",. jl .l 1 .1.ir t ,) i:;^.i' it'.--i.,.'i.,: i : !f^.:j ,l , <.:' ir;;.':,' s&t' J, . t i I ; ': J i1,.^..1, ai It\t , --i :-- --

¶70

I ft t. +l,I$ { 1 .{:, l- -ri T; ; +xI HIGH COURT ! ', r,. DATED:03/11/2023 I i

¶71

DATED:03/11/2023

¶72

L
, '' ..:
t
r l i. .i
I . .:r.. .i:
t
[. : t,il.,; . T Il,t.: 'Ir:-!ult: ,-, .r. t {t
i .-F,' 1'. j'4{I :lif:'i!'1,{ ,, , f .r".:l .. rill.i.. 3:i :i. .'
X' ,r :li,;?.11 ,;
JUDGMENT
* f;i: t ,!: SlATE
It
, r i., i' J:
i
q
I
MACMA.No.'!285 AND 1377 of 2013 o 1t IIN 1$1<br>i
ai
1! I D s P Ai

¶73

I ai 1! ! a

¶74

g ,i.tj;i
.; .: --1 ,1 1 . I ,ifr ,f i,- .., '. r-
i !, l.r:. : .1 .i ,, -a,i ,i
.i ,, jl il,4i#d
IALLOWNG THE 5/2OI3.AND DISMtsslNG
&s,#r
THE MACMA 1377/20.13 WTHO ur cosTs qi {
fr
I'I ,t {i ;1.,Y
E$ tr!
1 jjlEI.{ _': t i
!]iI
;
t
Il
i, i;.,
{ iri
* ..1 t - L)
i' i#li,
.j ,. l.'..:rF:i i. -ii,: ' t '., 1:I i
i. i. ,
iit'S:,:-, {..,r.Jol$,t
,;i r=r.+,o .
$ +i#ffii ', 6 iv#.$ ii i,*.o
'$;{ft;

¶75

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶76

FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY^OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶77

PRESENT

¶78

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^P.SREESUDHA

¶79

MACMA NO: 128s ANO1377 0F²⁰¹³

¶80

Between:

¶81

. 1 . Muppalaneni Subhadra,^Wo Late Rama Rao, Occ - Household,^R/o Vanasthalipuram, R.R-Dist.

¶82

Guntu Nagarajuna Kumar,^W/o Veeranjaneyulu, Occ - Household,^R/o Vanasthalipuram, R.R.Dist...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶83

AND

¶84

G. Venkanna, S/o^{Buchaiah,Fl/o Kattanagur Village& Mandal, NalgondaDist} 2. The Divisional Manager^{Nationallns Co Ltd, D.O 4, ll Floor,TwinCitys} Market Complex,^{Molam Jahi Market,Hyd-01}

¶85

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶86

Appeal Under Section¹⁷³ of^{Motor VehiclesAct against the orderand decree} in o.P.No.728 0f 2o1o dated^{28102120130n the file of the court of the chairman} Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal-cum-l" Additional Metropolitan SessionsJudge-cum-} XV Additional Chief^{Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶87

MACM A NO: 1377 OF²⁰¹³

¶88

Between:

¶89

The Divisional Manager,^{National lnsuranceCompany Limited,National} lnsurance Company Limited^{D.O.4, ll Floor Twin CitiesMarketComplex} Mojam Jahi Market^{Hyderabad- 500 001}

¶90

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^NO.2

¶91

AND

¶92

Muppalaneni Subhadra,^{W/o. LateRama Rao' Occ House hoU FJo.} Vanasthalipuram Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶93

2 Guntu Nagaraja Kumar, Wio.^{Veeranianeyulu,Occ HouseholdRl/o.} Vanasthalipuram Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶94

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS^{NO.1 & 2}

¶95

3 G. Venkanna, S/o. Buchaiah,^{R/o.Kattangur Village andMandal of Nalgonda} District.

¶96

, ...RESPoNDENTS/RESPoNDENT No.1

¶97

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.728 of 2010 dated 2810212013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l'r Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cumXV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad

¶98

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Chandraiah, Advocate for the Appellant and for Respondents 1 and 2 in MACMA 137112013 and of Mr. p. Bhanu Prakash, Advocate for the:Respondent No.2 and for the Appelants in MACMA 1377t2O13

¶99

This Court doth Order and Decree ai follows:

¶100

¶101

While allowing the MACMAi1285l2O13 and dismissing the MACMA 13tt t2O13

¶102

MACMA 128s OF 2013

¶103

:: {

¶104

That the Motor Accident Citil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by ennancini the coripensation granted by the triat Court from Rs. 4,28,OOO!- to Rs. 10,52,800/-|with interest of the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petitrion till the dare of realization;

¶105

That the respondents t anl 2 are jointly and severa y liable to pay compensation, respondent Nl.2/lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of this Judgment;

¶106

¶107

That the Petitioner Nb.Z is nol entitled for any compensation, since she is a .l

¶108

married sister and of the decdased;

¶109

That the On such '"deposit, f,etitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount _ along,with k' inter'est {, accrued on it;

¶110

That the Petitioners are also directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced on the enhanced amount;

¶111

I ACMA 7 0F 2(1

¶112

This MACMA be and hereby ii dismissed

¶113

That there be no order as to costs in these appeals;

¶114

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTNAT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, MACT-cum{'t,Additional Metropolitan Sessions^Judgecum- XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad^{(With Records)}

¶119

Two CD Copies , !9

¶120

,'l

¶121

..)
1
l

¶122

I HIGH COURT i itItit' l: '4 It.I .. 'I . DATED:03/11/2023 i.... Ii ,f 1 ! i : i t &, DECREE i-^{.; &} I |' rl_i - I r;* :^{: ,l'$} t,tu I MACMA.No.1285 AND 1377 of 2013 {iiI

¶123

¶124

ALLOWNG THE MACMA 128512013 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA't 377 I 201 3 WtTHOUT COS _ ' -' i it.. i, ' '' '''!r -_''l .1. .a: rt i.iI ffi: 9 10)-)

Muppalaneni Subhadra and Another v. G Venkanna and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muppalaneni Subhadra and Another v. G Venkanna and Another

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

Anthati Vasantha Vs Ilapuram Kusuma Kumari

Gaddam Kotaiah Vs Yatham Laxmi

New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Another Vs Dabbeti Venkatamma and 2 Others

Apsrtc and Another Vs Arun Gandhi

D.R. Leelavathi, Vs Ch. Rajeshwaramma

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Nirmala Srinivas and Anr.