Allowed

Shaik Mohammed Ali , Mohd. Mahmadali and 2 Others v. the Depot Manager and Another

Telangana HC2 Aug 2023MACMA/1413/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MACMA) filed by the petitioners to enhance the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court revised the monthly income of the deceased, applied the appropriate multiplier, and awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,17,800/- with interest at 7.50% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1,59,000/- to Rs. 10,17,800/- with interest at 7.50% p.a. from the date of petition.

Shaik Mohammed Ali , Mohd. Mahmadali and 2 Others Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

, i. .t' .t ..J

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶4

.
.

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTHREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶8

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO 1413 0 F 2011 '. 'ffi+li,, '. {:.I ,' ?-App:1ea iiled: ' ii{Under Order 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the . i{_ i. r, i.r,^dg men tiahd Deciee dated 05.08.2010 made in O.P. No. 325 of 2009, on the .!cum lX Additional District and file ofl.n Motor Accident Claims Tribunal .S^{essrons ,Juiige,(FTC) at Kamareddy} i ..1 .a t* Betw een: t' li, r''{

¶9

Shaik Mohammed Ali @ Mohamad. Mahmadali, S/o. Shaik Ali @ Sher Ali , Age: 35 years, Occ: Nil, Rl/o. Kummargalli Bhiknoor village and mandal Nizamabad District

¶10

Kum. Harsin Begum, D/o. Shaik Mohammed Ali Age: 9^years, Occ: student R/o: Kummargalli Bhiknoor village and mandal Nizamabad District

¶11

Mubin Ali, S/o. Shaik Mohammed Ali@ Mohamad. ftIahmadali, Age: 3^years, Occ: student Rl/o. Kummargalli Bhiknoor village and mandal^Nizamabad District being minor under the guardianship of his natural father i.e.,^petitioner No.1 Shak Mohammed Ali, rep. by^petitioner No. t herein

¶12

..APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶13

AND, ii

¶14

-r- i&.
'8.-
:,.,|t:lr:
1,.),'; i.l j
-.4
'1 ?'.',
,' :r

¶15

r^Pfdd#i Niairg"r, APSRrc., Armoor Depot , i#nirHt ffiirector, APSRrc, Musheerabad X Road., Hyderabad t I i i. it{ ...RESpoNDENrs/RESpoNDENrs

¶16

".,,j;,*toH;;t^{: M/s. PArruKAvrrHA}

¶17

Nos. 1 & 2 : SrirHooM sRtNtvAS (sc FoR rsRrc) ".r"#,frriJ5*Ii" The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAIVIAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1413 OF 20l 1

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.08.2010 passed in O.P.No.325 of 2OO9 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-lX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (for short ',the Tribunal,') seeking enhancement of Lhe compensation.

¶22

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

¶23

3 Brief facts of the case are as lollows

¶24

On 28.01.2007 at about 6.15 a.m., the petitioners along with Smt.Saleha Begum @ Shahi Begum (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) were sta-nding beside the road of National Highway in front of Bhiknoor bus stald to go to Hyderabad to attend the funeral ceremony of their relative, at that time, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 1I-Z-5563 of Armoor Depot came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and

¶25

dashed against thc cleccascd, as a i-esult t_rl u,hich, ihe <ieceased suffered multiple grir,:vous injuries and died on the spot. At the tirne ol [lre accident, t-he deceased rvas ageci 3O years and earrring Its.6,0001 per nlonth by doing beedi rolling and tailoring work. The accicent occur:'ed due to the rash and ,egligent driving of the dri'er of the I?TC bus. TtLerefore, the petitioners filecl a clairn petition clainring conrpensation of Rs.8,O0,OO01-.

¶26

The respondents havc filccl er counier afllrlavi t )_-: oenylng ine alieqatrons nrade in the clajm petition and stated ii-ral the acr:ideni l.ias ocr:Lrrr.:d ,lue to thc negrigerice or tr-ie deceased and hr:nce. pra,.rC tc clismiss tlir: O. F-.

¶27

To prove thc case of [he petitioners, pWs. I and 2 u.ere examined and got marked Exs.Ai to A(r. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduce.l, but Ex.B i _copy of the insurance policy was marked.

¶28

Afrer considering the oral and documentar-y evidence available on recor-d. tire Tribunal held l.hat the accident occurred due to the rash and negligcnt driving ol the driver of the offencling vehicle an<i accordingly. awarded an

¶29

¶30

amount of Rs.1,59,00O/- with interest @ 7.syo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents. Cha-llenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement.

¶31

7 Heard both sides and perused the record

¶32

8 Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that though the deceased was earning Rs.6,OOO/- per month by doing beedi rolling and tailoring work, the Tribunal has considered only an amount of Rs.2,4O0/- per month, which is very meager. He further contended that though the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners are entitled toa sum of Rs.3,26,4OO l- towards loss of love and affection, shock and agony, but the Tribunal has awarded ar amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, as the petitioners have restricted their claim to Rs.1,50,000/- under the said head. The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under other heads and therefore, the arnount awarded by the Tribunal is v,ery meager and unj ustifiable.

¶33

9 karned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the accident took place on 28.O1.2OO7 rvhereas

¶34

the O.P. rvas filed in the Jrcal' 2009. Fu;-ther, the Tribr-rnal, after considering the evidence a'Lailabie on l'ecord, has awarded just compensation. 'rhich rreeds no interference.

¶35

A perusai of ttre imougned order discloses that the Tribunal havrng framed ir^slre No.^.l as lo u,hether the acciclent had occurred due to rash atrd rregligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, and having .considered the evidence of PlV. 1 coupled with ttrc docrrnientall evidence i.e., Ex.A-1 FIR ancl Ex.A-2 chalge-shcct, rightly held that the accident occui-r'ed due to thi: reisLr ati-lii rrr:gligent di:ivirrg of ttie ciriver of Ll-re offcrrdinp; r,cl-riclc arrd lrtis answr-.red in favorrr of the petitioners anci against thc rr:s1t,;ndcn rs. 'lherefoi-e. there are no reason.s lo intert'ere r',,ith rhe finrling ctf' the^'Iribu-nal tha-t thc accident occurred due to thc i-ash and negligent driving of the driver of tl-rc offeirding vetricle.

¶36

Insofar as the contentiorr of the learned Counsel for tl:e respondents; is concerned that the accidcnt toc[< place on 28.01 .2OO7 , u,hereas the O.P. i.r,ras fiiecl rn the year 2OO9, the said ground u.as not raised beforc thc l'ribunal and as such, this Court is not considering the sa:ne

¶37

¶38

12 1S Insofar as the quantum of compensation concerned, though the petitioners stated that the deceased was earning Rs.6,0O0/- per month by doing beedi rolling and tailoring work, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,4O0/ - per month. Considering the age and avocation of the deceased and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa as Manage4 Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insarance Co, Ltd.,t, this court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Apart from that, the petitioners are entitled to an addition of 4Oo/o on the income of the deceased towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Compang Limited Vs, Pranag Sethi and. others2. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased + comes to Rs.6,3O0/- (Rs.a,500/1,800/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.75,6OO/(Rs.6,300/- X l2). Out of which, 1/3ra has to be deducted towards personal expenses, which comes to Rs.50,400/(Rs.75,600/- - 25,2001-l,. As per the decision of the Apex Court

¶39

r( 20r I ) 13 SCC 2.36 ' 2017 ACJ 2700

¶40

in Sar.la'Verma a, Delh.i T;-ansport Corpara.tiot{^.Lhe appropriate multiplier applicable for tl:re agc of the deceased is '77'. Thus, the total loss of depeirdencv wouid cone to Rs.8,-<5,8001- (50,100i x 17) 1'he peti,tiorlers ;rre further entitled to Rs.77,Orj0l- (1Rs.,+0,000/. r 1.5.C00 + Fls. 15,,000/- + 10%) tovra;ds loss of spousdL consr:rtium, loss of estate arrd ftrneral expenses as per Pranag Setfri isupral. 'the Tribrrnal has rightlv arvarded an itrnoLrnt of I{s.3,0rJ0/-.towards transportation charges ar:rrl Itlr.1.0rJ0/ to"vards clotliing, "vhich^{'nceds r.ro irterfcrCrrcc 6',th.is Col-if1..Fnrther.} considerins. thc iact that l)crii-ioner Nos.2 and 3 z.irt: tlre minor children of thc^.lc,:ca:;cd, 'Liris^(loirrt i:; inr:lined to aq,ard a surn of Rs.40,000/ - earch ultJer Li-rc hr'ari ci :ire part:ni-iii cr,rr rsorl.iun.r as per the clecisiorr o[ the A-^cx Uoui-r ir-r Magna General

¶41

Insurance Compang Limitecl u, Nanu Ram {g Chuhru Rqm @nd others4. Thus, ln all. tl-re petitiorlers are entitled to + compensation of Rs. 10,17,800/ (Rs.E,5Ci,800 77,000 80,000+3,000 i I,U00).

¶42

r 2oo9 Acr r2c8 (sc) '^(2018)l8 scc tio

¶43

¶44

13 The Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7 .5^o/o per annum and the same^. needs no interference by this Court.

¶45

¶46

Though the claimed amount is Rs.8,0O,OOO/-, invoking the principle ol just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by l"hc Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rcjesh us. Rajbir Singhs, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empou,ered to grant compensation beyond the claimed arnou nt

¶47

l5 Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation ol Rs- 10,17,800/against the awarded amount ol Rs. I,59,000/-.

¶48

Accordingly, thc M.A.C.M.A is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,59,O0O/- to Rs.1O,17,8OO/(Rupees Ten lakh seventeen thousand eight hundred only) with interest at the rate ol 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents a-re directed to deposit the said amount, after giving due credit to the arnount already deposited, il any, rvithin a period of two months from the date

¶49

' t\4ANUi sc/0480/20 tl

¶50

of receipl. of a copv of tll;r .iudgrncllt. 1'lrc ,.,:lll1-.n111;31i6n arnount shall be apporionird amorlg l.iie pctiticners in the same manner and ratio as crrlered bv the Tribunai Horvever, the petitioners are directe d to pa], Deiicit Co,,trt Fee on the enhanced arnount.,r,ithin a petiod ol tri'o rncrnths fiorrr the date of receipt. of a copy of th.is judgrncnl.^'i'here shall bc no orr-ler as to Costs.

¶51

Miscelianeous petitions, it an(,er.j pcnd rng. slrali stan d

¶52

closed.

¶53

SD/.MOHD-SANAULLAH ANSARI
: t. . .- ASSiSTANT REGISTRAR
*,
lr"
//rRUE copy// e-.-
| :. I i i ,, jil
$lf.t,$,
E i :i -'
h4 'r i ffi,}.ff#**i,,,"s Y-. , a ., -i. , - rrbuna _cum /....,k .^^^..rc X ^,.,.":::1,::::'"'-<br>ir" j :S€sSlofls uuoge, (F I u) at ^dllrdruuuy \v!'t
: z ton6 cc to M/s. P^TTU KAVITHA, Advocate [oPt'jcl
r!j
i , e..*onG-ccito srirTHooM sRlNivAS (sc FoR TSRTC), Ad'''ocate [oPUC]
#-:*r ;: +ir'itscoc6fies ,
,ti
? :*t', *tt H'"S,
i 6#Iit ji
?'& i i ,r,i
q +!i
S-{ I ,'
l:l
l-i,: ]
iit
t
.1,
sl, {r i ,
-:

¶54

., . .:,} . HIGH COURT'
,,lt' :1r.. I
':. 1
-,'i
4,
DATED:0210812023
-t.? tn
t
;- #+ ,
,.
-t+- lj ;
i&:: [,-r:
i'. -ri a,
:-r
i! t{ ,a
{iB,B,i
'J
t!
JUDGMENT +.DECREE
MACMA.N0.1413 of 2011

¶55

/,:.aa a
a. ..'.,--:', .5iAi511^)
1 'lii ?ts
i,I t
/

¶56

!1
* {t .: a
I tt
-t i.til -{i1
,":i. i
i;
'i: di,." {r, r! rr.i
. -,t )' ;i -. .'j' i , '1
''t9 .I$ iir,s r
't: .t ''!. i
ALLOWING THE MACMA

@r'td
W9-
\ODE

\ :

ll.

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶61

t, WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST , '.j TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE . t, ! PRESENT r$* v '1 ,:, THdH,f,*'ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVAR,APU RA'ESHWAR RAO 'MOTOR ACCIDENT ClvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 141 30F 2011 -.L $ Betw eenI[ a

't;i

Shaik Mohammed Ali @ Mohamad. Mahmadali, S/o. Shaik Ali @ SherAli , f Age: 35 years, Occ: Nil, Rl/o. Kummargalli Bhiknoor village and mandal Nizamabad District

¶66

¶67

2 Kum. Harsin Begum, D/o. Shaik Mohammed Ali Age: 9 years, Occ: student Fl,/o. Kummargalli Bhiknoor village and mandal Nizamabad District

¶68

3 Mubin Ali, S/o. Shaik Mohammed Ali@ Mohamad. Mahmadali, Age: 3 years, Occ: student R/o. Kummargalli Bhiknoor village and mandal Nizamabad District under the guardianship of his natural father i.e., petitioner No.1 Shak Mohammed Ali being minor rep. by petitioner No. 1 herein

¶69

T
!
I
+
AND
$

¶70

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶71

1.^.The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Armoor Depot

¶72

tThe Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad X Road., Hyderabad :. ! ,{ .: r ...RESPONDENTS/

¶73

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶74

¶75

D i- ' F:. ,1,^:

¶76

,^{AppealfiledUnder Order 173 of Motor VehiclesAct, aggrieved by the} Judgment-and Decree dated 05.08.2010 made in O.P. No. 325 of 2009, on the il file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - lX Addilional District and t.Sessions^{Judge, (FTC)at Kamareddy.:}

¶77

',ii .i ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the.Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of MiS. PATTU KAVITHA, for the Appellants and Sri ITHOOM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC), Advocate for the Respondents 1 & 2. 3 ., Decred: This Court Doth order and Decree as here under: ,' {: -,t i

¶78

¶79

..+:, j.:..t 1 the MACMA be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation h5tl .i ;i. Rsll1,59, 000/- to Rs. 10,17,800/-^(Rupees Ten Lakh seventeen thousand I + dahuridred only) with an interest rate of 7.5o/o^p.a. from the date of^petition l.{. :.: $ dAte of realization; ', 2. lThat^frl,* the respondents t. I^{be and hereby are directed to deposit the said amount,} .A i*" '- #i^# diring^{due credit to the amount already deposited, if any,within a period} { + fit^{il[o'montt, from the date of receiptof a copyof this judgment.} ,.:l '4. i , the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners in ,That .:i the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. i i,t. 4. hal thd petitioners be and hereby are directed to pay Deficit Court fee on the t i #ariceA amoLnt within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a ti *r;:s?..:,.}. II 1,.1I at 't 8t ii^fr:. is luosrent; ano 5. theie shall be no order as to costs in this appeal 't-! 't * .'$ #; l- 4 -^^,: tt 1.: SD/.MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI : t:E iri ) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t. ! //TRUE COPY// v SECTION OFFICER To, 1 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - lX Additional District and essions Judge, (FTC) at Kamareddy ,$: 2 ajtwo CD Copies l ,}j ,l I,t\ t. 3 l; i- &i, n:,, 6 t l.l a,.: ,i,^:.i : .]!

¶80

HIGH COURT
] t'

¶81

'.)
,. DATED, ioztoeizozs
r t t :i
t
.Eir
f,It: k'#
:i 1 {:, fu*
..t '1.:
:l H-:.
J.x i,, r.S
rE
:t tl1
,t {.
f; )
.)

¶82

DECREE

¶83

MACMA.No.1413 ol2O11

¶84

t
''f:::"
i li
i:"'l r:' t i: tr. ,', .i
','#.: J .d:t i, ! $t: lJ ;j.:,i.
-tt
i+l 'jf
il It :.te .. t
t'Pr) :a ai..!;,i ' .-' ' "#:itw
!. l-1 aI, , :If r.'-' i: ill . ,q.{
$
t,' i.+
{
L l!?'s. , :4it tt';_':,JJ
l
8l
1;
.a""

¶85

ALLOWI!{G THE MACMA

¶86

... ;: @q& i I r.{
I
tsro
,l
p.' ".1-.,LrF':ct'i .*fl.'' tf_ i
ir::i
li! i
t . .{rfl: 4,. €i :,,ii
{"i.j lJi0i ... i:1,{..i-:i: il !' r, t,?, di Ed& r.i
., -,1- \ &,
itr
a tli,

Shaik Mohammed Ali , Mohd. Mahmadali and 2 Others v. the Depot Manager and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Mohammed Ali , Mohd. Mahmadali and 2 Others v. the Depot Manager 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

R.Chandrakala Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

R. Sai Vara Prasad, Secunderabad Vs the Apsrtc, Rep by Its Md, Hyderabad

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Dudekula Aslam and Another

R.Chandrasekhar Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

A. Krishna Veni Vs The State of Telangna

P. Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana