Allowed

Bodi Anjaiah and 3 Ors. v. Ch.Raja Mouli and Anr.

Telangana HC21 Sept 2023MACMA/1438/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal filed by dependents of a deceased labourer. The court treated the Section 163-A claim as a Section 166 case to determine negligence. It enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 12.05 lakhs based on revised income calculations and applicable Supreme Court precedents, granting interest at 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded at Rs. 12,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization; directed to deposit amount within two months.

Bodi Anjaiah and 3 Ors. Vs Ch.Raja Mouli and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 1438 OF2011}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M V. Act^{., against the Judgmentand} decree in O.P. No.934 of 2009 dated 07.04.2011^{on the file of the Courtof the} Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims^Tribunal -^cum -XXll^{AdditionalChief Judge,} City Criminal Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Occ Labourer

¶10

1. Bodi Anjaiah, S/o.Ramaiah Age: 38^years, R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat,^Ranga Reddy District. R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶11

Student

¶12

1. Bodi Pushpalatha, D/o.Anjaiah Age: 10^years,Occ District.

¶13

R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga^Reddy R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy^Distrlct.

¶14

Student

¶15

1. Bodi Shiva Kumar, S/o.Anjaiah Age: 5^years,Occ District.

¶16

R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga^Reddy R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶17

Bodi Manjula, D/o.Anjaiah Age: 9^years, Occ: Student [2^{to 4 being minors rep} by their natural father P1l R/o.Nandanavanam,^{Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy} District.

¶18

...APPELLANTS/PETITION ERS

¶19

AND

¶20

1 . Ch.Raja Mouli , S/o.Rajaiah Age: 40^{years,Occ: BusinessFVo,D.No.16-2-} 7O2lN3, Anandanagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶21

lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Co^{Ltd, rep} by its^{Branch Manager} Olo.D.No.2-4211 to 8, GBR towers, Chaithanyapuri,^Hyderabad.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

Counsel for Respondent No.2 :^{Sri R. SHEETHAL KUMAR}

¶26

Counsel for Respondent No.1 :^Noneappeared

¶27

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶29

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1438 OF 2011

¶30

JUDGMENT:

¶31

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.04.2011 passed in O.P.No.934 of 2OO9 by the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cumMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short "the court below") seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶32

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

¶33

3 Brief facts of the case are as follows :

¶34

On 22.09.2008, one Bodi Laxmamma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased') was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-1L-V-7960 from Kuchur Village to Hyderabad and on the way at about 14.00 hours, near Saibaba Temple, Shadnagar Village, the said Auto turned turtle, as a result ol u,hich, thc deceased fell down and sustained a grievous head injury and other injuries all over the body. After

¶35

¶36

the accident, the deceased^{u'as shifted to Osmania Generai} Hospital, Hyderabad, and i.vhile^{undergoingtreatment,she} succumbed to injuries on 23.09.2008.^{The Police Shadnagar} registered a case in Cr.No.418 of^{2008 for the offence} pr-rnishable under Sections 304-A and^{338 of IPC againstthe} driver of the offending^{vehicle. The deceased u'as earning} Rs.3,OOO/- per month^{as a labourer'Therefore, the petitioners} filed a claim petition claiming^{compensationof Rs.4,00,000/-}

¶37

4 . Before the Tribunal, the 1"'^{respondentremained} ex-parte. Respondent l.lo.2^{fi1ed a counterdenying all the} averments made in the^{claimpetition, including the manner in} which the accident occurred,^{age, occupation and thr:} deceased's income. _It is^{also stated that the accident did not} occur due to the negligence^{of the driver of the Auto.Therefore,} respondent No.2 is not liable to^{pay compensationand prayed} to dismiss the claim Petition.

¶38

To prove the petitioners'^{case, PW.1 was examined} and Exs.Al to A5^{were marked. On behalf of respondentNo 2,} RW.1 was examined and^{Ex.B-l-copyof the insurance policy} was marked.

¶39

¶40

6 After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the court below^{held that the} accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of^the driver of the offending vehicle and, accordingly arrived^at Rs.4,39,OOO/-, but since the petitioners restricted their^claim for Rs.4,OO,OOO, the court below awarded an amount of Rs.4,0O,OO0/- with interest @7 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation payable by the respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present appeal seeking enhancement

¶41

7 After filing of the present appeal, the petitioners liled I.A.No.l of 2011 seeking enhancement of the claim amount from Rs.4,O0,0OO/- to Rs.7,27,000/- and the same was allowed on 29.I1.2022.

¶42

B Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶43

9 Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that though the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Court below erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,OO0/- per month. As per the^judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SIED SADIQ AND OTHERS Vs. DfVISIONAI

¶44

¶45

MANAGER, UMTED INDIA IVSURANCE^{COMPANY LIMITEDL'} the deceased's income may^{be fixed at Rs.6,500/- per month'} He further contended that the Court^{below has not ar'r'arded} just compensation under other heads; therefore,^{the amount} a'"varded by the Court belou'is^{very meagre and unjustifiable'}

¶46

Per contra, learned coltnsel appearing^{for thc 2'd} respondent submits that^{thoughthe claim petition is liled} under Section 163-4 of^{M.V. Act, the courtbelor.t'considered} the same under Section^{166 of M.V.Act.by framing the issue} with regarcl to the negligence^{of the driver of the offeuding} vehicle. Further, before^{the court below, the petitioners} claimed that the^deceased '"vas^{earningRs.3,OOO/per month,} but in the appeal, the^{petitioners claimed Rs'5,0O01pcr} 'month and the SYED SADIO'S case (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand,^{as in the said case the incomeis lixed lor a} vegetable vendor^{whereas the deceased in the instantcase was} working as a labour.^{Therefore, the matter may be remittedto} the court beiow^{for fresh consideration.}

¶47

At the outset, it is to be^{noted that thc claim} petition was filed under^{Section i63-Aof the M.V. Act, which}

¶48

t (zotl]}Z Suprcme Court Cases 735

¶49

¶50

clearly shows the vehicle's involvement is enough^{in claiming} the compensation. But, a perusal of the impugned^{order goes} to show that the Tribunal framed issue No. l: Whether^the accident took place on 22.09.2008 at about 14.00 hours due^to rash and negligent driuing of Auto bearing No.AP-L1-V-7960^bg its driuer ?

¶51

t2. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that even if a claim petition is filed under Section 163-4 of the M.V. Act, it can be converted into Section 166 of the Act depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. He relied upon the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupati Prameela and others Vs. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagarann dnd others2 wherein this Court observed as follows:

¶52

In Sumiya Deui u. Sri Bir Marketing Seruices, 2008 ACJ 2833 : 2OOB (1) AIR Jhar R 118) it uas held that a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act was treated as a petition filed under Section 166 of the Act. 23, In a case betu.teen Skandia Insurance Compang Limited u. Kokilaben Chandrauadan, 1987 ACJ 411 : (AIR 1987 SC 1 1 84), the Apex Court obserued as foLlotus:-

¶53

'zorol+y^{elo53 I (DB)}

¶54

¶55

".^{. . . .} .Wrcn the^{option is betuteenopting} for^{a uteu)} which utill^{relieuethe distress and misery of the} uictims of the accidents^{or their dependentson the one} hand. and- equaltg^{plausible uieut uthichutill reducethe} profitability of the Insurer^{in regard to the occupational} hazard undertaken^{bg him bg utay ofbttsiness} actiuitg, there is^{hardlg any choice' the Courl cannot} list opt for the former^uietu."

¶56

Thus it appears^{that when tuto uieutsare possible,} the uieu in fauour^{of the uictims, uthich uill relieue} their distress^{and misery,shoul<lbe adopted'}

¶57

In case betueen^{S. Nagaraiu. State of Kantataka,} 1gg4 (1) LIJ 851^{(857) (SC)it utas obserued that: --}

¶58

"The^{justice is} a^{uirtue, ulich transcendsall barriers'} Neither the ntles^{or procedures nor technicalities of lotu} can stancl in^{its uay.Euenlatu bends before justice'"}

¶59

25.^'thus it appears^{that it i.s the duty of the Cou rts to} do^justice to^{the parties and tuhile doing justice, if the} technicalities come^{in the utag,muchimportance need} not be giuen to^{these technicalities because,ultimatelg,} justice has to be done to the^{parties'Moreouer,uhen} sub-section⁽⁴⁾ of^{Section 166 of the Act enuisagesthat} the Tribunal shall^{treat any report ofaccidents} fotttarded.^{to it undersub-section(6) of Section158 of} th.e Act as an^application for^{compensationunderthe} Act, there is^{nothing urongin treating an application} filed^{und.er Section163-A of the Act as an application} under Section 166^{of the Act. In uieu of the aboueand} considering the obiect^{of the Act, tue ore of theuieu't} that the^petition filed^{under Section 163-A of the Act}

¶60

¶61

¶62

can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Act.

¶63

Once it is held that petitions haue to be treated under Section 166 of the Act, necessaily, the petitioners haue to proue that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent diuing of the uehicle or that the respondents were negligent in using the uehicle.

¶64

In view of the above judgment, it is the duty of the Courts to do justice to the parties. While doing justice, if the technicalities come in the way, much importance need not be given to these technicalities because, ultimately, justice has to be done to the parties. Once it is held that petitions have to be treated under Section 166 of the Act, the petitioners have to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle or that the respondents were negligent in using the vehicle. The Tribunal answered the issue in favour of the petitioners, observing that the deceased's death was due to the negligent driving cif the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. As such, this Court grants compensation under Section 166 ofthe Act, but not 163-4'

¶65

l4 Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the petitioners' contention that the deceased was earning

¶66

¶67

Rs.3,0OO/-^per month^{and the Court belowgranted an arnount} of Rs.3,000/-^{per month, but the learned counselfor the} petitioners stated that^{as pcr the judgment of thc Apex CourL} in RAJENDRA SIMII^{AND O"LERS Vs'NATIONAL} I ISURANCE COMPANY^{LIMITED AND OTHERSI, for the} services of holtse^{r,r'ife, the monthiy income can be fixed at} Rs.5,OO0/-. In^{vieu' of the said judgmentof the Hon'bleApex} Court, the rronthly^{income of the deceased isfixed at} Rs.5,000/-. Apart^{from the same, the petitioners are entitled} to an additional^{of 407o towards future prospects on the} deceased's income^{as per the decision of the Hon'bleSuprerne} Court in National^{InsuranceCompang Limited Vs' Pranag}

¶68

Sethi and^{othersa. Therefore, the monthly deceased's income} comes to Rs.7,O0O/-^{(Rs.5,000/-+ Rs'2,000/-)'From this'} 1/4th is to be deducted^{towards the personal expensesof the} deceased following^{Sarla Verma Vs' Delhi TrdnsPort} Corporations as the^{petitionersare four and it would come to} Rs.5,250/- per month^(Rs.7,0OO -^{Rs l,75O)' Thus, the annual} income of the^{deceased would come toRs'63'000/-}

¶69

'^{(z1zo) I Suprenre Clotrn Cases256}

¶70

4 20t7 ACJ 2700

¶71

5 2oo9 A() 12o8(sc)

¶72

¶73

(Rs.5,250/- x 12). As the deceased's age was 35 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per Sarla Verrnc's case (supra) is 'i 6 '. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.10,08,000/- (Rs.63,000/- X 16). As per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranag Sethi's case (supra), the 1st petitioner, being the husband of the deceased, 1S entitled to a sum ol Rs.44,O0O/- (Rs.aO,OOOl- + loy.l towards loss of spousal consortium. The petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + lOo/o + 15,000 + lOo/ol towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, considering the fact that petitioners 2 to 4 are minor children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to'*,ards the loss of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Compang Limited a. Nanu Ram @ Chuhnt Ram and. othersa. Thus, 1n all, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1 2,05,000/ -.

¶74

Though the claimed amount is Rs.7,27,OOOl-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Hontrle Supreme Court in Rc;esh us.

¶75

u 1zo^tsyts scc^r:o

¶76

¶77

Rajbir SinghT, and in a^{catena of decisions, this Courtis} empowered to grant^{compensation beyond theclaimed} arnount.

¶78

Thus, the petitioners^{are entitledto the enhanced} compensation of^{Rs' 12,05,000/-} AS against the^awarded amount of^{Rs.4,0O,OOO/ -.}

¶79

The court belor.l' has^{awarded the rate of interest} at 7^ok per annum^{and the same needs no intetference by this} Court.However,thepetitionersareentitledtotheinterestlci 7.5o/o per annum^{on the enhancedcompensationamount'}

¶80

Accordingly, Lhe^{M A.C'M A isallowedby} enhancing the^{compensationfromRs'4,OO,0OO/-to} Rs.12,O5,OOO/-^{(RupeesTwelve iakh, five thousand only) with} interest at the rate^{of 7 -SVo p.a.o11 the enhancedamount from} the date of petition^{titl the date of realization' The respondents} are directed to^{deposit the said amount togetherwith costs} and interest,^{after givingdue creditto the amountalready} deposited, if any,^{within trvo rnonths from rcceipt of a copy of} this judgment.^{The compensationamount shall be apportioned}

¶81

'^{MANUiscro+80/20t I}

¶82

¶83

arnong the petitioners in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the court below. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to COStS.

¶84

Miscellaleous petitions, if any are pending, sha-ll stand

¶85

closed.

¶86

Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Chairman' Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal.-cum} -XXll^Additional ' chi"iiilg"; cliv-Cri.inii couit, Hvderabad (with records' if anv)

¶91

One CC^{to Sri. T. VISWARUPA CHARY' Advocate[OPUCI}

¶92

One CC^{to Sri. R. SHEETHAL KUMAR' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶93

Two CD^CoPies

ASR/NJB

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10912023

1EL4
0) .-Sf,t\ *
u 6
F
G!
c F, 6

¶99

JUDGMENT⁺ DECREE

¶100

MACMA.No.1438 of 2011

ALLOWING THE MACMA

WITHOUT COSTS

@40 I^o

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶105

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶106

PRESENT

¶107

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶108

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1438 OF 2011

¶109

Between:

¶110

Labourer

¶111

1. Bodi Anlaiah, S/o.Ramaiah Age: 38 years, Occ: District.

¶112

R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy R:/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy District.

¶113

Student

¶114

1. Bodi Pushpalatha, D/o.Anjaiah Age: 10 years, Occ District.

¶115

R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy R/o-Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy District.

¶116

Student

¶117

1. Bodi Shiva Kumar, S/o.Anjaiah Age: 5 years, Occ District.

¶118

R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy District.

¶119

4- Bodi Manjula, D/o.Anjaiah Age: 9 years, Occ: Student [2 to 4 being minors rep by their natural father P1l R/o.Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy District.

¶120

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶121

AND

¶122

Ch.Raja Mouli , S/o.Rajaiah Age: 40 years, Occ: Business Rl/o.D.No.16-27O2lN3, Anandanagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶123

lclcl Lombard General lnsurance Co Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager Olo.D.No.2-4211 to 8, GBR towers, Chaithanyapuri, Hyderabad.

¶124

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶125

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M V. Act ., against the Judgment and decree in O.P. No.934 of 2009 dated 07.04.2011 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum -XXll Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad-

¶126

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 Sri T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate for

¶127

the Appellants and of Sri R. SHEETHAL KUtvlAR, Advocate^for the^{Respondent No.2} and None appeared for the Respondent No.1

¶128

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

¶129

That the MACMA No. 1438 of 201 1 be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,00,0001 to Rs. 12,05,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakh, Five Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5oh p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶130

That the Respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶131