Allowed

Smt.M.Vijaya, Hyderabad and Anr. v. D.Srinivas, Vijayawada and Anr.

Telangana HC17 Aug 2023MACMA/1484/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment allowed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 7.76 lakhs by enhancing it to Rs. 12.91 lakhs based on corrected multiplier and future prospects calculations. The court rejected the insurance company's claim regarding the deceased's negligence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced from Rs. 7.76 lakhs to Rs. 12.91 lakhs with interest at 7.5% p.a.; insurance company's appeal dismissed.

Smt.M.Vijaya, Hyderabad and Anr. Vs D.Srinivas… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE^{SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶6

MOTOR ACCID^{ENT CIVIL MISCE LLANEOUSAPPEAL NOS:1 484 AND 2361 OF} 2015

¶7

AppealsfiledUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActaoainsttheorderand decree in O.p.No.2572^{or idrO Ort"O iZ.Ot ZO|Son the file oI the Motor.Accident} Cfairr iri6rnat-cum-^{XXV AOA'ti"niiChiefJudge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad}

¶8

MOTOR ACCID^{ENT CIVIL MIS} OUS AP^{PEAL NOS: 1} OF 015

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . Smt. M.Vrjaya, Sio. Late M.Ram Reddy' 2. M.Sarala, D/o.^{Late M.Ram Reddy, H No} 10-2-1941211 , HumaYun^Nagar, Hyderabad. ...APPellants

¶11

AND

¶12

D.Srinivas, S/o.^{Chandra Shekhar,R/o' C/o' SrinivasaService Station'} Ramavarappadu,^{Vijayawada. (Owner of the Tata VanbearingNo AP-16-} TW-9471)

¶13

2 The oriental lnsurance^{co. Ltd, Representedby its RegionalManager'} Snehalatha Buildings,^{Near CM Camp Office,Greenlands' Begumpet'} HYderabad-16

¶14

"'Respondents

¶15

MOTOR ACCIDE^{NT CIVIL MISCE LLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2361 0F 2015}

¶16

Between:

¶17

The Oriental lnsurance^{Co. Ltd, Representedby its RegionalManagelSnehalatha} Brlldfu;, Near CM^{Camp Office, Greenlands, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16'}

¶18

...APPellanUResPondent^No'2 AND 1. Smt. M.Vijaya,^{S/o.LateM.RamReddy,} 2.M.Sarala,D/o.LateMRamReddy,HNo'10-2-1941211'HumayunNagar' Hyderabad " 'Respondents/claim^Petitioner

¶19

¶20

D.Srinivas, S/o. Chandra Shekhar, R/o. Cio. Srinivasa Service^Station, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada. (Owner of the Tata Van bearing^{No. AP-16-} TW-9471)

¶21

... Res po nde n URes Po n dent No.1

¶22

Counsel for the Appellants in MACMA No.'|484 of 2015

¶23

& Counsel for Respondents in MACMANo.2361 o1 2015

¶24

: Sri T VISWARUPA CHARY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in MACMA No.1484 of 2015

¶26

& Counsel for Appellant in MACMANo.2361 of2015

¶27

The Court delivered the following

: STi M SATISH REDDY

:JUDGMENT

::---7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHTVAR RAO

¶32

M.A.C.M.A No. 1484 OF 2015

¶33

¶34

M.A.C.M.A No.2361 OF 2015

¶35

COMMON JUDGMEN'I:

¶36

Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaleous Appeals are being disposed of by wav of this common^judgment as both these appeals etre directed against the award dt.i2.O1.20 15 in M.V.O.P No.2572 of 20 10 passed by the Chairrnan, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-){XV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, I-lyderabad (Flereinafter refcrred to as 'the Tr ibu nal')

¶37

2 In IVI.A.C.M.A No.1484 of 2015 the i\ppellants/ petitiont:rs have clrallcnged the arvard being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and prayed to enhance the same, and in M.A.C.M.A No.2361 2015, the Appellant/Insurance Company l-rad challenged the ArvarC and prayed to set aside rhe same.

¶38

J lror the sa,ke of conveniertce, the facts in M.A.C.NI.A No.14B4 of 2015 arc discussed herc'under and the parties are hercinafter referreci 1.o as rhey are arrayed belore the Tribunal

¶39

¶40

RRN,I COMNlON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.1484 of 2015 & 2361 OF 2015

¶41

Vide the impugned order, upon considering the pleadings and evidence on either side, the 'l'ribunal allowed the claim petition by gralting compensation of Rs.7,76,000/- with interest at 60/o p.a. to the petitioners as against the claim of Rs.10,0O,O0O /-, pay able by thc respondents, on the account of the death of Ram Reddy (hereinaJter referred to as the deceased'), being the husband and father of the petitioners respectively, having been hit by a Tata Van bearing No.Apl6TW-947 | which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed against his car bearing No. Ap9M-7452 on 06.08.2009 at about 3:30 p.m. at the outskirts of Kaithapur village.

¶42

5 Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the deceased was aged about 54 years and working as a Sub Inspector of Police and was dr.awing a salary of Rs.24,OOO/- per month, but the Tribunal wrongly considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/- per month. He further contended that the Tribunal had wrongly taken the multiplier as "9" instead of^,,11" for the age group of 5l-5S years. He further contended that future prospects on the income of the deceased ought to have been added in assessing

¶43

,1' ,7

¶44

¶45

qRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.1484 of 2015 & 2361 OF 2015

¶46

the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the heads 'loss of estate, funeral expenses and spousal consortium'. Accordingly, prayed to a-llow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. He relied upon the following judgments:

¶47

i) In the case of K. Ramga & others Vs. National Insurc,nce Compang Ltd,,t 61 Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it was held that:

¶48

"....1t is a settled proposition, now through a catena of decisions including the one rendered bg the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi that compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further, the determination of quantum is a fact dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious. It must be emphasiz,ed that compensation is a more comprehensiue fonn of pearniary relief which inuolues a broad based approach uhlike damages.... "

¶49

ii) In the case of National Insurance Compang Ltd, Vs. Pranag Sethi and others2 of Hon'ble Apex Court (Constitution Bench) wherein it was held:

¶50

" Future prospects are to be odded to the sum on the percentage basis and "income" means actual income less than the tax paid at multiplier ftxed in Sarla Verma uthich has been approued in Reshma Kumari."

¶51

7 On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing

¶52

for the 2"d respondent/ Insurance Company had contended

¶53

'zouz(ra)scale '1zorz;^{to scc eao}

¶54

t-"

¶55

¶56

RF ,, COM,\ION IUDGMT \ ] N MAC(4A No.1484 ot 2015 & 2361 OF 2015

¶57

that the Tribunal ought to have seen that as per the police records, the acciderrt was due to the own negligent rlriving of the deceased and as per Ex.A1/FIR, the deceased drove his car bearing No.AP-9M-7452 towards Ltre extreme rigLrt side of the road and dashed the Tata. Van and the Tribunal grossly erred in fastening the liability on the 2^d responclent/ [nsurance Compaly. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal. He relied upon the following judgments:

¶58

i) In the case of Surinder Kumar Arora & another Vs. Dr. ManoJ Bisla & otherss of Hon,ble Supreme Court wherein it was held:

¶59

" Onus to proue act of rash and" negligertt driuing bg driuer of uehicles u,as on claimants and failure to discharge, bg ad.ducing cogent euidence is liable for rejection of ctaim filed. bg ctaimants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act."

¶60

ii) In the case of Orlental Insurance Compang Ltd.. Vs, Premlata Shukla and. othersa of Hon,ble Supreme Court wherein it was held:

¶61

'If the contents haue been proued_, the question of reliance thereupon onlg upon o poi thereof and not upon the rest, on ttte technica.l ground that tlte same had not been proied. in accordantce with laut, u.tould nct a':rse."

¶62

A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Tribuna_l while answering issue No.l: .Whether Ram Red.d.g

¶63

'^{atR 2ot2} sc 19t8 o 1zooz1 t:^{scc +zo}

¶64

¶65

5 R RN,J COMMON,JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.1484 of 2015 & 2 361 OF 2015

¶66

died in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driuing of the diuer of Tata Van No.AP-16TW-9471? Clea;.ly and categorically discussed that Ex.Al was lodged by the driver of Tata Van^.bearing No.AP- l6W-947 1 with the Police at Choutappal alleging that while he was proceeding towards Hyderabad, the deceased was driving a Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-9M-7452 in an attempt to save an identified person, drove his car towards the extreme right side of the road and dashed his van. The police have conducted an inquest on 07.O8.2OO9 and concluded that he himself dashed the Van of said Ramu. Respondent No.2 has claimed that the police have already frled a final report ald closed the case, but they did not Iile any such copy. Respondent No.2 did not try to examine the said Ramu in support of its claim. Except for Ex.A-1, A-2 and A-3 no other record has been placed to believe that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself.

¶67

8.1 The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 categorically shows that there was an accident wherein two vehicles were involved and one driver is no more, the other driver who lodged the complaint with the police, naturally threw the entire burden and liability on the opposite vehicle. In the absence of any

=:-!\ -.r

G ''-jF {

RAN.j.. COMI\4ON JUD6MEI,JT tN lvlACMA No 1484 of 2015 & 2361 OF 201S

¶72

independent witness, the e,,.idence of the dri'er of the Tata Van cannot be considered. pW.2 u,ho happens to see the acciclent categorical.ly deposerl that the accident <.rccurred due to the negligerrce of the Van driver. Ther.efore, the Trib urr_r.al rightl.T a.swered this issue in fan our of the petitio.r:rs a,cr against the respondents, wirich needs no interference. Thus, the finding of the Court below with respect to the liability of the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners is final.

¶73

9 . With regard to the income ol' the deceased, it is stated by the petitioners that at the time of ttre accident, the deceased was aged 54 years and working as a Sub Inspector of Police and was drawing a salarv of Rs.24,000/- per month. In support of their contention, they examined one T. Srinivasa Sastry, Administrative Officer in the Ofhce of Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda as pW.3. He deposed that as on the date of the death of the deceased, he was a S.l. of police, Kangal police Station of Nalgonda District. Ex.A-6 is the sa_lar5r certilicate of the deceased. It is elicited from pW.3 that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was under suspension. Even if he was under suspension, he must have received a subsistence allowance and if the suspension was revoked, he was entitied to total benefits as per the record.

¶74

RRN,] COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.1484 of 2015 & 2 361 OF 2015

¶75

¶76

Considering the above aspects, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that even if half of the amount shown in Ex.A6 is taken into consideration, it would be Rs. 1 1,000/- per month and if I /3ra of the said income is deducted towards his personal expenditure, the contribution of the deceased for the family would be Rs.7,OOO/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the Tribunal wrongly considered only Rs.11,000/- per month because the deceased was drawing a salarSr of Rs.24,000/-. Since the deceased was suspended from his duties at the time of his death, it cannot be said that he was earning an amount of Rs.24,000 l- per month, more particularly, that it was his last drawn income. Thus, in view of the evidence of PW-3, this Court is inclined to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.|2,OOO I -^per month. To this futr.rre prospects at 15% is to be added as per the decision in Pranag Sethi (supra). Since the age of the deceased is shown as 54 years, the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transpora Corporatlons is '11', but the Court below has wrongly taken the multiplier as "9". Since, the dependents are two in number 1/3ra of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards the^personal expenses of the deceased as per the decision of Sarlc Vertna

¶77

'lzoosy^{e sccrzr}

¶78

¶79

RR N,I COM[,1ON ]UDGMENT tN MACMA No.1484 of 2015 & 238'r Of 2015

¶80

(supra). The assessment of tire loss of dependency would thus

¶81

bc as follows:

¶82

I
Sl.No tron Calculaticn
_qc$ti
1 Incorne of the deceased Rs.i2 000 er month
Rs. 1 ,80O/- @ l5o/o on
2 Futule Pros ects
monthly income
Rs. 1,65,60O/-
Annual income + future (Rs.13,800/- x 12)
ros ects
4 Annua.l income of Rs.l,10,4OOl-
deceased after deduction (Rs.1,65,600 - 1/3.d )
of personal expenses
6 Multiplier 11
Rs.12,14,4OO
5 Loss of dependency
(Rs. 1, I O,4OO .x I 1) i

¶83

Learned Counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are entitled to compensation uncler conventional heads and the same is justified. The petitioners are entitled to Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,ooo + lov,l towards loss of estate and Rs. 16,500/- (Rs.15,000 + tOo/o) towards funeral expenses as per Pranag Sethi (supra). The petitioner. No.1 is further entitled to Rs.44,O0O/- (Rs.aO,OOO/- + toyol towards the loss of the spousal consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma Insurance Compang .Ltd.,

¶84

Vs. Nanu Ram @Chuhr.rt Ram6.

¶85

62018 Law Suit (SC) 904

I I

RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENI IN MACMA No.1484 of 2015 & 2351 OF 2015

¶90

1C In all the petitioners are entitled to

¶91

Rs. 12,9 1,4OOl- (Rs. 12,l4,4OO + Rs.44,000 + Rs.16,500 +

¶92

Rs. 16,500) towards compensation.

¶93

It is observed from the impugned order that the Court below granted interest on the compensation amount at 6ok p.a. However, this Court is inclined to grant interest @ 7 .5% p.a. on the enhanced amount as the Courts are constantly granting interest at 7 .5o/o in the present scenario.

¶94

Though the claimed amount is Rs.10,00,000/-, invoking the principle of just compensation, arld in view of the Iaw Iaid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singhz, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the petitioners / appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation.

¶95

15 Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. No.1484 of 2015 is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,76,OOO/- to Rs.l2,9l,4OOl- (Rupees Twelve Lakh, Ninety one thousand and four hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the

¶96

? MANU/sc/0480/2013

¶97

¶98

RR N,J COMMON JI]DGMENT IN MACMA No.1484 ()f 2015 & 2361 0r 2015

¶99

date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation along with interest and costs, after deciucting the amount if any already deposited, u,ithin (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this jr-rdgment. Upon such exercise, the petitioners are perrnitted to withdrau, the entire arrount srrbject to payment of deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶100

M.A.C.M.A. No.2361 of 2O15:

¶101

Since the grounds raised in the above M.A.C.M.A. regarding the negligence on the part of the deceased is rejected, this M.A.C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶102

SD/. B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// v

¶103

SECTION OFFICER

¶104

To, 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-^{XXV Additional ChiefJudge, City} Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶105

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

¶106

One CC to Sri M SATISH REDDY,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶107

Two CD Copies SP

I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710812023

COMMON JUDGMENT

MACMA.N 0.1484 of 2015 AND

¶114

MACMA No.2361 ot 2015

¶115

( oB 1HE S t4 16
oJ (((
2 3 JAI 2024
a
*
9rA.1CN?i)

¶116

ALLOWING THE MACMA No.1484 OF 2015 AND

¶117

DISMISSING THE MACMA No.2361 OF 2015

¶118

erc,il'-+'

¶119

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

¶120

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶121

PRESENT

¶122

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶123

MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEALNOS: 1484 AND 2361 OF} 2015

¶124

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS^{CELLANEOUS APPEA L NOS: 1484OF 2015}

¶125

Between:

¶126

Smt. M.Vijaya, S/o. Late M.Ram^Reddy, 2. M Sarala, D/o. Late M.Ram^Reddy,H.No 10-2-1941211, HumaYun^Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶127

...APPella nts

¶128

AND

¶129

'l . D.Srinivas, S/o. Chandra Shekhar, R/o. C/o Srinivasa Service Station, Ramavarappadu, VrlaYawada (Owner of the Tata Van bearing^No AP-16TW-9471)

¶130

The Oriental lnsurance^Co. Ltd, Represented by its^{RegionalManager,} Snehalatha Buildings,^Near CM Camp Office,^{Greenlands,Begumpet,} Hyderabad-16. ...Respondents

¶131

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI^{L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:2361 OF 2015}

¶132

Between:

¶133

The Oriental lnsurance co..Ltd,^{Representedby its Regional Manager, snehalatha} Buildings, Near CM Camp Office,^{Greenlands, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16}

¶134

...APPellanUResPondent^No'2

¶135

¶136

Smt, M.Vijaya, S/o. Late^{M.Ram Reddy,} 2. M.Sarala, D/o. Late M.Ram^{Reddy,H.No.10-2-1941211'Humayun Nagar,} Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Claim^Petitioner

¶137

D.Srinivas, S/o. Chandra Shekhar,^{R/o. C/o. SrinivasaService Station,} Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada.^{(Owner of the Tata VanbearingNo AP-l6-} TW-9471)

¶138

...ResPondenUResPondent^No'1

¶139

¶140

Appeals filed Under Sectjon 173 of Motor^{VehiclesAct againstthe orderand} decree ih o.P.No.2572 0l 2O1O dated 12.01 .2015^{0n the file of the lrilotorAccident} Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge, City^{CivilCourt, Hyderabad.}

¶141

ORDER: These appeal's coming on for hearing and upon^{perusingthe groundsof} appeals, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the^{material papersin the} Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. VISWARUPA^{CHARY, Advocate for} the Appellant in MACMA No.14B4 of 2015 & for the^{Respondentsin MACMA} No.2361 of 2015 and of Sri M. SATISH REDDY, Advocate for the^{RespondentNo.2} in MACMA No.'1484 of 2015 & for the Appellant in MACMA^{No.2361 of 2015.}

¶142

This Court doth Order and Decree as follow:

¶143

'l . That the MACMA No.14B4 of 2O15 is allowed by enhancing compensation awarded by Tribunal from Rs.7,76,000/- to Rs.12,91 ,4001-^{(Rupees Twelve} Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Four Hundred Only) with interest at^{7.5o/o pet} annum on enhanced amount from the date of^petition till the date of realization,

¶144

That the respondents are directed to deposit compensation along with interest and costs after deducting the amount; if any, already deposited,^withintwo months from the date of recerpt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶145