Allowed

Bhagyamma, v. M.v.Ravindranath

Telangana HC27 Jul 2023MACMA/1669/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 5,02,000 to Rs. 10,77,725. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence, recalculated loss of dependency based on an income of Rs. 6,500/month, and added compensation for spousal consortium and funeral expenses, noting the appellants are entitl

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,02,000 to Rs. 10,77,725 payable by respondents.

Bhagyamma, Vs M.v.Ravindranath — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTY SEVENTHDAYOF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶5

MOTOR AC^{CIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEALNO:166I OF 2014}

¶6

AooealUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorderanddecreein 6it]r["."gffi^{zn66: jrt"a bj]i)-i6bs;iGnr"ofihe courtof the chairmanMotor} X;id;;ic;ililriuunar -cum-^{Dist'ict JudseAt Nizamabad'} Between:

¶7

Reddy @ P.^{MohanReddY, Hindu'Occ}

¶8

1. BhagYamma,,^{Wo B. Mohan} housewife.

¶9

P. Manoj Reddy,,^{S/o Mohan Reddy' Hindu' Occ- Student}

¶10

3 P. Saniani,,^{D/o P. Mohan Reddy, Hindu' Occ- Student'}

¶11

4 P. Viftal Reddy,^{S/o Nagi Reddy' Hindu (died)} Wo P. Vittal

¶12

1. Smt.^Padmavathi,, Os ColonY,^Subashnagar

¶13

R/o 11-'1-864,^{New N.G Reddv (died)Hindu,}

¶14

(all are resident^at Nizamabad).

¶15

...AppellanUAPPellant

¶16

AND

¶17

M.V.Ravindranath,^{S/o M V L Kantha Rao' Hindu' AgedMajor' Occ- Owner of} ' t;t"'ililB"l"ii'g N" Ap-ztiuo-sqe N4o g t'to 3-146'^{Near Elementary} $i,;;ii;;sao;dtu,^{viiavawada' Dist Krishna'}

¶18

National lnsurance^{CompanyLimited"Represented hv its Divisional} Ma naqer. Division"r^{omJliilu-aU Bid"i diiv^r!1a;,o1s1.-1ri91ya'Pol icv No} 'd;?iaotrlirri676iooboa;ib''[riZ r.;"i tq'iz'2006 to^{1 3 'r 2 2007'}

¶19

..'ResPondents/ResPondents

¶20

Counsel for^{the Appellants:SRI' M' GOUTHAM REDDY}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'2: SRI' KOTASUBBARAO}

¶22

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'l: None Appeared}

¶23

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1669 OF 2Ol4

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

This MACMA is filed under Section^{173 of the} Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/^petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.12.2OO9^{passed in} O.P.No.93 of 2OO8 by the Chairman, Motor^{AccidentClaims} Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad,^(for short^"the Tribunal").

¶28

2 For the sake of convenience, the^{partieswill be} were hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before^the Tribunal

¶29

.) Brief facts of the case a-re that the^{petitioners fileda} on claim petition claiming compensation of^{Rs.1O,OO,0OO/'-} account of the death of B. Mohan Reddy @ P.^{Mol.ran Reddy} (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") on 03.05.2007 in^a motor vehicle accident.

¶30

3(l) It is stated that on 03.05.2007 at about^{3'30 p.m'} the deceased was going on a scooter bearing^{No.AP-25-D-3479} lrom his Typeu,riting Institute situated oppositc^toSBH

¶31

¶32

KIiN,I l\1Ac[lA No t6a') d ]0 rl

¶33

Subhashnagar, Nizamabad, to his home, oll 1'oachin €{ near Laxmi Srinivas Mess, suddenly, the driver of thr: Tata Surno bear-ing No.AP-26U-6588 openeC the ii-o,-it door of the 'I'ata Sumo and the same dashed the head ci the deceased, asa result, the deceaseci fell down and sustained a severe head injury ancl n'as shifted to Government iiospital, Nizamabad, but as tl-re condition oi the deceaseci r,;as serious, he was shift-ed to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderai:aci, on the s.t'ne da5r I-cr ber 1.er Lrcatnt enI

¶34

'i'hc accidcnt occurrcd due to the rash and negiigent act ol' the driver of the above Tata Sumo. The Police Traffic, Nizamabad, rcgisterecl a case in Cr.No.73 oi 2OO7. Hence, the claim pctitio n

¶35

4 Belore the^'lribuna-[, respondciit No. i u,as set e>, parte and lespondent l{o.2/lnsurance Ccrnpany filed counter denying the petition allegations. They rnainly contended that the insured of^r-his resoondent had colludeci lvith the petitioncrs and hence ha.s not reporter: the matter of the accident to thls respond.-,r'it soon a-fter^,.i::-. accident and also had not furnished the details of the accider-rt. Their further contention is that as the deceased himself contributed to the

¶36

RRN,] MACMA No^{l a,a,g0l l0l.1}

¶37

¶38

accident by negligently driving the scooter^{bearingNo.AP-25D-} 3479 in a rash and negiigent^{manner and caused the accident,} as such, prayed to dismiss the claim^petition.

¶39

To prove their case, petitioners^{examinedPWs'1} and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. On^{behalf of the 2"d} respondent, neither oral nor documentary^evidencewas adduced.

¶40

On appreciation of the evidence^{on record,the} Tribunal atlowed the O.P. in part by^{awarding compensationof} Rs.5,O2,OOO/- with interest @ 7.5%^{p.a. from the date of} petition till the date of reaJization. Challenging^{the same, the} present appeal is filed by the petitioners.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for^{the petitionerslnter-} alia contended that the Tribunal^{failed to appreciatethe} Ex.All-lncome Ta>r Returns which^{shows the income of} Rs. 1,00,408/- and Ex.Al3-Salary certihcate,^{as per it,the} deceased was earning Rs. 15,000 l-^{per month. But, the} Tribunal has taken the notional income^{of Rs.4,O0O/-,whichis} very meagre ald incorrect. He further^{contendedthat the} Tribunal while calculating loss of^{dependency,has wrongly} applied the multiplier 12^{instead of 13 and that the Tribunal}

¶42

¶43

RRN.J MA(IMA No i669 ol 2014

¶44

did rrot- graril compcnsation amount undcr conventioqal heads as per the.iucigments oi Apex Court. Hence. prayed to allow the appeal.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal rightl5, granted compensation and no interfcrence is required irom this Ccurt and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

9 Heard both sidcs. Perused the recorcl.

¶47

The contention o[ respondent No.2 is that there rvas collusion between r.he petitioners and the o,a,ner of the Tata Surno vehicie and that thcre w.as contrilrtttorl, negligence on the part of the dcceased. But, the Tribunal vvhile answering issue No. i "Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing No.Ap_26U_65gg by its dtiver? Hcre, the Tribunal committed error by framing a wrong issue u,hy because it is the contention of the petitioners that the accident occurred when the driver of the saiC Tata Sumo opened the front door of the Tata Sumo and the same dashed the head of the deceased. As such, the issue ought to have been fraltred as "Whether thc accident has taken place

¶48

)

¶49

RR N.] l\14(-NlA^{No l(6qot l0ll}

¶50

due to negligent act of the driver^{of Tata SumobearingNo'AP-} 26U-6588?

¶51

Be that as it may, the Tribunal^{very elaborately discussed} the issue and came to^{the conclusionthat the act of the driver} of the Tata Sumo certainly^{proves that he carelessly opencd the} door without observing^{the person comingon the road'} Therefore, the^police after a^{thorough investigation Iaid} chargesheet against the driver^{of the Tata Sumo. Moreover, in} support of their contention, respondent^{No.2 did not adduce} any evidence. Hence, the Tribunal^{was right in coming to the} conclusion that the accident^{was due to the negligent act of the} driver of said Tata^Sumo.

¶52

With regard to the income of^{the deceased,it is the} contention of the^{petitioners that the deceasedwas aged about} 46 years and was earning Rs.l5,000/-^{per month. In support} of their contention, they^{havefrled Ex.AlO-Diploma Certiircate} of the deceased,^{Income Tax returns of the deceased filed on} 5.1.1994 and subsequent^{incometax returnsare for the year} lgg4-g5 and his^{incomeis shown as Rs. 1,O0,O48/-' But, the} same has not been^{proved by the petitioners nor there is any} other piece of evidence^{to show that the deceasedwas earning}

¶53

¶54

R RI!,] Nl,\Ci,lA No 1669 (1201.1

¶55

Rs.15,O0O/- per month. trx.Al3 is the certificate issued by the President, Nizamabad, District Typewriting & Shorthand Institutes Association, as per rvhich, they grossly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1S,O0O/- per morLth to the best of their knowledge. The best of their knowlcdge is not sufficient to hold that the certificate ur-rder Ex.A 13 car.ries any weight because the petitioners have to prove the in<.ome of the deceased. Since the deceased did diploma, the Tribunal assessed the incomc ol the deceased at Rs.4,O00i per month. It is hard for the family members of a skilled lerbourer to prove his income. Since it is established that the de:ceased rvas running a Typewrit-ing lnstitute, his income wili be in fluctuation. We cannot expcct a col-rcurrent figur<: ol rncome. In the absencc o[ such ol' evic.lence and Laking into consideration of the prevailir-rg circumstances, the notional income of the deceased as a ski[cd labourer is fixed at Rs.6,5OO/- per month.

¶56

L2. The annual income of the deceased rvor.rld come to Rs.78,O0C/- (Rs.6,5OO/- x l2). To rhis, future prospects of 25o/o i.e. Rs.19,S0O/ is to be added as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nqtional Insurance Compang Ltd..

¶57

¶58

MACMA^{No l6{'9} of.lolr

¶59

Vs. Pranag Sethfr as the^{deceasedwas aged 48 years'Since} the dependants are 5^{in number, a deductionof 1/4tt' of the} income of the deceased towards^{personalexpenses which the} deceased might have spent^{for himself, is proper' A perusal of} the order of the Tribunal^{goes to show that it consideredthe} age of the deceased as 48^{yearsas per Ex.A9/SSC certificate'} The appropriate multiptier^{as per the decisionof Sarta Venna} Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2^{is "13"'Thus, the total} loss of dependency^{would come to Rs.9,50,625/-(Rs'78,OOO/-} + 2570 Minus 1/4tn x l3).

¶60

The Tribunal rightly^{awarded Rs'SO,OOO/-towards} medical bilts under Ex.A8^{for the treatmentof the deceased'} The Tribunal awarded^{Rs.5,O0O/-towards funeral expenses,} Rs.S,OOO/- towards Ioss^{of estate andRs. 1O,OOO/- towards} loss of consortium to the^{petitionerswhich are verymeagre '} However, the petitioners are^{entitled to compensationunder} conventional heads as^{per the decision of the Hon'bleApex} Court in Pranag^{(supra) and Magma lrtsuranceCompang} Ltd. Vs. Nanu^Ra.m @ Chuhru^{Ram3.Petitioner No'I, being} the wife of the deceased,^{is entitled to Rs.44,OOO/- towards}

¶61

'(lor7)^{l(, sc('(r8o} r (2009) 6 scc I t.

¶62

120 18 Law Suit (SCl 904

¶63

¶64

RI]N I l.1r,c!1A No t66' oI lC tl

¶65

spousal co,sortiurn anci petitioncrs arc arso entitred to Rs.16,500/ to'"r,ards funeral expenses and Rs.16,5O0/_ towards loss of estate. With regard to interest, the Tribunal riglrtly considered e-t Z.Soh p.a., which needs no interference.

¶66

in all, tnc petitioners/ appellants arc entitlcd to Rs.LO,77,725/- towards compensation. Though the clairned amount is Rs. 1O,OO,O0O/ , invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid dor.r,n by the Honble Supreme Court in Rajesh us. Rajbir Singha, ald in a catena of decisions, this Court is empou.ered to grant compensatlon beyond the claimed amount. [t is observed from the cause title of the appeal that petitioners No.4 and 5 diecl during the pendency of the appeal. As such, their share in compensation amount shall be equally apportioned among rest of the petitioners.

¶67

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allou,ed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,O2,OOO /- to Rs.lO,72,72Sl- (Rupees Ten lakh, Seventy seven thousand, seven hundred and tu,enty live only) rvith interest @7 .S %o p.a. from the date of petition t.ill the date

¶68

' veNulsclo+tolu ot3

¶69

RRN.,I MACMA^{NoIr,69ol20l4}

¶70

¶71

¶72

of realization.^{RespondentsNo' I and 2 are directedto deposit} the said amount^{with costs and interest after deductingthe} amount, if any,^{already deposited,within two months from the} date of receipt of^{a copyof this judgment'On such deposit'} the petitioners^{a.re permitted towithdraw the sarnein} accordance with^{the manner and proportionas determinedby} the Tribunal.^{However, since petitionersNo'4 and 5 died} during pendency^{of the appeal, their share amountshall be} equally apportioned^{among the rest of the petitioners'The} petitioners are directed^{to pay the deficit Court fee within two} months from^{the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment'} There shall^{be no orderas to costs'}