Allowed

L Singh, Nizamabad Dist and 1 Other v. Ranga Rao Pendyala, Hyderabad and 1 Other

Telangana HC14 Jul 2023MACMA/1741/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 2,25,000. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the notional income of minor children, the Court enhanced the award to Rs. 5,00,000 based on a notional income of Rs. 30,000 per annum.

What did the court decide?

Awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition.

L Singh, Nizamabad Dist and 1 Other Vs Ranga Rao… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

M.AC.M.A. NO: 1741 OF 2017

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in OP No 504 of 201 5 dated 20-03-2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- lAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Lakhan Singh, S/o Samsari Singh, Aged 30 years, Occ: Labour, H. No. 1-4611311514, Santhosh Nagar, Armoor Village and Mandal, District Nizamabad

¶10

Jyothi Kour, Wo. Lakhan Singh, Aged 25 yrs., Occ: House-hold, H. No.^1-4- 611311514, Santhosh Nagar, Armoor Village and Mandal, District Nizamabad

¶11

...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . Ranga Rao Pendyala, S/o. Late P. Veeraiah, Aged Major, Occ Owner of the Water Tanker bearing No. AP-29-T-123O, Rl/o H. No. 6-2-40, Shivarampally post, Rajendranagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad 500 052

¶14

Batai Allianz General lnsurance Com. Ltd, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office H. No. 54-589, Sai Anasuya Complex, Near Reliance Web World, Saraswathinagar, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad (Policy No. OG-151 80 1 -1 803-00001 268 Valid from O847 -2O1 4 to 07-07-201 5)

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI AMRUTHA SANJEEVA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. ASHOK REDDY

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.No.L74L OF 2OL7

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Being aggrieved by the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad in M.V.O.P.No.504 of 20 15, dated 20.O3.2OlT whereunder the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad awa-rded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation u,ith costs and interest @ 7 .5o/o from the date of petition on account of the death of their son in a road accident, the appellant have hled the present appeal and sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶23

As couid be seen from the impugned order in the present appeal, the appellants have liled the petition under Section i66 (1) (c) ol Motor Vehicle Act, 19gg against respondent Nos.l and 2 claiming an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation in view of death of their son by name Veeru Singh in a road accident. According to the petition filed by the petitioner before the Court below that on 14.06.2015 at about Ol:00 p.M. while the deceased

¶24

¶25

ffACMA No. 174 I of 20 t z

¶26

I I I I I

¶27

boy was by the side of majr: road at Santhoshnagar, Sikh,s Colony, at Armoor, the driver of a .,vater tanker bearing No.AP-29-T- 1230 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed thc deceased and ran over him, resulting his instantaneous cleath on the spot. The appellants have filed the above said petition for compensation. Both the respondents have contested the petition, disputing the material a'/erments of the claim. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶28

Whether on 14.06.2015 at about l:OO p.m ar Santhoshnagar sikh's colony, Armoor, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rvater tanker No.Ap-29-T-1230 by its driver?

¶29

Whether Veeru Singh received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

¶30

Whether the petitioners aie entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

¶31

To what relieP

¶32

During enquiry, the appellants have examined pWs 1 and 2 and marked Exs.Al to A6. The 2"a respondent has

¶33

¶34

MACMA No.1741o.f2017

¶35

examined RWs 1 to 2 and marked Exs.Bl to 84. The Tribunal having considered the contentions of both parties, has accepted the claim of the appellants herein and awarded Rs.2,25,00O/- towards compensation. The trial Court considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,0OO/- per monrh and while applying multiplier^.15, awarded fixed compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeal and claimed that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence and other record placed before it and the Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased was run over by a vehicle, resulting multiple injuries and died on the spot in a ghastly accident. The mother of the deceased was an eye witness to the accident and she deposed about the manner of the accident. The Tribunal having considered the age of the boy being 4 years, came [o a wrong conciusion that he was not admitted in school, the appeilants are not entitled to enhanced compensation. Learned counsel while placing reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena Deui us

¶37

¶38

MAC IA No.l74t of 2otz

¶39

Nunu Chamd, Mahto @.Nemchand. Mahto & othersr, have ciarmed that the appellants are entitled to enhanced com pensation.

¶40

Reliance was also placed on another judgment betu,een Ktshan Gopal & Another us Lala & Others2 and Manju Devi & Another vs Musafir paswan & Anothera

¶41

Heard both parties.

¶42

7 . Now the point for consideration is :

¶43

Wlt.etlrcr the Tibunal failed to consider the contentions of the appellants in proper utag, tltereby antarded_ insufficient amount as compensatiort? If so, tuhether the appeLlants are entitled to enhanced amount?

¶44

8. POINT:

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the accident, the appellants lost their only son irr a road accident at his tender age. But, the Court below awarded a meager amount of Rs.2,25,OOO/- in spite of the fact that the appellants have filed petition for a nominal

¶46

1 2022 |.au, Suir(SC) l2I8

¶47

2 2014 I SCC 244

¶48

3 2003 SCC Online SC l8

¶49

¶50

MACMA No.1741 o.f 2017

¶51

arnount of Rs. 1O,O0,OOO/-. While relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court betu,een Rajendra Singh & another us Nationq.l Insurance Compang Limited. & other# and in another judgment between Kishan Gopal and. others vs l-a.lq. and. otherss, the counsel has submitted that in the case of death of a minor, earlier as per the schedule-Il of M.V.Act, the notional income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/-. But, in view of the later judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court, the notional income shall be treated as Rs.3O,0O0/- per annum. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation.

¶52

There is no serious dispute about the death of deceased in the road accident. Even though nominal objections were raised by respondent Nos.1 and 2 about the manner of accident, the oral evidence of pWs I and 2 coupled with the documents including charge sheet frled against the driver of the vehicle proved the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to claimed

¶53

) 2020 ACJ 2211

¶54

s (2014) r SCC 244

¶55

¶56

¶57

MACMA No. I 74 1 oJ 20 I z

¶58

compensarion for the death of their son. The 2nd respondent has filed rhe copy of policy by which it is very clear rhat as on the date of the accident, the 1"r respondent owrrer. of the bus insured the bus with the 2^d respondent under a va_lid policy. Similarly, there is no serious dispute about the validity of the driving license of the driver of the bus. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to receive cornpensation frorn both the respondents.

¶59

As already stated in the previous paragraphs, the Court below having accepted the contention of the appellants while placing reliance on the judgment of the I{on'ble Apex Court referred supra, granted a sum of Rs.2,25,OOO/-. In a jr-rdgment between Kishan Gopal and Anr. us Lala & Ors. the Hon'ble Apex Court made an observation that in case o[ death of a lO years boy who was assisting their parents in their agricr-rltura-l operations, it is just and reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.3O,OOO/- per annum. For this proposition, the principles

¶60

\ \

¶61

¶62

MACMA No.174l oJ 2017

¶63

rn Lata Wadhwa and. Ors. us State of Bihar & Ors6 was

¶64

relied upon

¶65

I 1. It is true in the schedule-ll of the M.V.Act, the amount fixed lor notional income in case of the children betu,een the age group of 1O to 15 years was Rs. 15,000/- per year, but it was in the year 1994. In the other judgment relied on by the appellants in the case of Rajendra Singh & another vs

¶66

National Insurance Compang Limited. & others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that in case of death of a minor children, the notional income applying a 50% deductions toq,ards personal expenses with multiplier ol'15'can be awarded

¶67

In a recent judgment between Meena Devi us Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & others in Civil Appeal No.7255 of 2O22 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5345 of 2Ol9l, the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the cases betr,r,een R.K. Mattk & Anr vs Riran Pal & Ors^7, Kishan Gopal referred supra, Sarala Verma and. others as Dethi Transpport Corporation and.

¶68

6 (200 I )8 SCC 197

¶69

1 2009 14 SCC I

¶70

¶71

MACMA No.171t o.f 2O1Z

¶72

crnothefi and l,ata Wa.dhuto. and. Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors referred above, u,as pleaded to consider the notional income of the deceersed berr.r,een l0 to l5 J/ears age group as Rs.30.000/- and enhanced the compensation.

¶73

In the case on hand, even though there is no oral evidence about the income of the deceased since there is no dispute about the age of the deceased and in the light of the above stated ;uclgments, the a1:pellar-rts are entitlecl to enhanced compensation by treating notior.ral income of the deceased as Rs.30,OOC/ per a.nnum. The relevant multiplier rvould be^.15, (30,OOOxlS:4,SO,OOO). Therefore, the appellants are entitled to an amounr of Rs.4,50,OOO/_ towards loss of depen<iency.

¶74

Apart from the said amount a sum of Rs.5O,OO0 /_ can be awarded under conventional head in accordance with principles in judgment between General Manage4 Kerala S.R.T.C us Szsamm a Thomasg in relation to death of children between 1 0 to 1 5 years. 'Ih e appellants are

¶75

820096 SCC 12i e 1994 2 SCC 176

¶76

¶77

MACMA No. I 74 1 of 20 I T

¶78

¶79

i! LI

¶80

entitled to the said compensation with interest @ 9oh per annum

¶81

The appellants have filed the main petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,0O,OOO/_. In the light of above settled position of law and observations made by Hon,ble Apex Court, the appellants are entitled to Rs.5,O0,OO0/-.

¶82

In the result, the appeal is allowed. A tota,l sum of Rs.5,O0,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) rogether with cosrs of the petition/appear and interest (i 9ck from the date of the petition has been awarded. The appellants are entitled to receive the balance amount, after deducting the payment,rdeposit, if aly, rrrade by the respondent together with interest.

¶83

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if

¶84

any, shall stand closed.

¶85

SD/-MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

*/^/

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad(with records)

¶91

2- One CC to Sri Amrutha Sanjeeva, Advocate [OPUC]

¶92

One CC to Sri T. Ashok Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶93

Two CD Copies JA/plp

),Y-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410712023

JUDGMENT

91 NE OF
t
1
l\ib i ti
tF
+ it
\$tt ,:., ,.i
o
+D f,9,

¶99

MACMA.No.1741 of 2017

¶100

M.A.C.M.A. IS ALLOWED

¶101

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶102

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶103

PRESENT

¶104

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶105

M.AC.M.A. NO: 1741 0F 2017

¶106

Between:

¶107

Lakhan Singh, S/o Samsari Singh, Aged 30 years, Occ: Labour, H. No. 1-4611311514, Santhosh Nagar, Armoor Village and Mandal, District Nizamabad

¶108

Jyothi Kour, W/o. Lakhan Singh, Aged 25 yrs., Occ: House-hold, H. No. 14611311514, Santhosh Nagar, Armoor Village and Mandal, District Nizamabad

¶109

...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

¶110

AND

¶111

'l . Ranga Rao Pendyala, Sio. Late P. Veeraiah, Aged Major, Occ Owner of the Water Tanker bearing No. AP-29-T -1230, R/o H. No. 6-2-40, Shivarampally post, Rajendranagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad 500 052

¶112

Bajq Allianz General lnsurance Com. Ltd, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office H. No. 5€-589, Sai Anasuya Complex, Near Reliance Web World, Saraswathinagar, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad (Policy No. OG-151801-1803-00001268 Valid trom O8-07-2014 lo 07 -O7-2O'15)

¶113

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶114

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in OP No 504 of 2015 dated 20-03-2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

¶115

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 paper in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Amrutha Sanjeeva, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri T. Ashok Reddy, Advocate for Respondents.

¶116

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶117

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the total sum of Rs.5,00,0001 (Rupees five lakhs only) together with costs of the petition/appeal and interest @ 9% from the date of the petition has been awarded;

¶118

That the appellants are entitled to receive the balance amount, after deductions the payment deposit, if any made by the respondent together with interest;

¶119