Allowed

The United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.S.Vijaya Laxmi,Sri Latha and 5 Others

Telangana HC23 Sept 2023MACMA/1844/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by the insurance company and dismissed the appeal by the accident victim's family after enhancing compensation from Rs.5.96 lakhs to Rs.11.04 lakhs, considering the deceased's age, potential income, and future prospects.

What did the court decide?

The compensation award by the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs.5,96,000 to Rs.11,04,200. Respondents directed to deposit the amount with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt.S.Vijaya… — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶3

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

¶4

SATURDAY, THE^{TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶7

MOTOR ACCI^{DENT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NOs:1 844 oF 2013} AND 2985 0F²⁰¹⁴

¶8

Aooeal filed Under^{Section173 of Motor VehiclesAct agailg!lle^Order-ard} o.","i[t63.r.iZ. aiilr^i6;, ibi.i^{N;.25s'ot zoozl dated 06t12t2012 on the file} of the Court^{of the Chairml"ilIi"r'nC"ii"nl Criiri Tribunal-cum-lll Additional} District Judge(FTC),^WanaParthY'

¶9

MOTOR ACCIDENT

¶10

crvlL Mts^{CELLANEOUSAPPEALNO:'1844OF2013}

¶11

Between:

¶12

The United^{lndia lnsurance CompanyLimited',Reoresented by its Divisional} /lanaqer,^{Divisional oni""'"ilo"i'i'"['ni'r'yu'D'Noi7-241t10'2nd Floor'Saroltnt} il5rii"ra,^{i t."r'i". rosa, Secunderabad - 500003'}

¶13

.ApPellanUResPondent^No'3

¶14

AND

¶15

1 Smt.S.Viiaya^{Laxmi, @ Sri LathaW/o late"S:V'l''Y'' Kumar Reddy' R/o}

¶16

2 ililil.sft^{ffiil#"ttlr:;ffi} iililH:',i'h:,srui**, ru; i;il;;;J'an^{snlp of her natural mother' Responr}

¶17

¶18

¶19

fit*#'lnirx*utl'fru;':'^:nH::

¶20

5 6 iffi^{:srs*'ffi il*-';+,iqft fl .'tffi ;#;r:-,} No'1^{& 22}

¶21

No'1^{& 22}

¶22

"'Respondents/Respondent

¶23

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:^{2985 OF 2014}

¶24

Between:

¶25

'l . Smt.S.Vijaya Laxmi, @ Sri Latha, Wio late S.Vilaya Kumar Reddy, R/o Ramanthapuram Village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶26

1. Kumar S.Alekhaya @ Pandu, D/o late S. Vijaya kumar Reddy, R/o Ramanthapuram Village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Minor under the guardian ship of her natural mother, Respondent no.1 Smt.S,.V[aya Laxmi

¶27

S.Bucha Reddy, Sio late S.Devi Reddy, Occ Agriculture, R/o Ramanthapuram Village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶28

Smt.S.Kamalamma, Wo Bucha Reddy, R/o Ramanthapuram Village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶29

...AppellanURespondent

¶30

AND

¶31

'1. P.Jangaiah, S/o Somaiah, Occ Driver of lorry No. Ap 16 W 2578, R/o

¶32

^^{I Nq]1:tq7,Sivaji Nagar, Nakrekat, Natgonda District} 2 9ry K.Shobha Rani, Wo Srinivas RedO!, Occ Owner of lorry No. Ap 16 W 2578, Rlo Door no. 58-16-.16, Rama Lingeshwata nagat, Vrjayiwada.

¶33

1. The United lndia lnsurance Company L,rituO, ReiresenteO by its Divisional Manager, Divisionat ofli:",.!-o, tt, itamataya, o".No l_i_iqilto, t# ;;;;, S_arojini Devi Road, p.B.No. tOg+, SecunJerrt"O _ !OOOO3 (Respondent No.1 & 2 are not necessary partiesj

¶34

...Respondents/Respondents

¶35

Counset for the Appeltant in MACMA No.1844 ot 2013 and Respondent No.3 in MACMA No.29B5 of 20,14

¶36

: SMT A MALATHI

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents in MACMA No298S of Z014and Appellant in MACMA No.1844 ot 2013

¶38

: Sri MOHD YOUSUF

¶39

The Court delivered the following

¶40

: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶41

.rn'

¶42

THE ggry,",E SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAP M.A.c .M.A.N U RAJESIIIVAR RAO os.1844 of 20 13 and co 2985 of 20 74 ON rIUDG NT:

¶43

These two appeals are being dis posed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.lfi44 United of 2013, filed by the India Insurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A .No.2985 of 2014, filed by the appellants/ petitioners against the very same order and decree dated 06.72.2012 passed in O.p.No.42 1 of 2Ot2(OId O.p.No.755 of 2017) by th e Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_ Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy (for short .the Tribunal).

¶44

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

¶45

3' The case of the petitioners is that on 30. 12.2006 at about 10.30 p.m., one S.Vijaya Kumar Reddy (deceased), along with his friend/Bat Reddy, was proceeding in Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.Ap 22-B-991g, and when they reached in front of Simla Dhaba within the limits of palem village, one Lorry bearing No.Ap- l6_W_257g, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent marner at high speed, dashed

¶46

1
i.. -

¶47

against^{the deceased with the rear portion of lorry' due to} which^{the d.eceased sustainedsevere injuries ald died on the} spot.^{Therefore,the petitioners' who are the wife' son and} parents of^{the deceased, filed the O'P' seeking compensation} of Rs.^1O,OO,O00/--

¶48

Respondent^{No'2 filed the countei: aliegingthat he is the} owner of^{the t,orry bearing No'AP' l6-W-2578' and the said} vehicle is^{insured withrespondentNo'3' Therefore'} respondent^{No.3 aloneis iiable to pay the compensation'}

¶49

5 The respondent No.1^{filed a memo adopting the counter} of respondent No.2.

¶50

Respondent No.3 filed the counter alleging that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of thc incidcnt and the crime vehicle was not in roadworthy condition.

¶51

7 . To prove the petitioners case, P.W. 1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.Al to Ex.A20 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neiflrer oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

]

.//

After considering the oral and documentar5r evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded arr arnount of Rs.5,96,OOO/- with interest @ 7.5 7o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by respondent Nos.l to 3 jointly and severally. Challenging the^saidaward, the petitioners have filed the^{appeal seeking enhancement,} and respondent No.3^{has filed the appeal challengingthe} legality of the award.

¶56

g. Heard both^{sidesPerused the material on availableon} record.

¶57

Learned^{counsel appcaring for the petitioners contended} that at^{the time of the accident'the deceased was aged about} 34^{years old and studiedup to intermediate'He was working} as a^{driver-cum-supervisor on thc Tractor ald Trailerbearing} Nos.AP-22-U-0076^{and AP-22-U-0077and jeep bearing} No.Ap_22-D_^{7g2 and getting Rs.a,ooo/- as adriver and} Rs.2o,Ooo/-^{per month by giving the said vehicles on hire} apart^{from gettingRs l'OO'oOo/-per annum on agriculture} and^{tre was owning Ac'O-3 % guntas of wetlandAc'7 -24}

¶58

guntas^{of dry land'}

¶59

¶60

-:r

¶61

1 1. karned counsel appcaring for the petitioners further submits that the incomc fixcd by the Tribunal is very meager; therefore, the income may be fixed at Rs.20,000/_ per month.

¶62

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the offending Lorry was brought into the picture in order to claim the compensation as p.W.2, who is an eyewitness to the accident, did not state the vehicle number. With regard to the income, ir is submitted that p.W. 1 is saying that the deceased used to ezrn Rs.1,OO,OOO - /- per month from agriculture, but these lands are in the name of his father, not in the name of th" d", and he used to earn Rs.20,0oo/per month by giving ,:"o"t'o' vehicles on hire for that also no proof. Hence, prayed t" ",:" impugned award. ou' their appeal bY setting aside the

¶63

A perusal of order discloses that the Tribunal, having ,"11^-'"tned amed issue No. 1, a accident had occurrr offending vehicre or, o o'" to rash o ""';":, ffi J" or prvs. I and 2..:_ ]t'*.. .Having^coosidered the eyidence with the docurnen ExA-r-FrR *; ;;:1" acciden r occurred .r:,: ;":::^ ::: jp::::t ;. nt dnvrng of the

¶64

)

¶65

)l;

¶66

driver of the offending vehicle, Lorry and has answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. The respondents did not choose to adduce any rebutted evidence arld in the absence of the same, the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry.

¶67

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in view of the judgment of thc Apex Court in Ramchandrappa vs Manage1 Rogal Sund.aram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltdt, lhis Court is inclined to hx the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. To this 4OVo of the deceased's income is to be added Iowards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Compang Limited us. Pranag Sethi and others2 as the deceased was aged about 34 years. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,3OO/+ (Rs.4,5oo/Rs. 1,800/-). From this, l/4th^o/o is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased

¶68

r( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236 2 2017 ACJ 2700

¶69

¶70

following Srrrla Verrna u. Delhi Transport Corporationz as the dependents are four in numbcr. After deducting l /4rh of the amount towards her personal and living expenses, the deceased's contribution to the family comes to Rs.4,725/_ per month. As the age of the deceased was 34 yea_rs at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is .16,. Adopting multiplier 16, the tota_l loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,T2Sl- x t2 x 16). The petitioners are further entitled to Rs.33,C00/_ (Rs.15,0OO/- + 10% and Rs. 15,000/- + lO%) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per pranay Scthi,s casc (supra). Further, petitioner No.1, who is thc dccczrscd's wife, is a-lso entitred to Rs.44,OOO/- (Rs.aO,OOO/- + lO%o ) towards the loss of consortium. Further, considering the fact that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.4O,000 /_ each under the head of loss of frlial consortium ar.rd petitioner No.2, who is the minor son of the deceascd, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.4O,OOO/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Compang Limited. a. Nanu Rcrm

'2009^ACJ l29s (sc)

I I

@Chuhru^{Rann qnd othersa, Thus, in all, the petitionersare} entitled to a sum of Rs.^{1 l,O4,2OO} I^{- .}

¶77

The Tribunal^{has awardedthe interestrate} @^{9%o per} arrnum. However,^{this Court is inclined to grant interest@} 7.5o/o per annum on^{the enhancedcompensation amount from} the date of petition till^{date of rea-lization.}

¶78

In all, the^{petitioners/appellants a-re entitled to} Rs.11,04,200/- towards^{compensation.Though the claimed} amount is Rs.10,00,000/-,^{invokingthc principle of just} compensation, and in^{view of the lau' laid dorvn by the IIon'ble} Supreme Court in^{Rajeshus. Rajbir Singhs, and in a catena} of decisions, this court^{is empoweredto srantcompensation} beyond the claimecl amount l-I6"vsver' the petitioners / appellants^{shall pav the deficit Courtfee on the} enhanced comPensation.

¶79

Accordingly,^{the MACMA No.2985 of 2O14 is allou'cd by} enhancing the compensation^{awarded by thc Tribunal from} Rs.5,96,000/- (Rupees^{fivc lakhs and nincty six thou sand} only) to Rs.l1,O4,20O/-^{(Rupees elcvc:rlakl- -for-t r thorrsald}

¶80

o (20 rs) t8 scc t;o

¶81

'^{Mel u/scio+solzot:}

¶82

, )

¶83

¶84

---I. !,:{ffi!l -*'\ ':.

¶85

arrd trvo hundr.-_, or,ty). The petitioners are er-rtitied to interest Qg^{7 .5o/o} p.a., on the enhanccd amount from the date of petition tili dziie of realization. f{espondents are directed to dcposit the ,.r.,1 arnount with costs and interest after dcducting the amount, if any dcpositcd, within a period of two months from ttrc date of rer:eipt of the copy cf this judgment. On such deposii, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as determined by the lribunal subject to payment of deficit Court fec

¶86

MACMA No.18 44a f 2013:

¶87

in view oi.the above iinclin5l in IIACMA No.2985 of 2014, which is deciclcd in favor. of the petitioner this MACMA No.1844 of 2Ol3 filed by thr: lnsurance Company, is herebv dismissed. Thcrc shall be no ordei. as to costs.

¶88

As a sequei, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending _^{in both these appeals} shall stand <:losed.

SD/-A.V.S PRASAD

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumlll Additional District Judge(FTC), Wanaparthy.

¶96

One CC to Smt A MALATHI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶97

One CC to Sri MOHD YOUSUF, Advocate IOPUC]

¶98

Two CD Copies SP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310912023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.N o.1844 of 2013

¶103

{ \g STAf5r
(
)q I g ,]All 2[?[ zo
o
,+
t
t OE e PA1

¶104

ALLOWING THE MAGMA No.2985 OF²⁰¹⁴ AND

¶105

DISMISSING THE MACMA No.1844 OF 2013

¶106

<br>

¶107

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

¶108

SATURDAY, THE^{TWENTY THIRDDAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶109

PRESENT

¶110

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶111

MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCE LLANEO^{US APPEAL NOs: 18440F 2013} AND 2985 0F 2014

¶112

MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISC^{ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1844 0F 2013}

¶113

Between:

¶114

its Divisional The United^{lndia lnsurance CompanyLimited'Represented} -by Mun"g"r, Divisional^{Office, No. ll, Ramalaya, D No'1-7-241110'2""} Floor, Sarojini Devi Road, P.B.No.^{1694,Secunderabad- 500003'}

¶115

...AppellanUResPondent^No.3

¶116

AND

¶117

'1. Smt.S.Vijaya Laxmi, @ Sri Latha' Wo late SVijaya^{KumarReddy' R/o} RamanthaIuram^{Villageof Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District'}

¶118

z. kurat S.Alekhaya @^{eanOu, D/o late SVijayakumar-Reddy'..R/o} Ramanthapuram^{Uttag" of KothakotaMandal, Mahabubnagar District'.Minor} under tne^{guardian ship of her natural mother' Respondent no l Smt S' Vijaya} Laxmi

¶119

S.Bucha Reddy,^{S/olate S Devi Reddy, Occ Agriculture' R/o Ramanthapuram} Village of Kothakota^{Mandal, Mahabubnagar District'}

¶120

+. smtS.Kamalamma,^{woBuchaReddy-, R/o RamanthapuramVillage of} KothakotaMandal,MahabubnagarDistrict. ...petitioner/Respondent

¶121

P.Jangaiah, S/o^{Somaiah, Occ Driver of lorry No AP 16 W 2578'Rlo} H.tto.it-tOz, Sivaji^{Nagar, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District}

¶122

6.SmtK.ShobhaRani,WoSrinivasReddy,OccOwneroflorryNo'AP16W 2578.Rto Door no.^{58-16-16, Rama Lingeshwara nagar' Vijayawada'}

¶123

...Respondents/Respondent^{No'1 & 2}

¶124

MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCE^{LLANEOUSAPPEAL NO:29850F2014}

¶125

Between:

¶126

¶127

1 Smt.S.Vijaya^Laxmi, @^{Sri Latha, Wo late S Vijaya KumarReddy'} nrrrritiri,rrrm^{Villag6 of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District'}

¶128

Kumar S.Alekhaya @ Pandu, D/o late S. Vijaya kumar Reddy, R/o Ramanthapuram Village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Minor under the guardian ship of her natural mother, Respondent no,1 Smt.S,.Vijaya Laxmi

¶129

S.Bucha Reddy, S/o late S.Devi Reddy, Occ Agriculture, R/o Ramanthapuram Village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶130

Smt.S.Kamalamma, Wo Bucha Reddy, R/o Ramanthapuram Village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District_

¶131

...AppellanURespondent

¶132

¶133

'1 P.Jangaiah, S/o Somaiah, Occ Driver of lorry No. AP 16 W 2578, R/o H.No. 11-107, Sivaji Nagar, Nakrekal, Natgonda District

¶134

Smt K.Shobha Rani, Wo Srinivas Reddy, Occ Owner of lorry No. Ap i6 W 2578, R/o Door no. 58-16-16, Rama Lingeshwara nagar, Vijayawada.

¶135

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, No. ll, Ramalaya, D.No.1-7-241110, 2nd Floor, Sarojini Devi Road, P.B.No. 1694, Secunderabad - 500003. (Respondent No.1 & 2 are not necessary parties)

¶136

... Respondents/Respondents

¶137

Appeql filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.421 ot 2012 (Otd No.755 ol 2007) dated 06t12t2012 on the fite of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional District Judge(FTC), Wanaparthy.

¶138

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 Smt A MALATHI, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA No.1844 of 2013 and Respondent No.3 in MACMA No.2985 of 2014 and of Sri MOHD YOUSUF, Advocate for the Respondents in MACMA No.2985 of 2014 and Appellant in MACMA No.1 844 of 20'13.

¶139

This Court while allowing the MACMA No.2985 of 2014 and dismissing the MACMA No.1844 ot 2013 doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶140

'1. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.5,96,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand Only) to Rs.1 1 ,04,2001 to (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Four Thousand and two hundreo Only);

¶141

fhat the Petitioners are entitled to interest @ 75% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till date of realization;

¶142

That the Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any deposited, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. On such

¶143

deposit, the petitioners are^permitted to withdraw their^{respectiveshares as} determined by the Tribunal subject to^{payment of deficit Court fee; and}

¶144