Appeal against low compensation in motor accident death case. Court enhanced compensation from approx. Rs. 4.19 lakhs to Rs. 12.78 lakhs based on income assessment, future prospects, and consortium rights.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 12,78,320/- with 2.5% interest; Respondents 1 & 2 jointly liable; Insurance Co. to deposit amount within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3208 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO:186 OF 2008
Appeal filed Under Section 173 of [/otor Vehicles Act againstthe Order and decree in l/OP No.517 of 2005 dated 16.05.2007 on thefile of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accidentss CIaims Tribunal - Cum- PrincipalDistrict Judge,Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.
Between:
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. VIJAYALAKSHMI PALADUGU Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : A S LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent 1 & 3 : Noneappeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT" JUSTICJE P,SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A . No. 186 of 2OOa
.IUDGMENT:
This appeai is Illed against thc Judgment dated i6.05.2007 in O P.No.517 of 2OO5 prissr:d by the learnecl Chainnan, Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal cum princrpal District Ju<ige, L_B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy Distr.ict. Hyderabad
3 As rhe prcsr:nt appear is prcferred .nly for e.hancement oI rhe compcnsation amounL granted by thc: trial Court" this Conrt is nor, going tnto othcr derails.
2
deceased was 35 years and hc u,as norking as Driver cum operator in M/s.Nataraj Rubber and Plastic Works at Moulali and earning Rs.5,200/- per month. Appellants have also filed Salary Certificate ol the deceased undcr Ex.A6. petitioner has not examined the authorized signatory, bul examincd p.W_2, as such the trial Court did not relieci upon trx.A6. Therefore, requested the Court to modify the award passed by the trial Court.
Court rn the dictum of Nqtionql Iftsurlonce Compang Limited Vs" Pranag Sethi2, l're ld ihat the future prospects of income of lhe selfemplovcd deceascd shall also be includecl in cietermination oi the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deccased. lAa/c,, o[ the incorne i.e., Rs;. 1g/2Cl_ has to bc added towards future prospects and t,-rus the amount would become Rs.65,520/- (Rs. 46,800 + Rs. i€,,720 = Rs.65,52O). This sum r1 mr-rltipiied \,iih the mllltiplier I6 applicable to the age of rhe deceascd i.e.35. il rvould conte to Rs. i0,4g,320/ {Rs.65.52O X i6: Rs.jO,48,32O1_). Thus, appellanrs are entitlcd lo Rs.10,48,320/ under thc heaC ,Loss of Dependency,.
7 Be sicics, appellar-rts are also entrtlec[ for compe nsation under'conventional heacls, as prescrii;ed in the dictum oI Nqtional Insuro.nce Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi. i.e., Rs.15,00Or torr,arcls ioss o[ Estate an<i Rs. L5,0OO/- towards funerai charqcs ancl Ils.4O,0OO7,- to the first appellant rowards spousal consortium.
(2(r r7) t6 SC (' 680
.+
authority of Mo.gmd- General Insurance Compang Limited. us. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ro,m & other*, and in the authority bctwecn United. India Insurance Compang Limited us. Satindzr Kaur (i Satwind.er Kaur and. other{, lortified that the amounts for loss of consorlium shall be awarded to thc childrcn who lose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consorlium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium' lor the loss o[ their grown-up children, Lo compcnsate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship ol dcceased childrcn. Accordingly, it is jusr and reasonablc to anard Rs.a0,000/ - each to appe llants No.2 & 3 as parental consortium and Rs.4O,OOO/ - each to appellants No.4 & 5 tou,ards filial consortium.
compensation in thc following terms:
| 1 | Loss of dependency | Rs.10,48,32Ol- |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Conventionalheads | Rs.70,000/- |
| 3 | ParentalConsortium for children@ Rs.40,000/-each |
Rs.8O,OO0/ |
| 4 | FilialConsortium forparents@ Rs.4 oOO/-each |
Rs.80,00O/ |
| TOTAL | Rs.l2,7a32Ol- |
'(20i8) t8 scc 130
' 1zozo1o scc o+l
Miscellaneor-Ls petitions pending, il any, shall stancl closeci.
SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 4D SECTION OFFICER
To,
ADK
x.tx
HIGH COURT
DATED:1410712023
JUDGMENT
MACMA.No.186 of 2008
-TATE e
)'.
(:
/{
NB
tfo \t $rl )
o t-. f.
ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS
4,:
t\v
\
't ,tj.} 1I i,fi ',: f !t {u:' -;I -/ \ iru rgeuicx couRT Fo YDERABADRTHE STATEOF TELANGANA --,.,t i .i. .,iel:{. i :,.a.{ $,& li I FRItiATWO"i-'Jr'J^i'rT,i5#=:^,+Y?[dHt" *tixt!l .fiA,i1 t,d;l. ?- a,i-ir{,, :t., i'r'1; til l!.t, 1II PRESENT HA 4',t4l .i.' N rl I. '.tl N 1 86 0F 2008 E}:t I' L c L U fiI .) it . si. ,it dtr r i3 ,. 1 dri '. a.lir i JI 'iii t Between: !itr W/o.lateVasantha Kumar HouseholdRl/o'H No : 1.'Smt.PillodallaStiguna : :29-646197,TarakaramNagar,Neredmet,Ranga ReddY District 2.. PillodallaNavitha'Dio.lateVasantha Kumar StudentFl/o H'No'29-646197' .a TarakaramNagar;Neredmet,RangaReddY District' ; 3;:-PillodallaAnitha, uardi anD/o.late Vasa. motherPntha Kumar Student 1l R/o.H.No.29-646/97,IP2and3 Tarakaramare minors Nagar,reP -.[y .{[reir g ir, n- Neredine t,,Rang aiReddy District 'd, 1' { ! :,4., piroadiu b'ang aan na '. Basappa, S/o.late ShivappaR/o.H.No'29-646/97, m Nagari Neredmet,Ranga Reddy District , :isio<i'di"nia; Iwto.sangaanna Basappa R/o.H.No.29-646/97' i m N agar,! Neredmet,RangaReddy District itr ...APPELLANTS
l I l I i
ar: I rave ,rep by its Proprietor O/o.98, StreetNo.3,East lt/aredpally' rabad I {r ,' l I 2.r Unitedllndia lnsurance Com Pany Limited, rep by itsRegional Manager Ii!: " O/o.Rejgional Office, Unitedtn diaBuildings,Basheerbagh ,Hyderabad. t: i .:' :r. .:.: t ..,. a .,,..' J ,{A:P.S:R:T.C:, rep'by its Managing Director O/o.Musheera bad, Hyderabad. I 4 I
...RESPONDENTS
': f -a' l t :. ,rlil i 'i..,;t :d '4I! i,l n',liJ-r\ I Appeal filed 0nder Secti6n 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree intt/OPNer517of 2005:'dated 16.05.2007 onthefileof theCourtoftheChairman : ril '.:.} f' i'I r"'. l :i. i
(
':a. r' 1 , ,i.:: ,i:, I '|..r. 1 t,l 1.... 1 {'1{' :: ...1i : |,;.,:,: ,i : ,rlI #,I,. ,.)j.. l t,, i . L: .1 lit { i HIGHi cou RT 7 I UIirI['1 '" t:,. :i c:tt..y,4 I a;'i:'l iii J DATE tt'41 0712023 i_r ,,h. , 1 rl '| .t r' -l1:i .s. i li i j:
l I I r' I .at. r_l ,.1_ r',.{? & 1l l:, .;,..1, .i. ;. !. -i fti. . '7: ,iri. .tl.: :t't.'? ':'.:.'rl '2:t:' .'-tq il: -it,r* i: ri I ,)., { *. I I ri.i: i. . I l. ), i'rI J UDG M E TtDECREE ;i t. i.ir li ., i:.i:.. rf r .,.l r .t i.ij r.i ri):i Mffifr,r A{N di186 of 2008 t', t !,,, { I . ,i i.t t{t i ..' {.t ir : I : 'a t' Iirr L o l-l E Ac M A il c U S .it Ii , 1 r.i t' it it t. 1{ : 1i -a
t
a.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the trial court in the motor accident claims case required enhancement given the assessed income and future prospects of the deceased.
Whether the appellants are entitled to an additional amount for parental consortium and filial consortium to the children and parents respectively.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarfaraz v. Delhi Transport Corporation (dictum on future prospects)Distinguished¶6
Sarfaraz Versus Delhi Transport Corporation
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranga SethiApplied¶6
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder KaurApplied¶34
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Pillodalla Suguna
Pillodalla Navitha
Pillodalla Anitha
Pillodalla Sangaanna Basappa
Pillodalla Siddamma
M/s. Sri Sai Travels
P. Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
