Partly allowed

Smt Rabiyaunnisa , Asiya and 3 Others v. M.E.Sloman Raj and 3 Others

Telangana HC20 Sept 2023MACMA/1986/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this Motor Vehicles Act appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded for death in a motor accident. The Court recalculated the deceased's income, future prospects, and dependency loss using Apex Court precedents, directing respondents to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 16,46,495/- along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 10,00,000 to Rs. 16,46,495 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; filed to pay deficit court fee.

Smt Rabiyaunnisa , Asiya and 3 Others Vs M.E.Sloman… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

MACMA NO.1986 0F 2012

¶6

Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.O3.2O08 made in MVOP No.1842 ot 2OO4, on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt Rabiyaunnisa @ Asiya W/o late Adti Ahmed

¶9

lmran Ahmed S/o Adti Ahmed

¶10

lfran Ahmed S/o Adti Ahmed

¶11

Salman Ahmed S/o Adti Ahmed

¶12

(Appellants No. 2 to 4 are being minors represented by Appellant No.1) .Appellants/Claimants

¶13

AND

¶14

1 M.E.Sloman Raj S/o not known to the appellants Occ: Business Rl/o D-No.SRT 173, Jawaharnagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad

¶15

2 The New lndia Assurance Company Limited rep. by its Divisional Manager (D.O.l), T.P.Claims, lV floor, Al-Karim Trade Centre, Ranigunj, Secunderabad

¶16

3 Smt Syeeda Begum @ Hajira Fatima W/o late Adti Ahmed Occ: Household, 4 Bukak Ahmed S/o Adil Ahmed Occ: Student (R4 being minor represented by R3 Both R/o 19-1-848, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad)

¶17

(Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not necessary party).

¶18

...Respondents/Respondents

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Mr.V.Atchuta Ram, Advocate

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. S.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate

¶21

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT :

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶23

M.A.C.M.A.No .L946 0F 20L2

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

This M.A.C.M.A. is hled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellarts/petitioners aggrieved by the Order arld decree d.ated2Z.O3"20OB passed in O.P.No.lB42 of 2OO4 by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for shorr^,,the court belou/,) seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶26

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

¶27

a Brief facts of the case are as follows :

¶28

On 26.1O.2OO3, one Adil Ahmed (hereinafter

¶29

referred to as 'the deceased,) was hit by one Ambassador car bearing No.AP 13V-58 14, while performing his duty at Rotary Park Junction, Necklace Road, Hyderabad, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, as a resuit of which, the deceased died. The police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehiclc. The deceased r.r,as

¶30

w \ r-l

¶31

¶32

working as a Police^{Constablc ancl ezrningRs'7,178/'} Therefore, the^{petitioners init.a1ly filecl thc.clzrim pc;tition for a} sum of Rs.4,OO,00O/^{-, rvhich was subsequently enhanced to} Rs.1O,0O,O00/-.

¶33

In the instant^{case, the 1st petitioner is ttre u'ife'} petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are^{the chiidren,respondentNo'3 isthe} second wife and^{respondent No.4 is the son of the deceased} born through a second^wife.

¶34

The l"t respondent^{remained ex-parte'}

¶35

The 2'a respondent filed^{a colrnter denying all} the averments made^{in the claim petition ltis further} contended that the^{compensation claimedis excessiveald} prayed to dismiss the^{claim petition.}

¶36

7 . To prove the^{petitioners' case, PWs' 1 and 2 were} examined and marked^{Exs.A1 toA7} '^{On behalf ofthe} respondents, RW.l^{was examinedand Exs'Bl to 84 were} marked.

¶37

After considering the^{oral anddocumentar5z} evidence available on record,^{the courtbelow held that the}

¶38

¶39

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and, accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.lO,OO,0OO/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the same, the petitioners hled the present appeal seeking enhancement.

¶40

9 Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court below erred in fixing the deceased,s income at Rs. 1 1,484/ instead of Rs. I 1,969 /-. He further contended that the dependants being six in number, the court below erroneously deducted 1/3'a instead of I 14tn towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The court below did not grant any amount towards future prospects on the deceased,s income. He further contended that the court below has not awarded just compensation under other heads; and therefore, the amount awarded by the court below is very meager and unjustifiable.

¶42

¶43

¶44

Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that after considering the evidence available on record, the court below has avr,'arded just compensation, wl.rich needs r-ro interference.

¶45

The petitioners filed I.A.No. 1 of 2012 seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1O,OO,O0O/_ to

¶46

Rs. 19,00,000/- and the same was allowed on 06.09.2023 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1O,00,000/ to Rs. 19,00,O00/-.

¶47

A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal having framed issue No. I as to r.r,hether the accrdent had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and having considered the evidence of PW.2 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A- 1-FIR and Ex.A-2-charge-sheet, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and has answered in favour of the petitioners and against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of

¶48

)

¶49

the Court belou, that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶50

14 . Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners stated that the deceased was working as a Police Constable and earning Rs.T,l7g/- and the Tribunal without granting any future prospects has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. lO,00O/- per month. As the deceased was getting a sum of Rs.7,lS8/- towards gross salary, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,158/- after deducting Rs.20/- towards professional tax. Apart from that, since the deceased was a Government employee aged about 37 years, the petitioners are entitled to an additional amount of 5O% of the deceased,s income towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nqtional Insurance Compang Llmited Vs. Pranag Sethi and otherst. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 10,737/_ (Rs.7,158/- + Rs.3,579/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,28,844l- (Rs. LO,Z3Z /- X 12) and, out of

'^{2017 AcJzioo}

-- \ -- *,'F

which, I I 4tr.' has to^{be deductedto'"r'ards the personal} expenses of^{the deceased as the dependants are six tu number'} which comes to Rs.96,633/-^{(Rs. 1,28,844} l-^{(-) Rs'32,211/-)'} As per the decision^{of the Apex Court in Sarla Vermau' Delhi} Transport Corporation2,^{theappropriate multiplier} applicable for the^{deceased's age is'15'. Thus, the total loss of} dependency^{would come to Rs.14,49,4951-} P6'633 I^xl5)' The petitioners and^{respondent Nos'3 and 4are further} entitled to Rs.77,OO0/-^{(Rs.aO,0OO/- + 15,000 + Rs l5,0O0/ +} 1O%) towards loss^{of spousalconsortium, loss of estate and} ftrneral expenses as^{per PranagSethi (supra)' Further,} considering the^{fact that petitionerNos.2 to 4 and respondent} No.4 are minors, this^{Court is inclined to award a sum of} Rs.40,0OO/- each^{i.e., Rs.1,20,0O0/-towards loss of parental} consortium as^{per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma} General Insurantce^{Compang Llmited rt'Nanu Ram@} Chuhnt Ram and^{othetss, Thus, in all, the petitionersand} respondent Nos.3 and^{4are entitled tocompensationof} Rs.16,46,495/-.

¶55

'^{2oo9ACJ1298 (sc)}

¶56

r (zors) tt scc t;o

I I I

I .5. The Court belori, has ar,i,arded the rate of interest at 7.5^o/o per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court.

¶61

Thus, the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.16,46,495/_ as against the awarded amount of Rs. lO,O0,0OO/-.

¶62

Accordingly, rhe M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs. lO,0O,OO0/_ to Rs. 16,46,495/- (Rupees Sixteeen lakh, forty six thousand four hundred and ninety five only) u,ith interest at the rate of T.So/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos. I ald 2 xe directed to deposit the said amounI together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned arnong the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Court below. However, the petitioners a_re directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount

¶63

¶64

within two months from^{th.e da.te of receipt of a copy of tl-ris}

¶65

jr.rdgment. There shall be no order as^{to costs}

¶66

Miscellaneous petitions, if any^{are pending, sha1l stand}

¶67

closed.

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69

SD/- A.V,S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REG}STRAR "/ / SECTION OFFICER

¶70

To,

¶71

The Chairman, Ivlotor Vehicle Accident Claims^{Tribunal-cum-lll Additional} Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.^(with records)

¶72

One CC to tvlr V.Atcjita^Ram, Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

One CC to Mr S.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶74

Two CD Copies

¶75

kvon

¶76

NS \ ]--

HIGH COURT

RRNJ

DATED:20.09.2023

JUDGMENT + DECREE

MACMA.No.1986 ot 2012

¶82

1 $E STATE
(
s B rtB $2t o
Jo ;.
,
,- OE:JPA1

¶83

ALLOWING THE MACMA, WITHOUT COSTS

¶84

N :r>J
2)
-.2

¶85

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶86

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶87

PRESENT

¶88

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶89

MACMA NO.1986 0F 2012

¶90

Between:

¶91

1 . Smt Rabiyaunnisa @ Asiya Wo late Adti Ahmed

¶92

lmran Ahmed S/o Adti Ahmed

¶93

lfran Ahmed S/o Adti Ahmed

¶94

Salman Ahmed S/o Adti Ahmed

¶95

(Appellants No. 2 to 4 are being minors represented by Appeltant No. i) .Appellants/Claimants

¶96

AND

¶97

M.E.Sloman Raj S/o not known to the appellants Occ: Business R/o D.No.SRT 173, Jawaharnagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad

¶98

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited rep. by its Divisional Manager (D.O.l), T.P.Claims, lV floor, Al-Karim Trade Centre, Ranigunj, Secunderabad

¶99

Smt Syeeda Begum @ Hajira Fatima W/o late Adti Ahmed Occ: Household, 4. Bukak Ahmed S/o Adil Ahmed Occ: Student (R4 being minor represented by R3 Both Ryo 19-1-848, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad) (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not necessary party).

¶100

...Respondents/Respondents

¶101

Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.03.2008 made in MVOP No.1842 of 2OO4, on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Ill Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou(, Hyderabad.

¶102

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Court below, the material papers in the Original Petition and upon hearing the arguments of l\rr.V.Atchuta Ram, Advocate for the Appellant and [vlr. S.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent .

¶103

¶104

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶105

That this Appeal be and here by partly allowed in MACMA;

¶106

That enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,00,0001 to Rs-16,46,4951 (Rupees Sixteeen lakh, forty six thousand four hundred bnd ninety five only) with interest at the rate of 7.5oh p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶107

That Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this^judgment;

¶108

That the bompensation amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Court below;

¶109

That however, the petitioners are directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶110