Allowed

Nukala Saidi Reddy and 3 Others v. Santosh and 3 Others

Telangana HC4 Aug 2023MACMA/1989/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Claims Appeal, enhancing compensation from Rs. 8.55 lakhs to Rs. 23.46 lakhs. The Court ruled against excluding the deceased mother's income, affirming that wives and female children are dependents entitled to future prospects and conventional heads compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 23,46,067 with interest at 7.50% p.a. from the date of petition till realization; respondents directed to deposit the amount.

Nukala Saidi Reddy and 3 Others Vs Santosh and 3… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PR.ESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1989 OF 2014

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of lvlotor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in OP No.257 of 2010 dated 2510112014 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 . Nukala Saidi Reddy, S/o. Seetharam Reddy Occ Joint-Registrar(Registration) 2. Nukala Nishanthi, D/o. Saidi Reddy, Occ Student

¶10

Nukala Nikhitha, D/o. Saidi Reddy, aged 19 years, Occ Student

¶11

Nukala Raghuveer Reddy, S/o. Saidi Reddy, aged 17 years, Occ Student (Petitioner No. 4 is being minor rep. by his natural father Nukala Saidi Reddy, Petitioner No.1)

¶12

All are RJo. H.No. 16-'1 1-50212h1A, Flal No.40'1, Pragathi Enclave, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad N/o. Singireddypalam (V) of Penpahad (M), Nalgonda District.

¶13

...APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS

¶14

¶15

Santosh, S/o. Balappa, Occ Car Driver Rl/o. Humnabd, Bidar Diskict, Karnataka State (Driver of Hyudai Accent Car AP-09 AP 444)

¶16

2 Pruthvi Raj Chit Funds and Finance, S.Ramreddy, S[/R House, Plot No.73, Nagarjuna Nagar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. (Owner of Hundai Accent Car No.AP-09-AP 444)

¶17

J Kachavarapu Prashanth @ Sriiiivas, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Occ Real Estate Business, R/o. New Bye Pass Road, Khammam Town and District. (Owner of Hyundai Accent Car No.AP -09 AP 444)

¶18

4 The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd., Br. Office 612801, Sanghamitra Bank Complex, Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda. Policy No.6101 86/31/66/01/00003952 valid from 2211109 to midnight of 2111/201oR

¶19

spoNDENTS/ RES'.NDENTS

¶20

For the Appellants : SRI AJGAL RAVI BABU, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondent No.4 : SMT P.SAWA MANJULA, Advocate

¶22

Forthe Respondent Nos.l to 3: NONE APPEARED

¶23

The Court delivered the following : JUDGIT/ENT

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1989 OF 2OL4

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

ThLs MACMA is filed under Section^{173 of the} Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the^{appellants/petitioners} aggrieved by the order and decree^{dated 29'0i.2014 passed in} O.P.No.257 of 2010^by the Chairman,^{Motor AccidentsClaims} Tribunal (II Additional District Judge),^{Nalgondaat Suryapet} (for short "the Tribunal").

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the^{parties will be} hereinafter r':ferred to as they were^{afrayedbeforethe} Tribunal.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that the^{petitioners filed a} claim petitiorr claiming compensation of^{Rs.2lO,O0,0OO/-on} account of the death of Konuganti^{(Nookala)Padma} (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") in a motor^vehicle accident that occurred on^21. i^1.2009.

¶30

3(1) It is stated that petitioner No.l rs the^husband, petitioners Nc,.2 and 3 are daughters and petitioner No.4 is the son of the dec:eased. On 24.11.2OO9 at 1.30 p.rn. the deceased along with one Poiepally Surresh was proceeding from yellagiri

¶31

)

¶32

Rll! v ( LtA Nu rq8("i l0ll

¶33

towards Koyya-lagudem on National Highrvay No.9 and at that time the car i.e. Hyundai Accent Car bearing No.AP O9-AP 444 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and^{negligent mannerand} dashed against the deceased, AS such, the deceased and Polepally Suresh received injuries and the car fell into a^road side ditch a-rtd the deceased was taken to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, where she died. It is further stated that the deceased was working as a Panchayat Secrctar5r and she^was aged about 43 years and earning Rs.13,845/-^per month.^On a complaint, Police Choutuppal registered a case in^Cr.No.32O of 2OO9 under Section 304-A and 337 iPC against the driver^of the said car. Hence, the claim petition

¶34

¶35

4 Respondent No.1 died. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/Pruthvi Raj Chit Funds and Finance, filed^a counter denying all the petition allegations. Their^main contention is that they already sold the^car to^{respondent No.3} much belbre the accident and that the car was insured^with respondent No.4, therefore, respondent No.2 is not^{liable to} pay any compensation.

¶36

5 Respondent No.3 remained ex^{parte. Respondent} No.4/ Insurance Company fiied a counter^{denying allthe} petition allegations.

¶37

RRN,] MAC|!.1^ No 198, ol20l4

¶38

To prove their case, petitioners examined^{PWs. I} to 3 and got marked E.xs.A1 to A8. On^{behalf of the 4th} respondent, n,r oral evidence was adduced,^{but Ex.B1 copy of} the policy was marked.

¶39

On appreciation of the evidence^{on record, the} Tribunal allowed the O.P.^{rn part by awarding compensation of} Rs.8,55,000/- with intere st^{(a) 60/o p.a. from the date of petition} till the date o- realization.^{Chailengingthe sane, the present} appeal is liled bv the petitioncrs.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the^{petitionersinfer-} alia contendr:d that the Tribunal^{failed toconsideroral} eviderice of P!r's 1 to 3 and documentaqr^{evidence under Ex.Al} to A8 and Tribunal erroneously determined^{earnings of the} deceased at FIs.5,000/ per month and^{that tkre Tribunaldid} not grant conrpensation amount under^{convenrional heads as} per the judgnrents of Apex Court. Hence, prayed to allow^the appeal.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel appearing^for respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunai rightly^granted compensation and no interference is required fiom this Court and prayed to dismiss thc appeal.

¶42

¶43

RRN-] MACMA l'lo lr89 ol20l1

¶44

()

¶45

1C.

¶46

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶47

There is no dispute rvith regard to the^involvement of a motor vehicle and the manner of the^{accident as stated in} the claim^petition and the issue in this regard^u'hichwas decided in the favour of the appellants/claimants is^not challenged, thus attained finality.

¶48

t2. The main contention of petitioners is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence available on record with regard to the income of the^deceased In support of their contention, they^got examined^{PW. 1 and he} deposed that the deceased was working asa Panchavat Secretary and was^. getting a salary of Rs.13,465/-^{as per} Ex.A8-salary certificate. As per the evidence of^PW.3- M.P.D.O., the deceased worked under her since 2003ⁱⁿ M.P.D.O. Office, Choutuppal and rvas drawing salary^{as per} Ex.A8 i.e. Rs.13,465/- and Ex.X-1 is the^{service book.}

¶49

It is observed from the impugned order that^the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the^{High Court of the} erstwhile State of Andhra^Pradesh in^{BontuVenkata Rao and} another u. Kalla Venkataramana and^{anothertwhereinit} was held by a learned Single Judge that it is^{only the husband}

¶50

'^{2oo3 (3) ALD3 r4}

¶51

)

¶52

RRN.J MACMA No l9E9 ol l0l,l

¶53

who has the duty to maintain his rvife and children and^the husband and children cannot be said to be the dependants^on the income of a wife/mother. In the present case, following^the above decision, the Tribunal did not consider^{tl.re sa1aryof the} deceased but only considered the services^{whic.h she wouldbe} rendering to her husband and children.

¶54

t4 When a similar issue as to whether the brother of a deceased could maintain a claim petition for^compensation under the Mo:or Vehicles Act came up before the High Court of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, a learned Single Judge in Susheel R'umar Ezkiel and Ors. Vs. U. Raiasekhar and

¶55

Ors.2.observeC as follows:

¶56

"21. .... The Supreme Court refered to the cleauagle of opinion betu.teen the High Courts in this "egard and held that euery legal representatiue utho suffers on account oJ death of a person due to a motor uehicle accident should haue a remedy for realization of compensation and in an ladian familg, brothers, sisters and brothers' cltildre,T^qnd sometimes foster child.ren liue togethe'r and theg are dependent u.pon tlrc breadt,inner of the family. The Supreme Coutt found^{no justification to dengthem} compensation relging upon the prouisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 7855 and held that the brother of a person who dies in q motor uehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petitlon und.er section 11O-A of the Act, if he is a legal representatiue of the d.eceased. The Apex Court q.lso conclud,ed that parliament

¶57

'M,,tNulapltz+gi2( |

¶58

¶59

RRN.] M,^Cf,t.r, No l.)80 oll0l4

¶60

¶61

intended that the expression^'legal representatiue' in section 11O-A of the Act should. be giuen a uider meaning and not conJined to the spouse, pdrent and. children oj the deceased.. The deu taken bg Guiarat High Court in this regard was upheld..."

¶62

As seen from the above, the husband of a deceased wife, being a lega1 representative of the deceased, can cleariy maintain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, more particularly, claim compensation for the loss of dependency on the account of the death of the wife. The same is applicable in the case of children upon the death of an earning mother. This Court is of the further view that in the evolved circumstances in the present day, the income of a woman is equally important to that of a man and in case the w-oman is a wife and mother, it is more likely that she would be contributing her income to the family without any hesitation. In the case on hand, the Court below relied upon Boitu Venkata Rao (supra) wherein it was held that there is a legal obligation cast upon the husband to maintain his own family, but not on the wife to maintain the husband and chilclren and they cannot be said to be dependents on the income of the rvife/mother. In the present day, it is not correct. It is needless to say that there are minor children of the deceased who are claiming compensation. They have the right to ask for compensation for

¶63

¶64

RRN,J MACMA No 1989 ol20l4

¶65

the loss of thr:ir mother and the same applies to^{a spouse. In} view of the stLme, they can be treated as dependants as^they are legal representatives of the deceased.^{This Court leels} while granting compensation there cannot be^any discriminatiorL between^male ald^{femaleand both spouses can} be treated to be dependents on each other's^{income for the} purpose of cler-iming compensation in the event of an untimely death of eithe- spouse in a motor accident.

¶66

t6. The Motor Vehicles Act being a u'elfare legislation, protects the interests of the legal represerLtatives of^the deceased ancl when the Tribunal found the^{petition under} section 166 ol the Act to be maintainable and^{adjudicatedthe} same, it is r:lear that the petitioners are entitled to^claim compensation under the head 'loss of depetrdency' on^the actual incomr, i.e. the salary. of the deceased. Thus, this^Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased^at Rs.13,465 as per Ex.A8/Sa1ary Certificate.

¶67

t7. The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,61,580/ (Rs.13,465/ - x I2.^To this,^{futr'rre prospects} of 30% i.e. Rs.48,4741- is to be added as per the decision of the Hon'bie Suprt:me Court in National Insurantce Compang Ltd..

MACMA No 1989 oa l0ll

¶72

Vs. Pranag Sethis as the deceased was aged 43 years. Since the dependants are 4 in number, a deduction of 1/4tr, of the income of the deceased towar-ds personal expenses which the deceased might have spent tor himself, is proper. The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporationt is "14". Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.22,O5,S67l- (Rs.1,61,580/- + 30% Minus lf 4tn x 1a). No amount is deducted torvards income tax as during the financial year 2OO9-|O, women having annual income below Rs. 1,BO,OOO/- were exempted from paying income ta-x.

¶73

The Tribunal awarded Rs.S,OOO/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 1O,0OO/- towards loss of consortium to the petitioners which are very meagre. The Tribunal was justified in not granting compensation for funeral expenses as pW.3 deposed that the Department paid the funeral expenses of the deceased. However, the petitioners are entitied to compensation under conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranag Sethi (supra) and Magma

¶74

Insurantce Compang Ltd. Vs, Nanu Ram @ Chuhnt Rams. petitioner No.1, being the husband of the deceased, is entitled

¶75

'1zo^{rzyt6 scc6so.}

¶76

'(2009)^{6 scc l2t.} s2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

¶77

¶78

RRN.J MACN,IA No I989 ol20la

¶79

¶80

¶81

to Rs.44,OOO7'- towards spousal consortium, petitioners No.3 and 4 minor children, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.8O,OOO/- towards loss of parental consortium and petitioners ar,: also entirled to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate. With regard to interest, the Tribunal ;-ightly granted interest @ 6o/c p.a. However, this Court is lnclined to grant interest at 7.5o/o p.a., on the enhanced amount in view of the present bank late of interest

¶82

In all, the petitioners / appellants are entitled to Rs.23,46,O67/- towards compensation. Though the claimed amount is Rs.20,00,000/-, invoking the principle of just compensation. arld in view of the law laid dou,n by the Hon'ble Supreme Coult in Rajesh vs, Rajblr Singhe , and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the

¶83

petitioners/ appeliants sha1l pay the dehcit Court fee on the enhanced compensation.

¶84

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed and the compensation amount arvarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.8,55,OOO/- to Rs.23,46,0,67 l- (Rupees Twenty three lakh, forty six thousand and sixty seven only) with interest

¶85

o MeN u/sc,,o+8ol2o t l

¶86

¶87

l0 RRN.J Nl;\Cl\JA No 1989 ol'l0l.l

¶88

\i.,.

¶89

Gr7 "5^{% p.a. on the} enhauced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents are directed to deposit the said amcunt with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within two months from the date of rcceipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are perrnitted to withdraw the same in accordalcc rvith the mannet' and proportion as determined by the Tribunal subject to payment of deficit Court fee within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶90

Miscellancous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶91

closed.

¶92

¶93

Sd/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIS R

¶94

//TRUE COPY//

¶95

SECTION OFFICER

¶96

One Fair Copy to the Honourable Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar^Rao (For his Lordships kind perusal) To

¶97

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional^District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. (with records, if any)

¶98

11 L.R.Copies.

¶99

The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of^Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶100

The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association^{Library, High} Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶101

One CC to Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶102

One CC to Smt P.Satya Manjula, Advocate [OPUC]

¶103

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/08/2023

---,:=::=:-- - .i-: 1' P.; :; lAfi.' --).ua' ,/.
Y ,,, \ i
J
rjr 15fr+M
'/,
'l

¶108

JUDGMENT

¶109

MACMA.No.1989 ol2O14

¶110

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶111

)-E
YV q
)e

¶112

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶113

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶114

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶115

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶116

PRESENT

¶117

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶118

M.AC.M.A. NO: 1989 OF 2014

¶119

Between:

¶120

1 . Nukala Saidi Reddy, Sio. Seetharam Reddy Occ JoinlRegistra(Regiskation)

¶121

Nukala Nishanthi, D/o. Saidi Reddy, Occ Student

¶122

Nukala Nikhitha, D/o. Saidi Reddy, aged 19 years, Occ Student

¶123

Nukala Raghuveer Reddy, Sio. Saidi Reddy, eged 17 years, Occ Student (Petitioner No. 4 is being minor rep. by his natural father Nukala Saidi Reddy, Petitioner No.1 ) All are Rr/o. H.No. 16-11-5o2l2l1lA, Flat No.401, Pragathi Enctave, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad N/o. Singireddypalam (V) of Penpahad (M), Nalgonda District.

¶124

...APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS

¶125

AND

¶126

Santosh, S/o. Balappa, Occ Car Driver R/o. Humnabd, Bidar District, Karnataka State (Driver of Hyudai Accent Car AP-09 AP 444)

¶127

Pruthvi Raj Chit Funds and Finance, S.Ramreddy, SMR House, Plot No.73, Nagarjuna Nagar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. (Owner of Hundai Accent Car No.AP-o9-AP 444)

¶128

Kachavarapu Prashanth @ Srinivas, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Occ Real Estate Business, Rl/o. New Bye Pass Road, Khammam Town and District. (Owner of Hyundai Accent Car No.AP -09 AP 444)

¶129

The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd., Br. Office 612801, Sanghamitra Bank Complex, Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda. Policy No.6101 86/31/66/01i00003952 valid from 22h log to midnight of 2111/201o*rrpoNDENTs/

¶130

RESpoNDENTS

¶131

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in OP No.257 of 2010 dated 29t0112614 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶132

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 Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, Advocate for the Appellants and of Smt P.Satya Manjula, Advocate for the Respohdent No.4 and for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

¶133

This Court doth Order and decree as follows

¶134

That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.8,55,0001 to Rs.23,46,0671 (Rupees Twenty three lakhs forty six thousand and sixty seven only) with

¶135

interest at 7.lo/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of pelition till the date of realization.

¶136

That the Respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the said amount with costs anC interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶137

That on such deposit, the petitioners be and hereby are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with the manner and proportion as determined by the Tribunal sub1,3ct to payment of deficit court fee within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶138