Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.G.Laxmidevamma and 6 Ors.

Telangana HC17 Aug 2023MACMA/2007/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident death case by reconsidering the assessment of income, future prospects, and the applicable multiplier, while dismissing the insurer's appeal regarding contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 23,73,428 with 7.5% interest; insurer's appeal dismissed.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

[³³⁰⁴ I

.t It

! I:I t a.t.:. ,zII t"f } 'a ;t;s ..1,,di * : rix^. '.f. ) r- , _-1r ,I THE HoNoURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU { t,l M.AC.M.A It

¶7

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶8

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAYOFAUGUST O THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

,I THE HoNoURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU nfuesxwnR nao

¶11

M.A.C.M.A. NOs:1877 and 2OOl OF 20'l l

¶12

M.AC.M.A NO: 1877 OF 2011

¶13

i Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor vehicres Act against the order and decree in M.V.o.P.No.2653 of 2003 dated 27.o4.2o1 1 on the file of the court of the XXll Additional chief Judge-cum{he Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, city Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.

i;!

Between:

, :

..i I

:: :.

'.t 1 Smt. G. Laxmidevamma, G. Laxmidevamma, Laxmidevamma, W/o Late G. Siddiah Household R/o H.No. Late G. Siddiah Household R/o H.No. G. Siddiah Household R/o H.No. Siddiah Household R/o H.No. R/o H.No. H.No. 1_7,' t 1851G-612, Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town andand District.,

¶21

'.t 1 Smt. G. Laxmidevamma, G. Laxmidevamma, Laxmidevamma, W/o Late G. Siddiah Household R/o H.No. Late G. Siddiah Household R/o H.No. G. Siddiah Household R/o H.No. Siddiah Household R/o H.No. R/o H.No. H.No. 1_7-

¶22

tItI ,' t 1851G-612, Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town andand * District., i ., Mr. G. Venkat Narayana, S/o Late G. Siddiah Engg. Student R/o H.No. 1_7_

¶23

t 1851G-612, Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town and

¶24

r{ 2.ti District.,

¶25

itit 3. G. Suresh Kumar, S/o Late G. Siddiah Engg_ Student Ri/o H.No. 1-7-1gStG_

¶26

¶27

ta-1t..tI,:1t..tI,:t..tI,:tI,:I,: .;,} 6/2, Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town and District., 4. Ms. G. Madhavi, Dio Late G. Siddiah Engg. Student Rl/o H.No. 1-7 -1BS!G_612,

¶28

' Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town and District., 5.

¶29

: Srnt. G. Narsingamma, Wo G. Manaiah Household (Since Died Claim l. dismissed) Rl/o H.No. 1-7-1851G-612, Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura,

¶30

t. ,,:i,.ri Mahabubnagar Town and District.,

¶31

:: *

¶32

¶33

'. ta-1t..tI,:1t..tI,:t..tI,:tI,:I,:

¶34

¶35

t. II

¶36

G. Manaiah, S/o G. Narayana Nil R/o H.No. 1-7-185lG-6/2, Kothacheruvu

¶37

: .. , Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town and District.,

¶38

}

¶39

.t. lt .: .'a i ...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS t AN I I ',. I-t^r .i 1. Mr. S. Venkatesh, S/o S. Ramulu Major, Transport Business R/o H.No. 11-6li} 2.r The New 582, Red lndia Hills, Hyderabad Assurance Company Limited, (Owner of Lorry No. Rep. by its Regional Ap 13 T 5655) lriilanager, a. 1 Ii 2nd Floor Madan Mohan Buildings, R.P. Road, Secunderabad (lnsurer oi ,..i -; Lorry No. AP 13 T 5655 I I ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :r&Ii ,..& ':^li rt ,1

¶40

...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

t't.

I I

t' t..

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI N. AMARNATH

¶48

Counsel for the,Respondents: SMT. p. SATYA MANJULA

¶49

.::]i

¶50

M.A.C.M.A i2 070 F 2O11i

¶51

¶52

j Appear fired under section-173 0f Motor vehicres Act against the order and decree in M'\2.o.p.No.2653 of 2003 aitia-ii.oi.iiti on tne fire of the courr of the XXll Additionar chief Judge-cu--tr," Gt", n1"io"'n,. ct"ir. Tribunar; city Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.

:. t I tTIi

. Between: t.

f' I I t

t.:The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd, rep by its Regional Manager Olo.2O2, ll F1oor, I Moghat Buitdings, Basheei e"'gn, HyO"Lblj.- ""

¶57

AND t

¶58

...APPELLANT/RESpONDENT No.2

¶59

! 1 TI :l

¶60

¶61

, ; 1. Smt.G.Laxmidevamma, Wo.late G.Siddaiah Household R/o.H.No.1_7_ '\ ., 1Bstc6t2, KothacheruvuRoao, uinrr"nJr;;'N";rr, Mahaboobnagar

¶62

Mr G.Venkat NAravana, slo.rale c.siaaai5n il"]lr.r". r z .,85r}612, ^ Kothacheruvu Road, Hanumrnprr" Nigli Ma'tiabooonagar 3. Mr. G. Guresh Kumar, s/o. tate c. siJa"Li- nto.il.irl. r z r evc otz,

¶63

:,: fgtlagleluvu^{Road,.Hanulllourar.rugur,} rr,,lunrt"ooor"g"r

¶64

'^{4. Ms.c.Madhavi,} D/o.rate G.siddaiah nt"li.iv.l'-i-ie5/G6/2, Kothacheruvu -^{Iogd: l3nuranpuraNagar, fiAafraOooOnaga-r' ''} b. Smt.c.Narsingamma, Wo.Sri G_Munaian ilousehold RIo.H.No.1_7-185/G6/2,

¶65

¶66

^ Kothacheruvu Road, Hanum"npurc Nrgur.,iJi""d"l""' 6' sri G.Manaiah, S/o.G.Narava"i nvo-n. i". ?-]li asrcatz, Korhacheruvu Road, Hanumanpura Nagar, Mahiboobnagar

¶67

, t .a t I

¶68

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶69

. Mr.S.Venkatesh, S/o.S.Ram.ulu, Aged Major Transport Business, Owner of

¶70

;:lt:t Lorry No.Ap 13 T s6s5 nyo.n.r.ro.ir_o-sel, nJ iiII, nio*"nro.

¶71

:',I

¶72

t ,* IItt

¶73

...RESPONDENT/RESpONDENT No.1

¶74

. MACMAMP.NO 3684 oF 2011

¶75

¶76

I { t 't ..l .:

¶77

) .& Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedi ngs including execution of the decree dated 27.04 201'l passed in OP No.2653 of 2003 on the file of the court of the XXll Additional Chief Judge cum Motor Accidents ..Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Courts, at Hyderabad, pending disposal of MACMA

¶78

i ':, i

¶79

¶80

,{ '* -l xI ,1 1.1i. !. ,* .$t.a ;TI"i t& .:.:, * .::: : .at ax!

¶81

MACMAMP. NO i7967 0F 2012

Between:

:'']' 1. Smt.G.Laxmidevamma, Wo.late G.Siddaiah Household R/o.H.No. 1_7_

¶86

:,:*

¶87

:,:* ; 185lGGl2, Kothacheruvu Road, Hanumanpura Nagar,

¶88

:::1s 1., i 2. Mr G.Venkat NArayana, S/o.Iate G.siddaiitr nyo.Hi.No. t _ 7 _1B5l c6t 2, .,r ' Kothacheruvu Road, Hanumanpura Nagar, ll';+ 3. Yr.G.Gurgsh Kumar, S/oJate c.Siddaiai R/o. H. No. 1 _7_1 85/G6/2,

¶89

r.lxi I^{KothacheruvuRoad,} Hanumanpura Nagar, ll 4. Ms.G.Madhavi, D/o.late G.Siddaiah Ryo.U.tto.t _Z-t A5/G6/2, Kothacheruvu Road, Hanumanpura Nagar,

¶90

,-' 5. smt.G.Narsingamma, wo.Sri G.Munaiah Househord R/o-H.No..r-7-1 g5/G6/2,

¶91

^{KothacheruvuRoad, Hanumanpura Nagar,(died)}

¶92

1. Sri G.Manaiah, s/o.G.Narayana R/o.H.wo. i-z -1il5rc6r2, Kothacheruvu Road, Hanumanpura Nagar, Mahaboobnagar

¶93

¶94

...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS

¶95

AND

¶96

1 The New lndia Assurance.. Company Ltd, rep by its Regional lvlanager Olo.2O2, ll Ftoor, Moghal Buitdings, Baiheer Bagh, t-iyderabad.

,.lil

IiI

:. ;l {I

2 lr/r.S.Venkatesh, S/o. S. Ramulu, Aged Major Transport Business, Owner of Lorry No.AP 13 T 5655 R/o.H_No.1 1-6-582, Red Hilts, Hyderabad.

¶102

r ai. a: :

¶103

...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT

¶104

,t : Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the^'a ffidavit filed in support of the petition, tf,e Uign Court may be pteased to vacate-the interim stay orders passed in MACMAMp No. 3684 of 2011 in MACMA 'r^No.2 0O7 of 2011 dated 16-9-2011.

¶105

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. p. SATYA MANJULA

¶106

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6: SRI N. AMARNATH

¶107

a iI

¶108

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

, i.,':

.::

T I 1,Ia

,ai ta

RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA NOS.1877 0F 2ot1&2007 0F 2011

¶117

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶118

M.A.C.M.A lilo. 1877 0F 20tt

¶119

¶120

M.A.c.M.e I[o.2OO70F 201L COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶121

Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both these appeals are directed against the same Decree and Judgment dated 27.O4.2071 rn O.P No.26S3 of 2OO3 on the file of the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum_Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal).

¶122

In M.A.C.M.A No.lg77 of 2Oll, the Appellants/claimants had cha-llenged the decree and judgment with regard to the quantum of compensation and prayed to enhance the same. In M.A.C.M.A No.2O07 of 2Oll, the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company had challenged the judgment by contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence leading to the accident and prayed to the set_aside the same.

¶123

¶124

RRN,J COMMON^{JUDGMENT IN} MACMA^{NOS.18770F 2011& 20070F 2011}

¶125

¶126

For convenience,^{the facts in M'A'C'M'ANo' 1877 of 201 I are} discussed^{hereunder,alithe parties are hereinafter referred to as} they are arrayed^{before the Tribunal,}

¶127

4.^{gtieif..t" of the case are thiion 2O'O82QO7 at about 11'oO'} p.m. one G.Siddaiah^{(hereinafter referredto as the deceased) was} proceeding on his^{Hero Hondamotorcycle bearingNo 'AP-22E-4428} from Pothulamadugu^{to Mahabubnagar' and when he reached} bridge No.96 12^{on N'H'No'9, a Iorry bearing No'AP-13T-5655'} driven by its^{driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent} manner^{proceeding in the same direction'dashedthe deceased's} '--*^{!--!-':..d and ran over the deceased' Due to which'} motorcycle Irorrl^{ucr trl rr} he sustained a^{head injury and crush injury to his right leg'} Immediately,^{the deceasedwas shifted to Government Hospital'} Mahabubnagar,^{and later, shifted to NIMS hospital'Panj agutta'} Hyderabad,^{and on 3O.O8'20O2,the deceased was succumbedto} injuries.^{The Police of Annasagar,Mahabubnagar'registereda case} in Crime^{No'97 of 2OO7 under Section 304-A of I'P'C'Hence' the} petitioners filed^{theclaim petition claimingcompensation of} Rs.30,OO,OOO/-^{on account of the deathof the deceased'}

¶128

Before the Tribunal,^{lst respondent remained ex-parte' and} the 2.,1 respondent^{filed a counterdenyingthe petition allegations} and contested^{the matter. -- --}

¶129

¶130

RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA N05.1877 0F 2011 & 2007 0F 2011

¶131

To prove their claim, petitioners got examined as pWs. I to 3 artd got marked Exs.Al to A13. No oral or documentarv evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶132

On appreciation of the evidenCe on iecord, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part, granting a sum of Rs.l7 ,6Z,7SO / _ towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed as stated supra.

¶133

Heard both sides. perused the record.

¶134

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the Ex.A_ 1O Tax returns for the Accounting year 2OOI-2OO2 i.e., for period forrn Ol .O4.2OO2 and the income shown under Ex.A. l0 is the income of the deceased shown during his lifetime. The Claimants cannot escape from payment of the Income Tax as there is no ottrer alternative the representative of the deceased submitted the Ex.A_1O I.T. Returns showing the income of the deceased and the acknowledgements clearly shows part of the advance tax was already paid in March, 2OO2 itself. As per Bx.A-lo I.T. Returns arrd as per the evidence of the p.w.3, Chartered Accountant, the latest income of the deceased under two returns, i.e- Individual and HUF declared a.s Rs. l,ZZ,O56/_ under individual status and Rs.62,l2O/_ under HUF status and Agriculture income as Rs.96,50o /-. The totar net taxabre income of

¶135

)

¶136

RRNJ COMMON IUDGMENT^IN MACMA NOS.1877 0F^{2011& 2007 0F 2011}

¶137

¶138

the deceased on the date^{of death was Rs.3,35,676/- as supra' He} further argued that Tribunal^{erred in not consideringthe Ex'A-ll} original lease deed of the^{Agricultural land obtained by the} deceased to the extent of 31 acres^{Lhere upon the deceased was} having an Agricultural income. He^{further submittedthat} respondents have not adduced any^{evidence,oral or documentary} to disprove the claim the petitioners^{or to prove theircase} '^He further stated that the Tribunal ought^{to have taken the multiplier} as 13 instead of 11 as the age^{of the deceased as on the date of the} death was 5O years and^prayed to allow^{the appeal by enhancing} the compensation under various^{head.s as per the presentlaw'}

¶139

Per contra, learned counsel for^{respondent No.2 submitted} that the Tribunal has rightly awarded^{the compensationto the} petitioners and he further submitted that^{the Tribunal grossly} erred in taking total agricultural income^{of Rs.15,OO0/-per} annum instead of assessing the^{loss of supervisorycapacityof} the deceased and the Tribunal ought^{to have deducted 1/3'a of} the amount towards personal expenses^{instead of I} l4th^{in light of} the catena of^judgments rendered by^{the Hon'lole Apex Court and} also the Tribunal erred in granting^{Rs.25,O0O/- towards} consortium and should have awarded only^{Rs.10,O0O/-under} this head and also Tribunal ought to^{have granted interest at 6Yo}

¶140

¶141

¶142

RRN,J COMMON IUDGMENT IN MACMA NOS.1877 0F 2011 & 2oO7 0F 2011

¶143

instead of 9Yo basing on the present trends and market conditions. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶144

The Tribuna-I, while assessing the income of the deceased, observed that as per the Ex.A. 10, the Income tax return of the deceased, it was frled subsequent to the death of the deceased. Therefore, this cannot be considered to determine the deceased's income. But, the fact remains is that one side the Tribunal observed this case and second side obserrring the Tribunal granted more than Ex.A1O amount. As per the Ex.A. 1O the annual income of the deceased is shown as Rs1,65,220/-, excluding all deductions. The Tribunal one side observing that this cannot be taken into considered to determine the income of the deceased and the second side, the Tribunal calculating the income of the deceased Rs.16,OOO/-p.m. So, it comes annual income of the deceased is Rs.1,92,OOO/-, the Tribunal should not calculate like this. Even as per Ex.A. 10 the annual income of the deceased is RsL,65,22O/-. In this aspect, this Court is considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the amount was enhanced to RS1,92,OOO/from 1,65,220 /- and with regard to the second income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased in

¶145

RRN,J COMMON IUDGMENT^IN MACMA N05.1877 0F 2011 &^{20070F 2011}

¶146

¶147

agriculture at Rs.15,O0O /-p.a., but the learned counsel^{for the} petitioners submitted that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,OO,OOO/-p.a. on agriculture but to that extend^the petitioner's produce no evidence. This Court is also considering the income of the deceased at Rs.15,OOO/-p.a on agricultureFirst and Second income of the deceased is Rs. l,8O,22Ol(Rs. 1,65,220 + 15,OOO).

¶148

l,earned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the age of the deceased was 5O years at the time of the accident, and the^same is to be considered. He further submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the iuture prospects. Further, the petitioners are entitied to compensation under conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurantce Cornpang Limlted

¶149

as Pranag Sethi and othersrand Magma Insurance Cotnpang Ltd. Vs. No,nu Ram @ Chuhnt Ram2. However, this court is inclined to consider the deceased's income at Rs. 1,80,220 / -^per annum. To this, 25%o of future prospects are added as per the age of the deceased was 5O years, as per the decision in Pranag Sethi (supra). Thus, the annual income oithe deceased is Rs.2,25,275/(Rsl,80,220/- + 25o/o ). From this, 1\4th is to be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased as the dependents are 5

¶150

,',2otzl to scc 680.

¶151

22018 l-aw Suit (SC) 904

¶152

¶153

RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA NOS.1877 0F 207L &2007 0F 20r],

¶154

in number, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in sarra venna Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3 and the net annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,6g,956/_. The Tribunal wrongly co,sider:ed the multiplier as 1l instead of 13: ,This Court is modifying the multiplier as per Sqrla Vennq. is ,13, (supra). Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.2 1,96 ,428 / _ (Rs.1,68,956 x t3).

¶155

The Tribunal granted a very meagre amount under the head of loss of consortium. However, petitioner No.l is the wife of the deceased' She is entitred to compensation under ross of consortium as per the decision of the Honble Apex Court in pranag Sethi (supra), and she is awarded Rs.44,OO0/(Rs.40,0OO/+ 1O%). The Tribunal did not grant any amount towards the loss of filia_t consortium. petitioner No.5, mother of the deceased, died. Petitioner No.6, father of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.4O,OOO/_ towards filial consortium as per Magma Insurance Compang (supral The Tribunal awarded Rs.1o,ooo/- towards funeral expenses, which is very meager. This Court is inclined to award Rs.i6,5O0/-(t5,OO0/- +1Oyo) as per pranay Sethi (supra), arld the Tribunal wrongly awarded Rs.25,0oo/- towards loss of estate. But

¶156

'1zoos1 o scc tzr --

¶157

RRN,I COMMON^JUDGMENTIN MACMA NOS.1877^{0F 2011& 2007 0F 2011}

¶158

as per Pranay Sethi (suprat,^{it must be reduced to Rs' 16'50O/-} (15,O0O/-^+lOo/"1.

¶159

Therefore, this Court is inclined^{to enhancethe quantum of} compensation as under:

¶160

51.No	Natureof head	Amountawarded^bY Tribunal	Amount awarded^bY thisCourt
1	l,oss of dependency	Rs.17,07,750/-	Rs.21,96,428l-
2	Loss ofConsortium	Rs.25,OoO/-	Rs-44,OOO/-
3	lossoffilial consortium	nil	Rs.4O,O0O/^-
5	Funeralexpenses	Rs.10,OO0/-	Rs.16,50O/'
7	Loss of estate	Rs.25,OOO	Rs.16,50O/
	Total	Rs.17,67,75OI^-	Rs.23,73,428/-

¶161

The Tribunal awarded,^{interest at 9o/o p'a' from the date of} petition till the date of realisation.^{The learned counselfor} respondent No.2 submitted the Tribunal^{erred in granting al 9o/o,} it has to be.reduced to^{6%o. However,this Court is modifying the} interest at 7.5o/o p.a. on the^{enhancedamount fromtLre date of} petition till the date of realisation.

¶162

Accordingly; the M.A.C.M.A^{No. lB77 of 2011 is allowed in} part by enhancing the compensation^{from Rs' 17,67,750to} Rs.23,73,428l- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs^{Thirteen Thousand} Four Hundred and Twenty Eight only) with^{interest at the rate of} 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition ti1l the^{ciate oi realisation'The}

¶163

¶164

RRN,I COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA NOs.1877 0F 2011& 2007 0F 2011

¶165

...:{ i9 i,-x tr-.:ta t..3t ':t:.il t- ii t .tl t .11 { a :

¶166

respondents shall deposit the same after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shalt be no order as to costs.

¶167

M.A;C.M.A.No.2OO7 of 201 1:

¶168

In view of the findings in M.A.C.M.A No.1877 of 2Ot1, this M.A.C.M.A No.2OO7 of 2Ol1 is hereby dismissed as no oral or documentar5r evidence was adduced by the respondents regarding to contributory negligence and other aspects clearly discussed above. There shall be no order as to costs

¶169

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any are pending,

¶170

shall stand closed.

¶171

tli' ,;t SD/-MOHD.ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 'i:ti4!.!ta /--\ ,/ //TRUE^COPY// v/ Trlt,rlt,t, SECTION^OFFICER -I jff To,:. The XXll Additional^{Chief Judge cumThe MotorAccident ClaimsTribunal'} .i.1; Citv Criminal^{Courts at Hyderabad'} ,'? ..2. 5nL cc io^{sri N. Amarnath, Advocate [oPUc]} '3. il; A I^{sri. p. satvaManjula' Advocate[oPUC]} I 4. .Two CD^CoPies .:4.fI, r .\Y TYHiplP I \ P l:, t il{i!,,-r € . {}irIlit' 'ttL '*^i: .tt^I i!;, t j, ;j I I

¶172

tiFl. 1. il Trlt,rlt,t, jff

{

i. .i

.i:' t; ,' lt

I. 1

lr.

.,i :

.l'

:: !

,''.1:, t., ... a :.: a,, ,

i: 1::-

l a ! I

l tt,tt

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710812023

,i t* :- .:

; ,": art i

tIt, ,:}

.} ,t

I; : :

€ oF
l-t
(
C)
2
11 I\ t\1<br>'N.
auoo
Q
/-(
+ Dit!,1:

¶201

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶202

MACMA.No.1877 of 2011 and 2007 of2011.

¶203

¶204

M.A.C.M.A.No.2007 OF 2011 lS ALLOWED AND M.A.C.M.A.No.2207 OF 2011 lS DISMISSED. 8s

t t, l :ta: :^-i l-

I a- t I

i: .1.

iItt

Lr i: I .&.

t.^.t- :.t.

..n

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA , ATHYDERABAD

¶216

,'.!

¶217

:::

¶218

THURSDAY,.THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND.TWENTY THREE

-.I 3ty .t .t

: .l;. 1L ,;. !

PRESENT

THE HONOURABIE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA"'ESHWAR RAO

¶223

M.AC.M.A. NOs:^'1877 and 2007 OF 2011

¶224

M.AC.M.A NO i 1877 OF 2011 it.

Between:

I :t ,i i., I ,;It I_i ,: i,\

¶229

¶230

1,,

¶231

: , t i ! ,4t}! ,: : ,: , t iI

¶232

!i t r)-!:r^1..: ,r,r^"; IiI

¶233

.f : 1. Smt. G. Laxmidevamma, Wio Late G- Siddiah Household R/o H.No. 1-7i} , 1851G$12, Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town and 'I District., ,,:

¶234

:. 2. Mr. G. Venkat Narayana, S/o Late G. Siddiah Engg. Student Rl/o H.No. 1-7, 1851G-612, Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town and a^. District.,

¶235

. 3. G. Suresh Kumar, S/o Late G. Siddiah Engg. Student Rl/o H.No. 1-7-1851G, 612, Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town and District., ,^{4. Ms. G. Madhavi,D/o Late G. Siddiah Engg.Student Rl/oH.No. 1-7-1851c-612,} . I Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town and District-, 5. Smt. G. Narsingamma, Wo G. Manaiah Household (Since Died Claim

¶236

. dismissed) R/o H.No. 1-7-1851G42; Kothacheruvu Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town and District.,

¶237

1. G. Manaiah, Sio G. Narayana Nil Ryo H.No. 1-7-185lc-6/2, Kothacheruvu . Road Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar,Town and District.,

¶238

...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

¶239

AND

¶240

1 . Mr. S. Venkatesh, S/o S. Ramulu Major, Transport Business Ryo H.No. 1 1-6-

¶241

l' , 2.^{The New lndia} 582, Red Hills, Hyderabad (Owner^{Assurance Company} of^Limited, Lorry No.^{Rep. by its Regional} AP 13 T 5655)^fvlanager, ..2nd Floor Madan Mohan Buildings, R.P. Road, Secunderabad (lnsurer of

¶242

, ,r Lorry No. AP 13 T 5655 i. .TitT ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶243

. ,,.i *, :-t : .':

¶244

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in tvl.V.O.P.No.2653 of 2003 daled 27.O4.2O11 on the file of the Court of the XXll Additional Chief Judge-cumthe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad

'Sl',S,

.:.. 1

1' :

' 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 N.Amarnath, Advocate for the i,Appellants and of Smt. P. Satya Manjula, Advocate for Respondents. r.,f i!:

¶249

II
I
tr'&rl**
it.l r.l.! .).:
I i.l
I, i [i

¶250

M.A.C.M.A NO: 2007 OF 2O11:

¶251

.4. i Between:

¶252

."lS ;'

¶253

,;'!l,The New India Assurance Company Ltd, rep by its Regional Manager O1o.202, ll 'fFtoor, Mos hal Buildings, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. i.{^.

¶254

.,,t ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 '-.'AND 'l 1 .^{.Smt.G.Laxmidevamma,} Wo.late G.Siddaiah Household R/o.H.No.1-7-

¶255

i*.* * .. 1 85/G6/2, Kothacheruvu Road, Hanumanpura Nagar, Mahaboobnagar ,{ 2. Mr.G.Venkat NArayana, S/o.late G.Siddaiah Rl/o.H.No. 1 -7 -1 8Sl G612, tt, ,.1: . t' Kothacheruvu Road, Hanumanpura Nagar, Mahaboobnagar .t.,,&-t 3. Kothacheruvu Road, Hanumanpura Mr.G.Guresh Kumar, S/o.late G.Siddaiah Nagar, MahaboobnagarR/o.H.No.1-7-185/G6/2,

¶256

..3 4 Ms.G.Madhavi, D/o.late G.Siddaiah Rl/o.H.No. 1 -l -1g'lc6l2, Kothacheruvu

¶257

..:,,t:ill Road, Hanumanpura Nagar, Mahaboobnagar .,:':: 5 Smt.G.Narsingamma, Wo.Sri c.Munaiah Household R/o.H_No.1-7-185/G6i2, i!'' Kothacheruvu Road, Hanumanpura Nagar,(died)

¶258

6i Sri G.Manaiah, S/o.G.Narayana R:/o- H.No.1 -7-1 85/G6/2, Kothacheruvu Road,

¶259

.t,{: i Hanumanpura Nagar, Mahaboobnagar

¶260

,,t:. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ,i^.4, : Mr.S.Venkatesh, S/o.S.Ramulu, Aged Major Transport Business, Owner of

¶261

r$i Lorry No-AP 13 T 5655 Ryo.H.No,11-6-582, Red Hills, hyderabad. :tr .l i ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No. 1

¶262

! { Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and d ee in M.V.O.P.No.2653 of 2003 dated 21.O4.2O11 on the file of the Court of thelilll Additional Chief Judge-cum{he Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Crirhinal Courts at Hyderabad.

¶263

._f

¶264

¶265

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of pdal , the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material paper in the c€lse and upon' hearing the arguments of Smt. P.Satya Manjua, Advocate for the e ant and of Sri N. Amamath , Advocate for Respondents 1 to 6.

¶266

court.doth order and Common Decree as follows:

¶267

I rlI ' .1.:,ffis1 the fi/otor Accident Civil 'hereby is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1877 from of 2011 Rs.17,67,7501be and ; : .ra:.,i -^I L:f a; - n .1 to Rs.23,1 3,428l- (Rupees twenty three Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Four Ki'!,'s : i:^{-$ .r-} :1 iJ^j [^.iS . Hundred and Twenty Eight Only) with interest at the rate of 7.S% p.a. from the lrtt, d '! I . ,ri} x4a1'1 ; l'. ]t r.! ? F,:i'i i I Id..: l.l t- t_. .. I rf!.t !t :- j : .ia I iri $t,;I'j'-t, - !,. ,r. :. .:.al^:.1 i:. a { :'Xrr'.,] a:X ''I'i], ,-. -.r. i i 'ai''r ,. '1

¶268

. /^.:.::. / . a:: /: ,t-I ,.: ..;;'i. I. -:t. date of petition ti the date of rearization. The respondents shal deposit the same after giving due credit to the'amount arready depositea, ir any, itiiin ? two months from of receipt of a copy of this judgment; . r i. ':* .x&.-;& 2.: That the M.A.C.M.A.No.20O7 of 2O11be and hereby is dismissed, in view of .".,'-i the findings in M.A.C.M.A.no.1Bl7 ot 20.11; and f'',l. ; i{!l!That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. r]r't ,tat l

¶269

¶270

i t

¶271

SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL t ASSlsrANr+EGlsrRAR //rRUE coPY// 4''/ ,'l^I :.i' SECTION OFFICER tI , T.o,:l rr. .1 t The XXll Additionar chief Judge cum The Motor Accident craims Tribunar, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad. ;I 1.. Two CD Copies , ..il ':2t qY {.,trII . ,ta ; ...: ,* a '&,. t;'i i- l'' & ,r, ff,l , 1 : '$,''iit: |^.,, :, ,' a^.?. l'

¶272

a^.?. l' * 1,..t t, .t r i lf

¶273

a, ,',. :

¶274

.a &$.'$' .,:4., st! ,: '.'r'.: a I [. i : ,; t

¶275

i, -}:t *,.^j !4 I. |rli. ,. :

¶276

¶277

'. r. tI , t ri& {t ,HIGH COURT

¶278

l ..... t .l', . ,,a " i.rf , .l r':.

¶279

. a'l ll '!iiDATED i1710812023 t.'.. .i i: I ;l : 'ri il t f+ht ,t, Tt : '',1 {ft t, + .: i i' ]L t,i l lCOMMON DECREE i: '..^.:{::,,l i ,q.M+CMAiNo.1877 of 2011 and "12007^{of 2011.} ,'. 1 .il ,,;i, " ,..; i ., .: :: .li:i ,.. ..:, :,^-,

¶280

MI c.M.A. No.2007 OF 2011 lS ALLOWED DrM..A:G ,naAiivo.zzoT oF 2011 ts DtsMtssED. rill I t. .r: r,r 'l .!

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.G.Laxmidevamma and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.G.Laxmidevamma and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Paulu Vs P. Anjanaeyulu and Another

B. Shoba Rani, Vs the Apsrtc and Another

G. Indirabai Vs Director of Public Health and Family welfare

M. Sekhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.M.Vijaya, Hyderabad and Anr. Vs D.Srinivas, Vijayawada and Anr.

Md. Iqbal Hussain , I Hussain , Md. Hussain, Adilabad Vs Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., and Anr, Bellampally