Allowed

Smt.Kuchoor Ramulamma and Another v. Kishan Kumar Prajapat and Another

Telangana HC9 Aug 2023MACMA/2064/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal allowed. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced significantly from approximately Rs. 2.88 lakhs to Rs. 9.52 lakhs, considering higher income and median age of the deceased with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,88,000/- to Rs. 9,52,700/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. directed to be paid by respondents.

Smt.Kuchoor Ramulamma and Another Vs Kishan Kumar… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2064 oF 2011

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.531 ot 2007 dated 24.08.2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Smt.Kuchoor Ramulamma, Wo.late Thimmappa, Marikal Village Dhanwada Mandal Mahabubnagar District.

¶10

,.Appel lanUPetitioner

¶11

Kuchuru Kistamma, Wo. Narsappa, Occ: Labour, Marikal Village Dhanwada Mandal Mahabubnagar District.

¶12

...AppellanURespondent No.3

¶13

AND

¶14

Kishan Kumar Prajapat, S/o.Manjal Ramji, Occ: Business Owner of the Tanker No. KA- 04-6492, R/o.18/4, Bardangalli Hubli, Karnataka State.

¶15

The National lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-lV Twin City Market Complex, M.J.Road, Hyderabad.

¶16

... Respondents/Respondents

¶17

Gounsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. MOHD YOUSUF Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G VISHWESHWAR REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶19

M.A.C.M.A. No.2O64 OF^2O11

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This MACMA is filed under^{Section173 of the} Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 bY the

¶22

appellant/ petitioner/respondent^{No.3 aggrievedby the order} and decree dated 24.08.2O09^{passed in O.P.No.53I of 2OO7by} the Chairman, Motor^{AccidentsClaims Tribunal (I Additional} District Judge) at Mahabubnagar,^{(for short "the Tribunal")'}

¶23

2 For the sake of convenience, the^{parties will be} hereiriafter referred to as^theY were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that^{the petitioners filed a} claim petition claiming compensation of^{Rs.5,0O,000/-on} account of the death of Thimmappa^{andNandishwari} (minor)(hereinaftcr referred to as "deceased") in an^auto accident that occurred on 2l^.O8.2OO7.

¶25

3(1) It is stated that on 2I.O8.2OO7, the^{petitionerand} her ddceased husband and daughter^{boardedthe Auto bearing} No.AP-22V-6413 at Marikal Village in order to^goto Deverkadra. When the auto reached near^{Pedda Gopalpur}

¶26

f I

¶27

2 RRN.J Nl^CNl A No 206.1 ol20ll

¶28

village on the Raichur-Mahabubnagar^{Highwayroad at1O} a.m., the driver of an Oil^{Tanker bearing No.KA-04-6492 drove} it at a high speed in a rash^{and negligent manner and dashed} the Auto. As a result, the husband and^{daughter died on the} spot and the petitioner sustained^{serious injuries. The matter} was reported to the police.

¶29

Before the Tribunal, respondent.No.3 was^{set ex} parte and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate counters^by denying all the petition allegations, and^{prayed to dismissthe} claim petition.

¶30

To prove their case, the petitioner^examinedPW.l and got marked Exs.Al to Al2. No^{ora,l or documentary} evidence was adduced on behalf of the^{respondents No.l and} 2.

¶31

On appreciation of the evidence on record,^the Tribunal allowed the O.P.No.53l of 2OO7 in^{part, by awarding} a compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- with^interest @^7.5%p.a. from the date of petition till the^date of^realization. Challenging the same, the^present appeal^isfiled .by^the petitioner.

¶32

Heard both sides. Perused the record

¶33

RRN.] NIACNI A No l0('.1 oll0l^I

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the^respondents contended that as per the inquest report,^{the age of the} deceased was shown as 25 years and^{the Tribunal has taken} the multiplier as '16'based on a^{decision reported in 2008 (2)} CCC 302 (SC) between MG.Dir.Bangalore^{Metropolitan Tpt} Corp., Vs. Sarojamma and another.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner^{contendedthat} the Tribunal has wrongly taken the^{multiplier as '16', andas} such the age of the deceased was^{2 5 years for which,the} applicable multiplier is '18'. He further submitted^{the deceased} was a Shepherd and earning Rs. I lakh^p.a.

¶37

The Tribunal hxed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,100/-. It is very^meagre and^{this Court is} inclined to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,50O/- p.m. in view of the decision of the Honble^Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa as Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alllance Insuro,nce Co. Ltd.r. The annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.54,OO0/-. The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Sarlc^{Verma Vs. Delhi} Transport Corporationz is "18".^To this, future^{prospects of}

¶38

r( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236 '^{(2009)6 scc Ir.}

¶39

lr'

¶40

¶41

RRN.J M^CI!l No^206-1of20ll

¶42

4Ooh i.e. Rs.21,6OO/- is to be added as^per the^{decision of the} Hontrle Supreme Court in National Insurance^{Compang Ltd,}

¶43

Vs. Pranag Sethis as the deceased was aged 25^years. Further, the deductions towards personal expenditure will^be 1 / 3ra as there are two dependents. Thus, the total loss^of come to Rs.9,O7,2OO/-. dependency would (Rs.5a,OOO/-(Rs.4,500/- x l2l⁺ 407o Minus 1/3 x 18)

¶44

Thg Tribuna-l awarded Rs.10,OO0/- towards consortium, Rs.5,OO0/ towards loss of estate and Rs.4,2OOltowards funeral expenses ,which are very meagre. This Court is inclined to grant Rs.44,O0O/- (Rs.40,000/-^+107o) towards Ioss of consortium and Rs. 16,500/- (Rs. 15,000/-^+lO%l towards funeral expenses under conventional heads as^{per the} decision of the Honble Apex Court in Pranag Sethi^(supra). Further this Court grants Rs.40,OO0/- towards filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in -^Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru

¶45

Ram+.

¶46

t2 In all the petitioner/ appellant are entitled to Rs.9,52,700/- towards compensation. Though the claimed

¶47

r lzony to scc oto

¶48

o zore lrsy scc r:o

¶49

¶50

RRN.J MACMA No 106.1ot 20ll

¶51

I )

¶52

¶53

amount is Rs.5,00,000i-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajblr Slnghs, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the petitioners/appellants shatl pay the delicit Court fee on the enhanced compensation.

¶54

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed by enhancing the amount from Rs.2,8g,OOO/- to Rs.9,52,700/_ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Tu,o Thousand and Seven Hundred only) with interest @7.5^o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting any amount already deposited, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are perrnitted to withdralv the same in accordance with the manner and proportion as determined by the Tribunal subject to payment of the 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

¶55

' MnNUisC,,oa8o,to ti

RR N-.I

MA( Nl^{A Nol06J oil(i!}

¶60

i)<br>

¶61

Miscellaneous^{petitions,ifany pending,shallstand}

¶62

closed.

¶63

Sd/.M. RAMANA KRISHNA, DEPUTY REGI9TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The chairman Motor^{Accidentclaims Tribunal-cum- | AdditionalDistrict} Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶69

One CC to SRl.^{MOHDYOUSUF, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶70

One CC to SRl.^{G VISHWESHWARREDDY,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶71

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910812023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2064 ot 2011

¶77

1 t\E STATF
(
c
o
2 0 0E[ ?['-3 (!
t
O65.r21(

¶78

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶79

¶80

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶81

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶82

PRESENT

¶83

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶84

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2064 OF 2011

¶85

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.531 ot 2007 daled 24.08.2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶86

Between:

¶87

Smt.Kuchoor Ramulamma, Wo.late Thimmappa, Marikal Village Dhanwada Mandal Mahabubnagar District.

¶88

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶89

Kuchuru Kistamma, Wo. Narsappa, Occ Labour, Marikal Village Dhanwada Mandal Mahabubnagar District.

¶90

...AppellanURespondent No.3

¶91

AND

¶92

Kishan Kumar Prajapat, S/o.Manjal Ramji, Occ: Business Owner of the Tanker No. KA-04-6492, R/o.'1 8/4, Bardangalll Hubli, Karnataka State.

¶93

The National lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-lV Twin City Market Complex, M.J.Road, Hyderabad.

¶94

...Respondents/Respondents

¶95

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.531 of 2007 daled 24.08.2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶96

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 SRl. MOHD YOUSUF, Advocate for the Appellants, SRI G VISHWESHWAR REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and None Appeared, for the Respondent No.1.

¶97

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶98

1' That the Motor Accident civir Misceraneous Appear be and hereby is Allowed by enhancing the amount from Rs.2,gg,000/_ to Rs.9,52,700/_ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand and Seven Hundred Only) with interest @7.S% P'A on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition ti, the date of rearization;

¶99

That the Respondents Nos.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the said amount' with costs and interest after deducting any amount arready deposited, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment on such deposit rhe petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with the manner and proportion as determined by the Tribunar subject to payment of the deficit Court fee within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; and

¶100

3 That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶101

Sd/-M. RAMANA KRISHNA, DEPUW REGr$ TRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶102

To, sECTloN OFF]CER ' lffJH5il:Tr#::ojr.o"do"nt^{ctaims rribunat-cum- I Additionat} Districr 2. Two CD Copies SP

sECTloN OFF]CER

HIGH COURT