Partly allowed

Masadi Linga Rao and 3 Others v. Vardineni Narsinga Rao and 2 Others

Telangana HC30 Jun 2023MACMA/2086/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from Rs.50,000 to Rs.93,000 for the death of the deceased, holding petitioners entitled to funeral expenses and loss of estate despite not being financially dependent on the deceased.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.93,000 including interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Masadi Linga Rao and 3 Others Vs Vardineni Narsinga… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

MACMA NO.2086 0F 2014

¶6

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.01-2013 made in navop r.ro.+io- oF 2011, on the fire of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents cr"i,n" Triounat-cum-diriri"i"r-rag", Ka rim nagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Masadi Linga Rao S/o Chokka Rao

¶9

Masadi Ravinder Rao S/o Chokka Rao

¶10

Masadi Srinivasa Rao S/o Chokka Rao

¶11

Billakanti Radha @ Radhamma Wo Sampath Rao

¶12

Appellants

¶13

AND

¶14

1 :,.,orcyce

¶15

[f,ilflililfl ii'.ffi3",,,p#:iffi^'#.ifl FL.fi^:ff

¶16

2 ",',,ff

¶17

l9i:iqi{i,%J:.r!:!:iffi narrmnagar District^{E;,,?v,ri:!s:SH:T,rJy:"J:ffi} x*.^,:iltf^o',u

¶18

3 F:".,,1f=gi-:ji|];:HihT,:iJl8tA[,,tt3,1..f&^{jJ,x:,B::'"Manaser,3d} i3lT.?ttfl[f?u,:??:r".?3jl*^{coverNoie t'rJ' ib6ij6oi+s6i2vaIid rrom}

¶19

.. Respondents

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: Sri p. Hari prasad Advocate

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: T. Mahender Rao

¶23

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.No.2086 of 2OL4

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

Being not satisfied with the quantum of^compensation awarded in the enard and^{clecree,dated 29'01.2013 passed in} O.P.No.426 of 2Cr 11 on the lile^of the^{Chairman,MotorVehicle} Accident Claims, Tribunal^{cum-District Judge,I(arimnagar} (for short "the Tribunal"), the appetlants/^{petitionerspreferred} the present appeal seeking^{enhancementofthe} compensation.

¶28

For the s,lke of convenience,^{the parl.ies willbe} hereinafter referrr:d to as thel'are^{arrayed before the Tribunal.}

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that the^{petitionerr;, who are} the married sons and married daughter of^{one Masadi} Chokka Rao, (hert:inafter refcrrcd^{to as} "the^{deceased"), frled a} petition under Section 163-A of the^{Motor VetriclesAct} claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-^for the^{derlth of the} deceased, who rlied in a motor accident that^occ:urredon 03.04.2010. It is stated that on 03.04.2010 rvhile the deceased, along v,,ith his elder son, was returning to l-ris house

¶30

¶31

RRN, J Macma_2086_2014

¶32

by walk after completion of the agricurtural works at his fierds at about 6.30 p.m., and while he was crossing the main road in front of Jyothi Rice Mill at Bornapalli, respondent No.l drove the Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.Ap 15 Ae 3g33 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Huzurabad, where he died on the same day while undergoing treatment. On a complaint, the police, Huzurabad, registered a case in Crime No.77 of 2010 against respondent No.1. It is further stated that the deceased was aged about 55 years and earning Rs.l.OO lakh per annum in agriculture and due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered a lot of mental agonies and lost the earnings of the deceased, therefore, they laid the claim against respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.Ap 15 Ae 3g33.

¶33

4 Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 ald 2 remained ex parte.

¶34

RRN, J Macma 2086 2014

¶35

¶36

The 3'd respondent filed^{acounter clenying the} averments in t.Le petition^{including the mannerin whichthe} accident occurrr:d, age,^{avocation and incomeof the deceased'} It is also stat(:c that^{the accidentoccurred only due to the} negligence of th,: deceased^{and that there was no negligence} on the part of respondent^{No.1, as such, the 3't respondentis} not liable to pay the compensation.^{It is also stated that the} amount claimed is^{excessiveald arbitrar5r and prayed to} dismiss the petition.

¶37

Based on the above^{ple adings,the Tribunal has framed} the following issttes:

¶38

Whether the accident^{had occurred on accolLnt of} the use of the motor^{vehicle i.e., Pulsar Motorcycle} bearing No..{P 15^{AQ 3833?}

¶39

Whether the petitioners^{a-re entitled to} compensati()n, if so,^{to rvhat amount and from} whom?

¶40

To what relieP

¶41

On behall' of the petitioners,^{P.Ws.1 ancl} 2^were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 u'ere marked. On betralf of the

¶42

.:4 --'/J_

¶43

¶44

RRN, J Macna 2086 2014

¶45

respondents, no ora-l evidence was adduced. However, the 3.d respondent has hled Ex. B 1 -copy of the policy.

¶46

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.l and the petitioners, who are the married children of the deceased, and they are living separately and they are not dependents on the deceased, hence they are entitled only Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the M.V.Act. Challenging the same, the present appeal is l-rled.

¶47

Heard both sides.

¶48

I have perused the material papers on record. Petitioner Nos. I to 3 are the married sons of the deceased and the 4u, petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased. This Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that though the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased, as they are not dependents on the income of the deceased, they are not entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Therefore, the

¶49

¶50

RRN, J Vacma 2086 2014

¶51

\ \

¶52

petitioners, rl'fro are not financially^dependent on^the deceased, are entitled to^{Rs.50,000/-under Section 140 of} the Motor Veh^{ir:les Act} as^{aq,ardedby the Tribu na-1. Apart} from the above,^{as per the lau'laiddown by the,AprexCourtin}

¶53

National Ins-urance Compang Llmtted^{Vs. Pranag} Sethi q.nd othersl, the petitioners a-re also entitled to IIs.16,500/towards funereil^{expensesand Rs.16,500/-towardsloss of} estate. Thus, in^all, the petitioners are t:ntitled to compensation of Rs.83,000/^,

¶54

1 1 . In the result, the appe:rl is allowed in part and the compensation iunount awarclcd by the Triburral is hereby enhanced from Rs.SO,OOO/- to^Rs.83,OOO/- wlth interest @ 7.5ok per annurrr from the clate of petition till the date of realisation. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, after giving due cr,3flif^ge ths amount already deposited, il- any, within a period of two months from th,: date of receipt of a copy of this -iudgment. The enhanced iunount shall be apportioned in the same manner as ordered by the Tribunal. On such cleltosit, the | 7c17 ACJ 2700

¶55

¶56

RRN, J Macma-2086-2014

¶57

petitioners^{are permittedto withdraw their respective share}

¶58

amounts.^{There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶59

Miscellaneouspetitions,ifanyarependingshallstand

¶60

closed.

¶61

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY// GD

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

TheChairman,MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum.DistrictJudge' Karimnagar.(with^records)

¶65

One CC io ll,iR.^{K.VasrdevaReddy, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶66

One CC to Mr^{T.Mahender Rao, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶67

One CC to Mr. P.Hari^{Prasad, Advocate}

¶68

Two CD CoPies

kotz,

fr'14,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 30.06.2023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.2086 ot 2014

¶75

.r',f' 'rA r6
1 l $9 ?$8 t_:
iJ
,1, * r//

¶76

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA, WITHOUT COSTS

¶77

?M, '\e1r3

¶78

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶79

FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶80

PRESENT

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶82

MACMA No.20 86 0F 2014

¶83

Between:

¶84

Masadi Linga Rao S/o Chokka Rao

¶85

Masadi Ravinder Rao S/o Chokka Rao

¶86

Masadi Srinivasa Rao S/o Chokka Rao

¶87

Billakanti Radha @ Radhamma Wo Sampath Rao

¶88

.. Appellants

¶89

AND

¶90

Vardineni Narsinoa RrqFlg prabhakar Rao, Rider of pulsar Motorcvcle 3f; :,;13,)3;fl !;'d:.'"',,',?#i;gUiS;t,l,li,ilrrv;iir6;"vrvv've

¶91

2' V'Linga Rao S/o Narsinga. Rao ,.owner of pursar Motorcycre bearinq Ap 15 Ae 3833 RUo H.No. s_sd, rr,reifjrry v;ti;b;; bhffil#patnam Mandal Karimnagar District

¶92

'ffJ..-r*,ouliSri[:bilrfiJilL.R["i%,3${"&g#:,8::*nManaser,3d Karimnas-a(rnsuranbe eoricv -or;r'N;i; ilJlzbEiiboz+s6.r 2 varid from

¶93

.Respondents

¶94

Appear fired under section 173 0f M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.01.2013 made in MVOp N;.;i; oF 2011, on the fire of the chairman, Motor Accident" cr"irl'Tribunar-cum-ril.tr,"iJ-rag", P#*r:fji"

¶95

This appeal comino on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order and Decree of tie court o"rori, in" .Ii"ri5, p"p.r. in the originar petition a-nd ypo.n hearing the arguments of tvtr. K.vasudeva Reddy,Advocate for the Appellant and sri p.Hari prasad Advocate ro.. tne n".pondent Nos.1 and 2 and sri T.Mahender Rao for Respondent No.3.

¶96

This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

¶97

I ]l"t^{this Appeal be and here by parfly ailowed} in MACMA; 2 That the compensation amouni iwari"o ov *'L -@ rribunar is hereby enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.93,000/- with int#.] 7.so/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶98

That the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, after lliving due credit to the amount arready dr-.posited, ir a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy, of this judgment;"nv,^*itni,

¶99

ordered by the That the enhanced amount Tribunal' shail be apportioned in ihe same i,"nnu.. ",

¶100

5 That on such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts;

¶101

That there is nc, order as to costs.

¶102

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

<t)

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge,

¶107

Karimnagar (with records)

¶108

2 Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:30.06.2023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.2086 of 2014

¶113

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA, WITHOUT COSTS

Masadi Linga Rao and 3 Others v. Vardineni Narsinga Rao and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masadi Linga Rao and 3 Others v. Vardineni Narsinga Rao and 2 Others

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

Korlapati Pradeep Kumar, Khammam Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Dr.M.Ravinder Reddy, Vs Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Adilabad

J Hari Venkata Vaddi Babu, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs R.Shekhar, R.R. Dist 7 Anr.

V.Devi Vs Depot Manager

Smt R. Andalu, Vs S. Narsa Reddy

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nelli Mallesham and 3 Others