Allowed

Smt.Shaheda Begum and 4 Ors. v. M/S.Psc Bose Automobilees and Anr.

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023MACMA/2091/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim from Rs. 5,27,000 to Rs. 12,12,537.50. The court increased the deceased's income, clarified dependency deductions, adjusted the multiplier for the deceased's age, and awarded consequential allowances for consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs. 5,27,000 to Rs. 12,12,537.50 with 7.50% per annum interest; respondents directed to deposit amount.

Smt.Shaheda Begum and 4 Ors. Vs M/S.Psc Bose… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE^{EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPURAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

MOTOR AC CIDENT^{CIVI L MISCELLAN EOUS APPEALNO: 209't oF 2011}

¶7

Appeal filed Under^{Section173of Motor VehiclesAct againstthe Order and} oecree in-o^{p No.141.1of ,ootdated.11/03/20080n the file of the court of the} ChairmanMotorAccidentctalmsTribunal-cum-VlllAdditionalDistrictJudgeat Nizamabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . SMT.Shaheda Begum, Wo.late Mohd lqaq Hollsehold^{R/o'HB Colony' Medak} ' i;;"-N;; R7"Rd N"'g;i,-K;"reddv Town' Nizamabad District

¶10

Md.Aziz, S/o^{late Mohd lsaqR/o HB-Colony, Medak Town Now R/o RB} - tlagrr, Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District'

¶11

Md.Athik,^{S/o late Mohd lsaq R/o HB-.Colony, Medak Town NowR/o RB} - Nagar. Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District'

¶12

4 Md Saiid, S/o^{late Mohd lsaq R/o HB- Colony' Medak Town NowR/o RB} Nagar. Kamareddy^{Town, Nizamabad ljlstflct'}

¶13

Sahnaz Begum @^{Shano D/o late Mohd lsaq l3to5 are minors u/s of their} natural mother P1l''il1;"HB'tJr"'i,-r'tiolti'^{town Now R/o'RBNagar'} Kamareddy Town,^{Nizamabad District'}

¶14

...Petitioners

¶15

AND

¶16

1 M/S PSC Bose^{Automobrlees, D No.54-7-75818,3rd Road' JA Nagar'} Vrjayawada.^{Krishna District.}

¶17

2 Branch Manqer,^{TheNationallnsurance Company Ltd O/o PB -No 751 '} O f.lo :A-A-t7,^{OppAir Bandar Raod, Vijayawada'}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Counsel for^{the Appellant: SRl. CHJANARDHAN REDDY}

¶20

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1 : None appeared}

¶21

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2: SMT' W V S RAJESWARI}

¶22

The Court delivered^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T{AIITAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶24

M.A.C.M.A.No.2O9l OF 201 1

¶25

JIIDGMENT:

¶26

This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of the Motor. Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.03.2008 passed in O.P.No. 1411 of 2OO3 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge), Nizambad, (for short "the Tribunal") seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶27

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

¶28

3 Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶29

On 13.O4.2O03, Mohd Isaq (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceasedJ started from Tarakarama Nagar to Medak along with his brother Alzal on his scooter bearing No.Ap 23 4452 on his personal w,ork and at 8:30 pm on that day, when they reached near the Ganesh rice mill, a lorry bearing No.Ap 16 W 8348 (hereinafter referred to as^,crime vehicleJ, which belongs to the l't respondent, came at high speed and in a

¶30

R,R,N.J MACMANo.20l^{of 201I}

¶31

rash and^{negligent manner and dashed the scooterof the} deceased,^{as a result of which,both deceased and his brother} Afzal felt^{down and sustained injuries' Theywere admittedto} Government^{Hospital, Medak District, and while shiftingto} Gandhi^{Hospital, Secunderabad, he succumbedto his injuries'} The deceased^{wasagedabout 38 years, and he was workingas} an attender^{in the Forest Department and was earning} Rs.S,SOO/-^{per month. The accident occurred due to the rash} and negligent^{driving of the rider of the crime vehicle' The1=t} and 2.a^{respondents, being the owner and insurer of the crime} vehicle, are^{jointly andseverally liable to paythe} compensation.^{Therefore,the petitioners frled a claim petition} claiming^{compensation of Rs.8,OO,0OO/-'}

¶32

The^{I .,r respondentremained ex-partewhilethe}

¶33

2"d respondent^{filed counter'}

¶34

The 2n'{r respondent,^{in his counter,deniedallthe} allegations^{as to the occurrenceof the accident and disputed} the claim^{of the petitioners for compensation'}

¶35

To prove^{the petitioner's case,PWs' 1 to 3 were examined} and marked^{Exs.Alto A8. No oral evidence was adduced on}

¶36

¶37

RRN J MACMA No.209l ol20ll

¶38

behalf of the 2"a respondent, but Ex.Bl copy of the insurance policy was marked.

¶39

7 . After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and, accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.5,27,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of frling of the petition till the date of payment reafization to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the sarne, the petitioners filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

¶40

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶41

karned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate Ex.Al to A8 and the evidence of PWl to PW3 while passing the award. The Tribunal failed to apply the proper multiplier for the age of 38 years while passing the award as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and erroneously applied the multiplier of 12.79 rounded up to 13. The Tribunal erred in taking the deceased's income rounding up to Rs.S,OOO/- though the Ex.AB shor.r,s that the net salar5z of the deceased is Rs.5,015/-. The Tribunal has not ar,r,arded

¶42

¶43

¶44

RRN.J MACMA No.209l of2oll

¶45

just compensation under other heads; therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and unjustifrable.

¶46

lO. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted. tl.at after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

¶47

I l. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as per the lower Court record and as per the statement of PWl, the deceased was aged about 38 years. Further, as per the statement of PW3 T. Krishna, he stated that he has been working as a Forest Range Officer in Medak District since 05.10.2007 and as per the records of his office, the deceased worked as attender in the Forest Range Department in Medak. One Devaja, the then Deputy Range Ofl-rcer, Medak, when he was holding full additional charge of the post of the Forest Range Office, Medak, issued Ex.AS salary certificate dated 04.10.2006 of the deceased. However, the Tribunal rounded up the income to Rs.5,O00/ - instead of considering the salary mentioned in Ex.AS. Therefore, this Court inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.S,O 15/- as per Ex.A8 salary certificate o[ the deceased. The Tribunal did not grant any future prospects. The petitioners are entitled to an

¶48

¶49

RRN.J MACMA No.209l of2ol I

¶50

additional 5Oo/o of the deceased's income towards future prospects as the deceased was a perm€rnent employee of the Government Department, as per the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Natlonal Insurance Compang Llmited as Pranqg Setht and otherl, Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,522.50 ps (Rs.5,Ol5/- + Rs.2,507.50 ps). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.90,270/- (Rs.7,522.50 ps x 12), out of which the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3ra towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of rZth even though there are five dependants on the deceased, which comes to Rs.67,702.50 ps (Rs.90,270l- (-) Rs.22567.50 ps). As per the decision of Apex Court in Srrrla Verrna as Delhi Transport Corporationz, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '15' as the deceased is aged 38 years. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 10, 15,537.50 ps (Rs.67,7O2.5O ps x 15. The Tribunal granted Rs.2,OOO/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss ol consortium suffered by the 1"t petitioner. The I "t peritioner is entitled to Rs.77,OOO/- (Rs.40,000/- + 15,ooo/ + l5,o0O/- + toohl towards loss of spousal consortium, loss of estate and funeral

¶51

'^{lo rT} AcJ 27oo

¶52

r toog ecJ I298 (sc)

¶53

¶54

RRN.J MACMA No 2091 or20ll

¶55

expenses as per Pranag^{Sethi (supra). The Court below did} not grant arry amount to^{the 2"d petitioner, who is a majorand} !,rd, {th and 5s petitioners,^{who are minor children, and this} Court is inclined to grant a sum of^{Rs. I,2O,OO0/- (Rs.aO,OOO/-} x 3) towards loss of parental consortium to^{3rd, 4th and 5tt'} petitioners, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Compang Limited^{Vs. J\Icnu Ram Alias} Chuhttt Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the^{petitioners are} entitled to compensation of Rs.12,12,537.50^ps.

¶56

L2. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of^{interest at} 7 .5o/o per Elnnum, and the same needs no^{interferenceby this} Court.

¶57

Though the claimed amount is Rs.8,OO,O0O/-,^invoking the principle of^just compensation and in^view of^{the law laid} down by the Honble Supreme Court in^{Raieshus Raiblr} Slnght, and in catena of decisions, this^{Court is empoweredto} grant comPensation beyond the claimed amount. However,^the petitioners shall pay the deficit Court fee on the^enhanced compensation.

¶58

Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the^enhanced

¶59

r zo tE lawsuit (sc) go+

¶60

o (2018) 18 scc t3o

¶61

¶62

RRN,J MACMA No.20)l ot20ll

¶63

compensation of Rs.12,12,537.5O ps as against the awarded amount of Rs.5,27,OOO/-

¶64

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,27,000/- to Rs. 12,12,537.5 (Rupees Twelve lakhs twelve thousand frve hundred and thirQr seven. lrfty paise only) with interest at the rate of 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos. I and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the anount already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners in the sarne manner and ratio as ordered by the Court below. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within two months from the date

¶65

of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as

¶66

to costs

¶67

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶68

closed.

¶69

"^".3,t?XRiAE3'tTAiH:

¶70

h It //TRUE^COPY" SECTION'OFFICER

¶71

To,

¶72

1 The Chairman^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vlll AddrtionalDistrict} 2 tx$ si:^{;ani'sn1Affi;plffihFflHi,;'o P u c} 3 one cc^to Hlgw^{v S RAJ} 4 Two CD CoPies

t l

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810912023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.2091 of 2011

¶78

1 1rE sTAr €
q
oJ 0 B tt B 202I a
o
t
* DIJ l"h:

¶79

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS a

¶80

¶81

¶82

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^HrcH "orTf3$otJ*.oBHE

¶83

FRIDAY, ' rwo iHousAND^{THE EIGHTH DAY OF} AND TWENTY THREE^SEPTEMBER

¶84

PRESENT

¶85

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPURAJESHWAR RAO} MOTO n acctoeNT^CIVILMISCEL LANEO US APPEAL^NO:2 09 10F 2011,

¶86

Between:

¶87

'1 . SMT.Shaheda Begum, Wo late^{Mohd lsaq Household R/o HB Colony Medak} ' Y;;""i'6;R7"RE r'rJ#, fui'iieoov rown' Nizamabad^District

¶88

Md.A;ziz'^{S/o.late MohdlsaqR/o HP^.Colony' l\IedakTownNow RioRB} - Nagar. Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad ulslrlcr'

¶89

3 Md.Athik,^{S/o late Mohd lsaq R/o HB-.Colony' lvledak Town.Now R/o RB}

¶90

i';s;;,' K;;ri"oov rown, Nizdmabad District'

¶91

4 Md Saiid,^{S/o late Mohd lsaq R/o HB-.Colony'lrledakTown NowR/o RB}

¶92

ii;s;l'iilri"oov ro*n, Nizdmabad District'

¶93

Sahnaz^Begum @^{Shano, D/o'late Mohd lsaq l3to5 are minors u/s of thetr} natural mother^{prt''iilo"i5'"Cironv'-Gaiitown' Now R/o RBNagar'} i<i.roOOy^{f o*n,t\iizamabadDistrict'}

¶94

...Petitioners

¶95

AND

¶96

1 NI/S PSC Bose^{Automobilees,D'No'54-7-758/B'3rdRoad' JA Nagar'} Vijayawada,^{Krishna District'}

¶97

B:ft:"!B%1i?:bJi'^iA':"*'iJHTie:iif,""flBillLtdoioPB-No751

¶98

...ResPondents

¶99

Appeal filed^{Under Section173of Motor VehiclesAct againstthe Order and} decree^{in O P No.14'11 of 2003daled11lO3t2O08on the file of the Courtof the} chairman^{Motor Accident ciaimsTribunal-cum- Vlll AdditionalDistrict Judge at} Nizamabad

¶100

ORDER: This appeal^{coming on. for hearingand upon perusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment^{and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the} case and upon hearing the^{arguments of sRl. cH JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate} for the Appellant and^of sit'tl,w^{v s RAJESWARI,Advocate for the Respondent} No.2 and none appeared^{for the respondent no.1.}

¶101

This Court doth Order and Decree as^follows:

¶102

'1. That the Motor Accident Civil triliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Allowed by enhancing the compensation^{from Rs. 5,27,000/-to Rs.12,12,537 5} (Rupees Twelve Lakhs twelve thousand five hundred^{and thirty sevenfifty} paise only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o^per annum from the^dateof petition till the date of realization

¶103

That the respondent No.1 and 2 are directed^{to depositthe said amount} together with costs and interest after^{givingdue credit to the amount already} deposited, if any within two months from^{receipt of a copyof this Judgment.}

¶104

That the compensation amount^{shallbe apportioned among the petitionersin} the same manner and ratio as ordered by^{the court below}

¶105

That however, the^petitioners are dtrected^{to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the} enhanced amount withrn two months^{from the date of receipt of a coyof this} Judgment.

¶106