Allowed

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

Telangana HC9 Aug 2023MACMA/2096/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded for the death of the appellant's minor daughter from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 5,00,000, with interest, following Supreme Court precedents on child death claims.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum; respondents directed to deposit the amount within two months.

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

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIV^{IL MISCELLANE OUS APPEALNO: 2096 OF 2011}

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section^{173of MotorVehicles. nc!,aO31n$-tn9^O1d1,lltd} decree in o.p.No.530 0f^{2OO7dated 24.08.2009on the file of the uoun oI tne} Cniiirrn Motor Accideni^{Clrirnr Tribunal-cum-IAdditional District Judge,} Mahabubnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Kuchoor ramulamma,^{wo. LateThimmappa, R/o. Marikal village of Dhanwada} mandal Mahabubnagar^District.

¶10

...ApPellant

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Sri Kishan Kumar Prajapat^{S/o. Manjal Ramji,Occ: Business Owner of Tanker} No. KA-04-6492 H.no.^{18t4 BardangalliHubliKarnataka State'}

¶13

2 The National lnsurance co.^{Ltd, nep uy its Division Manager Divisionaloffice} lV Twin City Market Complex,^{M.JRoad, Hyderabad.}

¶14

...ResPondents

¶15

Counsel for the ApPellant

¶16

Counsel for the ResPondent^No.1 Counsel for the ResPondent^No.2 The Court delivered the^following

¶17

: Sri MOHD YOUSUF

¶18

: STi K RAJESH REDDY

¶19

: STi G. VISHWESHWAR^REDDY

¶20

: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.N o.2096 0F 2011

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.Og.2OOg passed in O.P.No.530 of 2OO7 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Mahabubnagar, (for short "the Tribunal").

¶25

2 For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal

¶26

3 . Brief facts of the case are that on 2l .OS.2OO7 in the morning hours, the petitioner, her husband Thimmappa and her daughter Nadishwari (minor), boarded an Auto bearing

¶27

No.AP-22V-6413 at Marikal village to go to Deverkadra and when the said Auto reached near pedda Goplapur village on Raichur to Mahabubnagar Highway road at 10.00 a.m., one Oil Tanker bearing No.KA-04-6492, driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the said Auto, due to which her husband, her daughter and the driver of the Auto sustained

¶28

RRN. i\tACNIA^No l0')1, oll0l^I

¶29

¶30

severe injuries and died on the spot.^{She also received} bleeding injuries. The^present claim^{petition is filed by the} petitioner for Rs.2,50,000/- owing to the death^{of her minor} daughter, aged five years.

¶31

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.l/owner^{of the} Oil Tanker frled a counter^{denying all the petition allegations.} He mainly contended that the^{accidentwas due to rash and} negligent driving by the driver of the Auto as the^Autowas overloaded and the driver could not control^{the Auto and} dashed the Oil Tanker.

¶32

Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed^a counter denying all the petition allegations.^Itmainly contended that the driver who^drove the^{Oil Tanker did not} hold a valid and subsisting driving license^and that^{the vehicle} was not roadworthy to be plied and that the accident^occurred due to gross negligence of the driver^{of the Auto and the driver} of Auto was not^possessing a valid^{and effective driving license} to drive such auto and that Auto^{was overloaded, and that} insured and insurer of the Auto are^{necessarypartiesto the} proceedings and respondent No.2 is not liable to^{pay any} compensation to the^petitioner.

¶33

¶34

RR .I M^(_NI4 No -1006 0t t0t I

¶35

To prove her case, the petitioner examined pWs.l and 2 and got marked trxs.Al to AI2. Adduced no oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the respondents.

¶36

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.p. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.7O,O00/- with interest @7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner.

¶37

B. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners lnfer_ alia contended that the Tribunai awarded a very meagre amount which needs to be interfered with. He prayed this Court to award Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Meena Deui

¶38

Vs. Nunu Chand. Mahto @ Nemchand Mahtol wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

¶39

1 1. Recentlg in the case of Kuruan Ansai @ Kuruan Ali & another us. Shgam Kishore Murmu and another (2022) j SCC 317, utherein a child- aged. about 7 gears d_ie,d fn a road accident took place on 6.9.2OO4, this Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,O00/-, applging the multiplier of 1 5, calculated fhe loss of d_epend.ency as Rs.

¶40

I 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 841

¶41

¶42

R I{.I N,lACNl ^ No loel' ollLrl

¶43

-1,

¶44

3,75,0OO/ - and adding Rs. 55,O0O/ - in conuentional heods, antLarded Rs. 4,70,OOO/ .

¶45

In uieu of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the coses of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,OOO/ as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of deualuotion of moneg and ualue of ntpee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M V. Act uas introduced and the said notional income u.tas treated as Rs. 3O,O00/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/ in Kuruan Ansai (supra) in age group of 1O and 7 gears respectiuely.

¶46

¶47

At this stage, it is necessarg to claify that as per the decision of a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa us. Gurdagal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was obserued that under the MV Act, there is no restiction that the Tribunal/ Court cannot au_tard compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tibunal/ Court ought to atuard 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the euid.ence produced on record.. Therefore, less ualuation, if ang, made in the Clairr" Petition uould not be impediment to atuard just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.

¶48

Accordinglg, this appeal is allowed. The am.ount of compensation, as a u.tarded bg the High Court is enhanced- by Rs. 3,0O,0OO/ -, in addition. The total amount of compensation u.tould be Rs. 5,0O,OOO/ . The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7ok p.a. from the date of Claim Petition till realization. The due amount be

¶49

¶50

)

¶51

RR\ ] NIACMA No 1096 ol l(rl I

¶52

¶53

paid bg the respondent No. 4 - United India Insurance Compang within a peiod of four tueeks from today.

¶54

Accordingly, prayed to award compensation^{of Rs.5,OO,00O/-} to the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also conceded the law laid in the above^judgment.

¶55

¶56

9 Since there is no conflict as regards the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Deui^(Supra), this Court is inclined to allow the appeal by^awarding Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakh only) with interest^{(it,7% p.aon} the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization

¶57

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.7O,OO0/- to Rs.5,OO,OOO/- (Rs. Five lakh onlyl with costs and interest @7oh p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same subject to payment of the deficit Court fee within two

¶58

¶59

RRN I MACM,l No l0q6 ol l0l

¶60

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment

¶61

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶63

closed

¶64

SD/.MOHD^{SANAULLAHANSARI} ASSISTANT^REG]STRAR

//TRUE COPY/'

SECTION^OFFICER

to'', -^{-n.Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I AdditionalDistrict} LuJge.^{Mahabubnagar'(With Records if anV-)-..}

¶69

z. 6nJcc^{to sri MoHb YousuF,Advocate[oPUC]}

¶70

a. o;; cc^{to Sri G vIsHWESHWARREDDY'Ad-vocate[oPUc]}

¶71

;. o;; cc to^{sri K RAJESH REDDY' AdvocatetoPUCl}

¶72

Two CD^CoPies

SP\.P,-

HIGH COURT

DATED:09 t08t2025

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2096 of 2011

¶78

ST AT E
q
t5 I[\ ar
foo
i
i U E SPpi

¶79

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶80

b<br>

¶81

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

¶82

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

¶83

PRESENT

¶84

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶85

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 2096 OF 201'l

¶86

Between:

¶87

Smt. Kuchoor ramulamma, Wo. Late Thimmappa, R/o. Marikal Village of^Dhanwada mandal Mahabubnagar District.

¶88

...Appellant

¶89

AND

¶90

Sri Kishan Kumar Prajapat S/o. Manjal Ramji, Occ: Business Owner of^Tanker No. KA-04-6492 H.no. 1814 Bardangalli Hubli Karnataka State.

¶91

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

¶92

... Respondents

¶93

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.530 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.

¶94

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^groundsof appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papersin the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohd Yousuf, Advocate^{for the} Appellant and of Sri Rajesh Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and^{Sri G.} Vishweshwar Reddy, for the Respondent No.2.

¶95

This Court doth Order and Decree as follow

¶96

1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶97

Thal the Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby^is enhanced from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh Only)^With Costs and interest @ 7.5o/o pet annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶98

3 That the Respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any, already OepositeO, within two months from

¶99

4 rhat on s uch deposit,,.l: :il :::::"J::: i:,9;:T#i,n"lil' ,,n0," the same subject to payment of the deficit court fee within two months from the date of copy of this Judgment;

¶100