Partly allowed

V.Saraswathi v. M.Srinikvas Reddy

Telangana HC30 Jun 2023MACMA/2114/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident case from Rs. 1,63,000 to Rs. 3,25,000. The court directed the insurer to deposit the full amount and ordered an equitable apportionment of funds permitting the widow to withdraw her share along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,25,000 payable jointly; insurer to deposit within one month; apportionment permitted allowing widow to withdraw balance and minors to withdraw Rs. 25,000 each with inter

V.Saraswathi Vs M.Srinikvas Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2114 OF 2008

¶8

Appeal Under Seclion 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O-P No. 321 of 2006 daled 1310212008 on the file of the Cou( of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum I Additional District Judge, Mahabubngar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . V,Saraswathi, Wo.late Sakru, aged 25 yrs, Occ: Household

¶11

V.Saritha, D/o.late Sakru, Aged 6 yrs, Minor

¶12

V.Ramulu, S/o.late Sakru, aged 4 yrs, Minor

¶13

V.Laxman, S/o.late Sakru, aged 4 yrs, Minor

¶14

V.Arun, S/o.late Sakru, aged about 2 yrs, Minor

¶15

V.Thulsiya, S/o.Chandru, aged about 60 yrs, Occ: Coolie

¶16

V.Devlia, Wo.Thulsiya, aged about 58 yrs, Occ: Coolie,

¶17

P2 to 5 are minors u/g of their natural mother P1

¶18

All are Rl/o.Rangaiah Bavi Thanda, Kolluru Village, Nawabpet tvlandal, Mahabubnagar Diskict.

¶19

...APPELLANT/PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

M.Srinikvas Reddy, S/o.Anantha Reddy, Aged Ma.jor Owner of Auto Bearing No.AP 22 U 843 R/o.Kollur Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶22

The New lndia Assurance Co Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o.Divisional Office HDCT Complex, RS Road, Kurnool(Vide Policy No. 611501131104105707 Valid from 20-10-2004 to 19-10-2005 issued by the Mahaboobnagar branch)

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶24

¶25

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. V. HANUMANTH RAO

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRl. P. BHANU PRAKASH

¶27

The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶28

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶29

M.A.C.M.A. No.2114 OF 2OO8

¶30

JUDGMENT:

¶31

This appeal is preferrecl questioning the award and decree dated 13 .O2.2A08 passed l;y the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (l Adclitional Disrrict Judge) at Mahabubnagar (in short 'Tribunal'1, in O.P. No.32 1 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 1,63,00O/- with interest @)^{7 .5o/o per annum and proportionate} costs payable by both the respondents jointly and sevcrally, as against the claim of the appellants for a sum of Rs.4,OO,000/-.

¶32

Heard arguments of both the counsel.

¶33

This appeal is filed b_r, the claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of thc deceased respectively, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶34

4l As seen from thc impugned awa_rd, though the Tribunal has held that 1.1'rc. claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- but holding that there was negligence on the part of tlte drivers of both the: vehicles has

¶35

¶36

deducted 50'2,, thereof towards^{contributory negligence ar-rd} awarded only Rs. l,63,OOO/-^{towards compensation'}

¶37

A perusal of the material^{on record revealsthat, in the} present case, though copy of^{FIR was liled and marked as} Ex.A. 1, no copy of^{charge sheetwas filed. Claimantsfiled the} O.P. against the owner of^{the auto bearingNo.AP22 U 843 and} also its insurer as the accident^{was occurreddue to collusion of} auto and tractor, as^a result,^{the deceased, who was an inmate} of the auto died on the spot'^{RespondentNo' Iin his counter} has stated that the accident^{occurred due to the negligenceof} the tractor driver. Respondent^{No.2 has not taken any such} plea of contributory negligence in their^{counter.They simply} denied their claim stating^{that the auto was over loadedand} that the deceased was travelling^{as a gratuitouspassenger'} But, the trial Court arrived^{to the conclusion that there was} 50% contributory^{negligenceon the part of the driver of the} tractor. As the insurer^{of the tractor was not addedas party to} the O.P., the Tribunal^{has granted the compensationof} Rs. 1,63,O00/- only.^{When respondent No.2 has not raisedthe} issue of contributory^{negligence, there isreason forthe} Tribunal to deal with the^{said issueand give a finding to that}

¶38

¶39

effect. Therefore. thc^{impt grlr:d ar'r'ardis patentlv erroneous ln} this regard. [-lou'ever,^{the' 11r-tantum of compensiltion arrived at} by the Tribunal ol atr^{rtmot.Ltrtol Rs.3,25,00O/- holds good and} needs no interlerence^{of thrs (iourt.}

¶40

Accordingly, the^{appeal is allowed in part and the} compensation amount^{of Rs.1} ,63,000/-^{granted by the Tribunal} is enhanced to Rs.3,25,00()/^{payableby both the respondents} jointly and severally along ri'it h interest Ql^{7 .5o/oper annum from} the date of the petition till^{rcalization.ResponclentNo'2 shall} deposit the entire^{compensertionamount within 11 periodof one} month from the date^{of rec('ipt ol a copy of this order. It seems,} the Tribunal has not^{tn ade anyapportionment ofthe} compensation and simply^{st:rted that except the minors, others} are permitted to^{urithdrau,the amount.But, this Court finds it} just and reasonable to apportion al amount of Rs.25,000/each to appellants 6^{and 7 and accordingly thel are permitted} to withdraw the said amottnt^{along with interestaccrued} thereon as ancl when^the amount^{is deposited.r\ppellants 2 to} 5 are minor children and^{appellant No.l is the wife of the} deceased respectively.^Th erefore, this^{Court finds it just to} permit the appellant No.1 to u,ithdraw the balance

¶41

¶42

compensation^{amount a'long with interest accruedthereonand} AS she is the costs, as and^{u'hen the amount is deposited,} natural^{guardianof the minor children}

¶43

Miscellaneous^{applicationspending, if any, shall stand}

¶44

closed.^{No order as to costs'}

¶45

SD/- N.^SRIHARI ASSISTAWEGISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE^COPY//

¶47

SECTION^OFFICER

¶48

To, 1 . The I Additional^{District Judge, t\ilahabubnagar (With Records)} i o"i,'ic i"^{sri. V Hanumaith Rao, Advocatg^tgl9gl} i. il; CC^io sti^{p. Bhanu Prakash'Advocate [oPUC]}

¶49

Two CD^CoPies

?&q,

HIGH COURT

DATED:3010612023

JUDGMENT

1;! SiA}
o 1B AIJB?M
r9

¶57

MACMA.No.2114 of 2008

¶58

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶59

tat>g'

¶60

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶61

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶62

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

¶63

PRESENT

¶64

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶65

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:^21'14OF 2008

¶66

Between:

¶67

V.Saraswathi, Wo-late Sakru, aged 25^yrs, Occ:^Household

¶68

V.Saritha, D/o.late Sakru, Aged 6^yrs, Minor

¶69

V.Ramulu, S/o.late Sakru, aged^{4 yrs,} Minor

¶70

V.Laxman, S/o.late Sakru, aged 4^yrs, Minor

¶71

V.Arun, S/o.late Sakru, aged about 2^yrs,Minor

¶72

V.Thulsiya, S/o.Chandru, aged about 60^{yrs, Occ: Coolie}

¶73

V.Devlia, Wo.Thulsiya, aged about 58 yrs, Occ: Coolie, P2 to 5 are minors u/g of their natural mother P1

¶74

All are R/o.Rangaiah Bavi Thanda, Kolluru Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶75

...APPELLANT/PETITION ERS

¶76

AND

¶77

M.Srinikvas Reddy, S/o.Anantha Reddy,^Aged Major^{Ownerof Auto Bearing} No.AP 22 U 843 R/o.Kollur Village, Nawabpet^{Mandal, Mahabubnagar} District.

¶78

The New lndia Assurance Co Ltd, rep by its Divisional^{Manager O/o.Divisional} Office HDCT Complex, RS Road, Kurnool(Vide Policy^No. 611501131104105707 Yalid^{from 20-10-2004 to 19-10-2005 issued by the} Mahaboobnagar branch)

¶79

...RESPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶80

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and^decree in M.V.O.P No. 321 of 2006 dated 1310212008 on the file of the Court of^the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum I Additional District^Judge, Mahabubngar.

¶81

Thls 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 Sri. V. HANUMANTHA^{RAO, Advocatefor the} Respondent No.2 and None Appeared for Respondent No.1 not appeared eitherⁱⁿ person or by Advocate.

¶82

This Court :loth Order anC Docree as follows

¶83

1 That thr: Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Allowed in part.

¶84

2 That the Comperrsatron antount of RS. 1,63,000/- (iranted By The Tnbunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,25,000L (Rupees Threa Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) payable by both the Respondents jointly and severally along wrih interest 7.59/o per annum from the date cf realization

¶85

3 That the Respondent No.2 shall deposit the entire cornpensations amount withrn a period oF one nronth from the date of receipt of a copy of (heir order.

¶86

4 That the Tnbunal has not nrade any apportioned ol the Compensation and simply stated the except the Minors, other are permitted to withdraw the amount.

¶87

That thi-q Court finds it just and reasonable to apportion an amount of Rs. 25,0OOl- each to appeliants 6 and 7 and accordingly they are permitted to withdrarr, the said amount along wilh interest a()crued thereon as and when anr ount is deposited

¶88

6 That the Appellants 2 to 5 are minor children and appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased respectively.

¶89

That this Courl frnds it ]ust to permit the Appellanr No. 1 to withdraw the balance compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon and costs, as and when the amount is deposited, as she is the natural guardian of the minor children.

¶90

That the save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed rn all other respects; and

¶91

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶92

SD/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANIREGISTRAR /irRUE COpy// ( {) SECTION OFFICER

¶93

To,

¶94

1 The I Additional District Judge, Irilahabubnagar (With Records)

¶95

2 Two CD Copies

Nmq.

HIGH^COURT

DATED:30^t0612023

DECREE

MACMA.N^{o'2114 of 2008}

¶102

ALLOWING^{THE MACMA} I^r\4. .;-b*'r

V.Saraswathi v. M.Srinikvas Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Saraswathi v. M.Srinikvas Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Anjaiah Vs M/S. Drs Transport Company and Anr.

Kadipe Jahangir Vs Kompelly Chandra Sekhara Reddy

K. Bikshapathi Vs S. Subbaraiyulu Naidu and Another

P. Ravinder Reddy Vs M/S. M.R. Travels and Another

Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani, Vs Smt. Ruksar Fathima

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri a. Satya Ramulu and Another