The High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals filed by dependents of a deceased, enhancing compensation from Rs. 15.30 lakhs to Rs. 21.54 lakhs. The appeal dismissed by the insurance company was rejected for lack of evidence.
Enhanced compensation awarded as Rs. 21,54,532/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3304 I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAYOF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO
M.A.C.M.A. NO:21 43 0F 2013
AND
M.AC.M.A.No. 280 OF 2014
Appeals undet Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Actagainst the Order and decreein M.V.O.P. No. 33 of 201 1 dated 09.05.2013 on the file of theCourtof the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional ChiefJudge,(FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
M.A.C.M.A.No.2 143 ot 2013
Between:
...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS
M.A.c.M.
. 280 ot 2014
Between:
New lndiaAssuranceCom. Ltd , Rep qy its Divisional ,Manager'101'1st it"Jr.' ti;;;i;towlis,.iuo ges cbtonv, tr'tltat<pet'Hvderabad
...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTNo'2
ANO
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTNo'1
Counselfsr APPellantsin MACMA.No.2113 of 2O13 & RespondentNos.1 to 4 STi JAGATHPALREDDYKASI REDDY in MACMA.No.280 of 2014
Counselfor ResPondent No'2 ln MACMANo. 2143of 2013 & Appetlantin MACMA.No' Sri P. HARINATHGUPTA 2AO ot2014
Counselfor ResPondent No.1 inMACMA.No.2143of 2013 & RespondentNo.2in il;ttiiA.N;.280ot 2014 : None appeared
The Courtdeliveredthe following:COMMONJUDGMENT
r*ffi-TT"
I
---/ -
RRN,,' COMMON JUOGMENTIN MACMA NOS.2143 0F 2073 &2aO OF 2014
1
THE HON'BLESRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPURAJESHWARRAO
M.A.C.M.A No. 2143 OF 2013
&
M.A.C.M.A No.28O OF 2OL4
coMMONWDGMENT:
Both these Motor Accidents CivilMiscellaneousAppealsare beingdisposed of by way of this common judgment as both these appealsare directed againstthe judgment dated09.05.2013in O.P No.33of 2011 on the hle of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-XAdditional ChiefJudge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Hereinafterreferred to as 'the TribunalJ.
,'
l-.,''"
l'
2
COMMON JUDGME MACMA NOS.2143 0F 2013 & 280 0F 201
RRN,J COMMON .lUDGMENTIN MACMA NO5.2143 0f 2013 & 2E0 0F 2014
3
lO. Per contra,learned counsel for respondentNo.2 submitted that thereis a policy violation, the Tribunal did not considercrucial aspects as towhetherthe terms of tlle policy were violated and, accordingly, committedillegality.He further submitted that the Tribunal, while hxingthe liability in a generalized manner, did not consider thecontributorynegligence.The Tribunal did not deduct the incometax from the deceased'ssalary.
t
:sR! '. t<:
4
COMMON,IUDGME MACMA NOs 2143 0F 2013 & 280 0F 201
1 1. Lr'arnedcounsel for thepetitioner submitted that the deceasedis workingin APSTRC and getting a salary of Rs. 11,903 as per Ex.C.2salary certificate.Ex.A3 reveals that the age of the deceasedwas 42 years at the time of the accident,and the same is to be considered.Further, thepetitioners are entitled to compensationunderconventionalheadsas per the decision of the Hon'lrleApex Court inNa:tlonalInsurance Compang Llmlted us Pranag Sethiand otherstandMagma htsurance Compang Ltd.
Vs. NanuRam @Chuhttt Ramz. However, this court is inclined to consider/ fixsalary of the deceased at Rs. I 1,903 / - per month. To this, 3O%of future prospectsare added asper the age of the deceasedwas 42 years, as per the decision in Pranag Sethl (supra). Thus, theannual income of the deceased is Rs.1,85,687 /- (Rsl1,903/-xl2+3Oo/o ).From this, 1\4tt is to be deducted towards the personalexpenditure of the deceased, as held by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in So,rla Verrna [/s. Delht TransporA Co4toratlons .The appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verrna ls ,14, (supra). Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 19,49,710 /-(1,85,687 /- x3A x L4l.
'1zotz1 to scc 680.
22018 l.aw Suit (SC) 9O4
'(zoog)o scc rzr.
RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENTIN MACMA NOs.2143 0f m13 & 280 0F 2014
5
::7
deceased and is entitled to compensation under loss of consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranag Sethi (supra). She is awarded at Rs.44,000/-(Rs.40,00O/- + lOYol and petitioner No.2 is the unmarried daughter of the deceased, aged l1 years. The Tribuna.l granted only Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of frlial consortium, but as per Magma Insurance Cornpang Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhttt Rama , this Court is inclined to grant Rs.4O,OOO/-. Petitioner No.3 andpetitioner No.4 are theparents of the deceased and aged about 7O to 75 years, but Tribunal awarded only Rs.S,OOO/- each, but as per Magma Insurance Compang (supral, it has to be increased as 40,OOO/- each. The petitioners are further awarded Rs. 16,5OO/- (15,000/-+ 1O%) and Rs16,5000/(Rs. 1 5,OOO+ 10%) towards Ioss of estate and funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi (supra). The Tribunal rightly awarded compensation towards transport and medical expenditure Rs.7 ,a22 /- and there is no interference to the same by this Court.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance thequantumof compensation as under:
a2ol8 law Suit (SC) 90a
j
I
6
COMMON IUDGMEN MACMA NO5.2143 0F 2013 & 2800F 2014
| Sl.No | Natureof head | Amount awardedby Tribunal |
Amount awardedby this Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Lossof dependency |
Rs.14,87,178/- | Rs. Rs.19,49,71O/- |
| 2 | [,ossof Consortium |
Rs.10,OOO/- | Rs.44,0oO/- |
| a | Lossoffilial consortium |
Rs.l0,OOO/- | Rs.80,000/- |
| 4 | Lossofparental consortium |
Rs.l0,OOO/- | Rs.40,OOO/- |
| 5 | Funeralexpenses | Rs.5,0OO/- | Rs.16,5OO/- |
| 6 | Transportand medical expenditure |
Rs.7,822/- | Rs.7,822/- |
| 7 | Loss of estate | nil | Rs.l6,5oO/- |
| Total | Rs.15,3O,OOO/- | Rs.21,54,532/- |
'MANU/SC/048O/2013.
7
RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA NOs 2143 0F 2013 & 280 0F 2014
However, the petitioners sha.ll pay the deficit Court fees on the enhanced compensation.
I
M.A.C.M.A NO. 280 0F 2014
t
(.
8
COMMON JUDGME MACMA NOS.2143 0r 2011 & 280 OF 20
the arguments o[ the iearned counsel for respondent No.2 catlnot be accepted as no evidence was aCduced by respondcrrtNo.2 and the annual income of the deceased was well within the limito[ the taxable income that is Rs. 1,50,000/- in thcyear 20 13.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applicatior-rs, if ar-iypending, shall
stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/. B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANTEEGI9TRAR , ,/ YV
SECTION OFFICER
To,
lyvnju $
Arj a3
HIGH COURT
DATED:22108t2023
COMMoN JUDGMENT + DEGRL MAGMA.No.2143 of 2013 & MACMA.No. 280 ot 2014
(, 2s lti * D€SpATCti
ALLOWING THE MAGMA.N o.2143 ot 2013 & DISMISSING THE MACMA.N; ia6 ot zolq zo\z+
HIGH COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY ,TFE TWENTYSECONDDAYOF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO
M.A.C.M .A. NO: 2143OF 2013 AND M.A.C.M-A.No.280 OF 2014
M.A" C.M.ANo. 2143 of 2013
Between:
...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONT}ENTS
M.A.C.M.ANo. 280 of2014
Between:
New lndia Assurance Com.Ltd., Rep.by its Divisional Manager,101' 1st Ftoor,-Tirumala Towers,Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad
...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTNo.2
ANO
,// i'
R2 declared as major and discharging the guardianship of the R1 vide court order dated 18.04.2019 in l.A.No. 1 of 2018 in MACMA.No. 28O of 2014
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1
Appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 33 of 2011 dated 09.05.2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
ORDER : These appeals 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants in MACMA.No.2143 of 2013 & Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in MACMA.No.28O of 2O14 and of Sri P. HARINATH GUPTA, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 ln MACMA No. 2143 of 2013 & Appe ant in MACMA.No. 28O ot 2014 and None appeared for Respondent No.1 in MACMA.No. 2143 of 2013 & Respondent No.2 in MACMA.No.280 of 2014.
This Court doth Judgment and decree as follor,vs:-
,' i
deficit murt fee within(01) month fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
/ffRUE COPY//
Sd/. B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASsrsrArtRSgsrRAR V
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Tyh/njb $-
I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:2210812023
COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.2143 of 2013 & MACMA.No. 280 of 2014
ALLOWING THE MACMA.No. 2143 of 2013 & DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.280 ot 2014 "f
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Whether the insurance company is entitled to rely on non-consideration of income tax and contributory negligence.
V. Haripurna
V. Vijaya Sree
V. Krishnaiah Chowdary
V. Kamalamma
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Siva Nageshwara Rao Dharani
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
