Dismissed

Malluri Revathi , Kalyani and 4 Ors. v. Mukka Virpaksham and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023MACMA/2287/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. It held that a second-class heir was competent to claim compensation and that medical expenses were payable regardless of the source of funds. The court also ruled that the claimant's Class II status was entitled to the estate, rejecting objections from other heirs.

What did the court decide?

No compensation. Medical expenditure costs and other amounts previously allowed to the lower-class heir were not reversed.

Malluri Revathi , Kalyani and 4 Ors. Vs Mukka… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3216 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

MACMA NO: 2287 OF 2009 AND MACMA NO: 1176 OF 2023

¶7

MACMA NO: 2287 OF 2009

¶8

Appeal filed under section 173 of tvl.P.Act aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 19.01 .2009 passed in O.P.No. 736 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Malluri Revathi @ Kalyani, Aged 49^years, Occ: Household

¶11

Malluri Rathnakar, S/o. late Pullaiah, Aged 56 years, Occ: Business

¶12

Malluri Sridhar, S/o. Ratnakar, Aged 33 years, Occ: Business

¶13

Appellants 1 to 3 are Rl/o H.No. 8-7-2712 Girmajipet of Warangal District

¶14

Sreeram Sreevani @ Sharanya, W/o. Chandra Mohan, aged 25 years, Occ: Hosuehold Rl/o.Flat No.5, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad.

¶15

Maley Srelatha @ Neelima, W/o. Naveen, Aged 24^years, Household RJo.H. No.2-4-49, Station Road, lMahabubabad, Warangal.

¶16

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

AND

¶18

1 Mukka Virpaksham s/o.late Mukka Rajaiah, Aged 33^years, Occ: Doctor Rl,/o. Jammikunta, Karimnagar District

¶19

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶20

lnumula Chandraiah, S/o. Buchaiah, aged 25 years, Lorry Bearing No.AP 16 X 5299 R/o.Nagaram Village, Bhupalpalli [V1andal, Warangal District.

¶21

Nalla fvluninder Reddy, S/o.Yella Reddy, 44^yearc, Occ: Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP 16 X 5299 Fl/o.Bhupalapalli Mandal. Presently residing at Nayeem Nagar, Warangal.

¶22

United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd, Vll Company Ltd., Governerpet, Saisudha,2nd Floor, PB No-555, Prakasam Road, Governerpet, Vijayawada^- 520 002.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶24

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. S LAKSHMA REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. G. ANANDAM

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDy

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 & 3: NONE APPEARED

¶28

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶29

MACMA NO: 1176 OF 2023

¶30

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act against the judgment and Decree l9/01/2009 made in O.P.No.736 of 2006 on the fi e of the Chairman MACT-cum-lll Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar District

¶31

Between:

¶32

The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by lvlanager Vll Company Ltd., Govemerpet, Saisudha, 2nd floor, P.B.No. 555, Prakasham Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada - 520 0O2.

¶33

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3

¶34

AND

¶35

'l . tMukka Virupaksham S/o Late Mukka Rajaiah Aged about 34 years, OccDoctor, Rl/o Jammikunta, Karimnagar District

¶36

lnumula Chandraiah, S/o Buchaiah Aged about 2l yearc, Jcc- Driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-16-X-5299, F/o Nagaram V/o i3upatpalti l,Iandat, Warangal District.

¶37

Nalla Muninder Reddy, S/o Yella Reddy Aged about- 45 yoars, Occ- Owner of the.Lorry.bealing. No.AP-16-X-5299, R/o Bhupalpaili ManOal presenily Rl/o at H.No. 21lB 126, Nayeemnagar, Warangal

¶38

Malluri Revathi @ Kalyani, Aged about- 50 years, Occ- Household

¶39

Malluri Rathnakar, S/o Late Pullaiah, Aged about- 57 yearr;, Occ- Business

¶40

Malluri Sridhar, S/o Rathnakar Aged about- 34 years, Occ. Business

¶41

( Respondents 4 to 6 are R/o H.No. 8-7-2712, Girmajipet o{ Warangal District.)

¶42

Sreeram Srgeygl @ Sharanya, W/o Chandra Mohan, Age,cl about- 28 years, Occ- Household Rl/o Flat No.5, Thirumala, Malkajigiri, Setunderabad

¶43

Maley Srllqtla @ Neelima, W/o Naveen Aged about- 27 yerars, OccHousehold R/o H.No.2-4-49, Station Road, Mahabubabad Warangal District.

¶44

( Respondents 4 to 8 are not necessary parties to this appr:al, since the claim petition against them is dismissed )

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 8: SRl. S LAKSHMA REDDY

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI. G. ANANDAM

¶49

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3: NONE APPEARED

¶50

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶51

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶52

MACMA No.2287 of 2OO9 and MACMA No. 1176 OF 2023 JUDGMENT:

¶53

The prcsent Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out o[ the a'"r.ard dated 19.01.2009 in OP |tro.376 ol 2006 on the filc ol II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, r,r'herein and u,hereby the claim filed b1, respondent No.1 for dr:ath of minor in the motor' :rccident was partlv allowed granting c:ompensation of Rs.5,69,O28/ with interest

¶54

The appczrl No.2287 of 2009 is filed by respor-rdent Nos.4 to 8 rvho also <:larrn compensation for death of minor from the mother side relation of the deceased. The claim petitron is filed by brother of thc deceased father.

¶55

The appeal (SR) No.25239 of 2OO9 is filed bv Insurance Company, n,l-ro is respondent No.3 in OP. For convenience the ranks of the parties as referred in the ciairn petition is maintained

¶56

The challcnge of judgement and decree b5, tle respondent No.3 - [nsurance Company is on t'q.o grounds. The fit'st ground is that the clainr pr:titioner is not dependent; as such he cannot maintain thc claim petition. The second ground is that thc amount for trezrtment of tl-re deceased u,as incurrr:d from thc

¶57

¶58

estate of deceased father.^Therefore, such^{medical expenditure} should not have been arvarded in^{the award.}

¶59

The challenge of respondent Nos'4 to^B is^{that they are} preferred legal heirs over the claim^petitioner and^{thel' are the} parents, brothers and sister of the deceased^{mothcr. Therefore,} they should be preferred over the^{claim petitioner.}

¶60

Heard both sides.

¶61

The contention of the Insurance^{Company is that the} amount for treatment was^{paid from the estate of the deceased} father, as such amounts cannot^{be ordered has no merit.When} the medical expenditure was incurred^{itirreievant whether it is} incurred from the own estate^{of the deceased or incurred from the} estate of the others. Once the^{expenditureis incurredas per the} evidence of the Doctor, it cannot^{be said that such expenditure} cannot be ordered. The Tribunal^{rightlygrantedsuch medical} expenditure, which requires^{no interference.}

¶62

B. The other ground raised by the Insurance^{Companyis that} the claim petitioner is not competent^{to claim the compensation.} The compensation payable to the deceased^{is estateand the legal} heirs who are entitled to inherit the^{estate can maintain the claim} petition. In the present case, the claim^{petitioner is the brother of}

¶63

father of the deceased; he is the second Class heir.: as such he is entitled to maintain the claim petition. There is.to requirement that he should be dependent on the decease<l. The claim petitioner is heir of deceased and he is having right to inherit the estate of the deceased. Therefore, such contention is aiso no merit

¶64

The grievance of the respondent Nos.4 to B is that they are the preferred legal heirs over the claim petitionerr;. There is no dispute that the claimant is the brother of the Iather of the deceased and respondent Nos.4 to 8 are the parent-s. brother and sister of deceased rnother. They are Hindus by religion and there are governed b1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶65

In this rcgard, iL is apt to refer section 8,9 ar-rd Schedule of

¶66

the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads hereunder

¶67

General rules of succession in the case of males.-The troperty of a male Hindu dviltg intestate shall devolve according to the provrsiorr s of tltis Chapter:-

¶68

(a) firsth , Lrpon the heirs, being the relatives specified in cl;ass I of the Schedule:

¶69

(b) seconcJl-1', if thcre is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relati.es specihecl in class lI of the Schedule; (c) thrr-dir.. if therc is no heir of any of the two classes, thetr Ltpon the agnates ol the cleceased; a[d (d) lasth,^jI ther-c is Do agnate, then upon the cognales of the cleceasetl

¶70

Ordcr ol sLrcccssron among heirs in the Schedule.-l,mong the heirs spr:c:ifieci rn the Schedule, those ir.r class I r;hall take simultarrt:oLrsl-r irncl to thc cxclusion of alI othcr heirs; those in the lirst entr\ in class Il shall be preferred to those in the sccond entra; those rn tlre sccond entn-shall be prelerred to those in the third entrl'; an(l so on in succcssion.

¶71

.t.FITI SCHI]DUI,E

¶72

¶73

I{F]IRS IN CLASS I AND CI-ASS II

¶74

Class I

¶75

Son; daughter;^q,idov,r; mother; son of a pre-deceasccl son; (laLtgltter of a pre-deceased son; son of apre-deceasecl dauglttcr, claughter- of a pre-deceased daughter; rvidorv of a pre-dcccased son; son oI a ltrc deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a prc deccascd solr of a prc <Jeceased son; wrdorv of a pre-deceased son of a prc <leceased son fson of a predeceased daughter of a pre-deccascd darrghtcr; daughter of a pr-e-deceasecl daughter of a pre-(lcccascd daughtcr; daughter o[ a pre deccasecl son of a pre-deceased daLlghtcr; claughter of a pre-deceased daughtcr of a pre-rleceased son].

¶76

Class Il

¶77

L Father. ll. (l) Son's daughter's son, (2) son's daughter's daughtcr, (3) brother, (4) sister.

¶78

IIL (1) Ilaughter's son's son, (2) daughter-'s son's (laLrghtcr, (3) daughter's daughtcr's son, (4) daughter's daughtcr's daughtcr. lV. (l) Brother's son, (2) sistcr's son, (3) brother's claughter, (4) sister's daughter.

¶79

V. F-ather's lather: father's motl]er VI. Father's widow; brother's \r,idorr,. Vll. Father's brother; fathcr's sistcr. VIlt. Mother's father; mothcr's mother. IX. Mother's brother: mothcr's sister. Explanation.-ln this Schedule, references to a brothcr or sistcr do not includc refcrcnces to a brother or sister by utcrinc blood.

¶80

i l. The claimants fall under class-ll entry No.7 and respondent Nos.4 to 8 are falls under Entry No.8 and 9. A reading of Section 9 of the Act, 1956, the heirs of first entry over the second entry and the second entry over the third entry like so. In the present case, the ciaimant is at entry No.7, whereas respondent Nos.4 to 8 are on the entry Nos.B and 9. Therefore, entry No.7 shall be preferred over the entry No.8 and 9 and the claimant alone is entitled to maintain the claim petition and he alone is entitled to inherit the property. Thercfore, such contention is also devoid of merits. Therefore, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed

¶81

The cournsel for the [t.tsLtrance Companv has contended that as per the c'l-rargc shcet, t}'rc dri".er^w'as chargt' sheet for^the offence under Section MV Act, 1988 for not^{p()ssessing the} license. Therefore, there shall be order to pa,v and recovery. A close scrutinv of evidence ol RW.2 as advertecl by the Tribunal, there is no claim that the driver of the crime vchicle who is insured by the lnsurance Company has no license When such is the evidence, thcv cannot claim that the driver of tl-re^vehicle has no licer-rse. Tl'rerefore, such claim is rejected.

¶82

Accordir-rglr,, both the appeals are dismissed.^'l'here shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applicatior s if any, shall stand closed

¶83

//TRUE COPY//

¶84

Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISIRAR // u' SECTION OFFICER

¶85

To,

¶86

The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (with records, if any)

¶87

One CC to SRl. S. LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

¶88

One CC to SRl. G. ANANDAM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶89

One CC to SRl. A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶90

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810912023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2287 of 2009 AND MACMA.N o.1176 of 2023

¶96

1 HE STAT F
(
) E
O n n tE[ 2023 o
*
5it:ArC ,-.-c

¶97

DISMISSING THE APPEALS

¶98

r.l L{"" @

¶99

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶100

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEA/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶101

PRESENT

¶102

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶103

MACMA NO:2287 OF 2009 AND MACMA NO: 1176 OF 2023

¶104

MACMA NO:2287 OF 2009

¶105

Between:

¶106

Ivlalluri Revathi @ Kalyani, Aged 49 years, Occ: Household

¶107

Malluri Rathnakar, S/o. late Pullaiah, Aged 56 years, Occ: Business

¶108

Malluri Sridhar, S/o. Ratnakar, Aged 33 years, Occ: Business

¶109

Appellants 1 to 3 are R/o H.No. 8-7-2712 Girmajipet of Warangal District

¶110

Sreeram Sreevani @ Sharanya, Wo. Chandra Mohan, aged 25 years, Occ: Hosuehold Fl/o.Flat No.5, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad.

¶111

Maley Srelatha @ Neelima, Wo. Naveen, Aged 24 years, Household Rl/o.H.No.2-4-49, Station Road, Mahabubabad, Warangal.

¶112

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶113

AND

¶114

1 Mukka Virpaksham s/o.late Mukka Rajaiah, Aged 33 years, Occ: Doctor Rl/o. Jammikunta, Karimnagar District

¶115

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶116

2 lnumula Chandraiah, S/o. Buchaiah, aged 25 years, Lorry Bearing No.AP 16 X 5299 Ryo.Nagaram Village, Bhupalpalli Mandal, Warangal District.

¶117

3 Nalla Muninder Reddy, S/o.Yella Reddy, 44 years, Occ: Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP 16 X 5299 Fl/o.Bhupalapalli Mandal. Presentty residing a-t Nayeem Nagar, Warangal.

¶118

United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd, Vll Company l-td., Governerpet, Saisudha, 2nd Floor, PB No.555, Pra kasam Road, Governerpet, Vijayawada - 520 002.

¶119

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶120

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.P.Act aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 19.01.2009 passed in O.P.No. 736 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶121

MACMA NO: 1176 OF 2023

¶122

Between:

¶123

The United lndia lnsurance^{Co Ltd, Rep by ManagerVll CompanyLtd.'} Govemerpet, Saisudha, 2nd floor,^{P.B.No. 555, PrakashamRoad,} Governorpet, Vijayawada^- 520^0O2.

¶124

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3

¶125

AND

¶126

Mukka Virupaksham S/o Late Mukka Rajaiah Aged aboul^{34 years, Occ-} Doctor, Fl./o Jammikunta, Karimnagar District

¶127

lnumula Chandraiah, S/o Buchaiah Aged about^{27 years, Occ- Driver of the} Lorry bearing No.AP-16-X-5299, Rl/o Nagaram V/o Bupalcalli^Mandal, Warangal District.

¶128

Nalla Muninder Reddy, S/o Yella Reddy Aged about-^{45 years,Occ-Owner of} the Lorry bearing No.AP-16-X-5299,^Rl/o Bhupalpalli^{Mandal, presently Rl/o at} H.No. 2'llB 126, Nayeemnagar, Warangal

¶129

lr/alluri Revathi @ Kalyani, Aged abou! 50^{years, Occ- Household}

¶130

Malluri Rathnakar, S/o Late Pullaiah,^Aged about-^{57 years, Occ- Business}

¶131

Malluri Sridhar, S/o Rathnakar Aged about-^{34 years, Occ- Business}

¶132

( Respondents 4 to 6 are Rl/o H.No. 8-7-2712, Girmajipet of Warangal District.)

¶133

Sreeram Sreevani @ Sharanya, W/o Chandra^{Mohan,Aged about- 28 years,} Occ- Household Fl/o Flat No.5, Thirumala, Malkajigiri,^{Se,:underabad}

¶134

Maley Srilatha @ Neelima, Wo Naveen Aged about- 27^{t/ears, Occ-} Household R/o H.No.2-4-49, Station Road, lt/ahabubabarl^{WarangalDistrict.}

¶135

( Respondents 4 to 8 are not necessary parties to this appeal, since the claim petition againsl them is dismissed )

¶136

...RESPONDENTS

¶137

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act against the^judgmentand Decree 1910112009 made in O.P.No.736 of 2006 on the^file of^{the Chairman} MACT-cum-lll Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar District

¶138

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^{grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papersin the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. S. LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants in MACMA.No. 2287 of 2009 anC for Respondents 4 to 8 in IVACfi/A. No. 1176 of 2023, Sri, G. ANANDAIVI, advocate for the

¶139

Respondent No. 1 in both the appeals, Sri. A. RAIMAKRISHNA REDDy, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in MACIi/A.No. 2287 of 2009 and forAppellant in IMACI\dA. No. 1176 of 2023, and none appeared, advocate for Respondent No. 2 &3

¶140

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶141

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Dismissed in both the appeals; and

¶142

fhal there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶143

Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar

¶148

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810912023

DECREE

MACMA.No.2287^{of 2009} AND MACMA.N o.1176^{ot 2023}

¶154

DISMISSING^{THE APPEALS} e)d* .,its

Malluri Revathi , Kalyani and 4 Ors. v. Mukka Virpaksham and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malluri Revathi , Kalyani and 4 Ors. v. Mukka Virpaksham and 3 Ors.

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

Dr. Ahmed Shaji Akbar, Vs Smt. Saleha Sultana

K.Jagadeeshwar Rao Hanamakonda Vs K.Veeeralaxmi Hanamkondaand 4 Others

Mohd.Akbar Vs Smt.Saleha Sultana

Athuluri Papa Rao Vs Pasumarthi Veera Raghavulu

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukka Virupaksham and 7 Ors.

Mekala Sanjanna ( died) Vs Kudukuntla Kousalya