Allowed

A. Laxman Nayak and Another v. M/S M.M. Travels and Another

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023MACMA/2291/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, The High Court allowed a Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal, enhancing compensation from Rs. 3,30,500 to Rs. 10,92,800. The Court adjusted the multiplier for loss of dependency to 18, added 40% for future prospects, and awarded Rs. 80,000 for filial consortium to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 10,92,800 including loss of dependency, conventional heads, and filial consortium. Interest granted at 7.50% per annum.

A. Laxman Nayak and Another Vs M/S M.M. Travels and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVILMISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2291 OF 2014

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,198B against the Order and decree in OP No.2062 of 2005 dated.2g-12-2oo7 on the fite of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civit Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

A. Laxman Nayak S/o. Late Bidhya Nayak Occ Labour R/o H. No. 8-2-329l82lclF ll 07, Gynizail Singh Nagar, Road No.8,Film Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

Smt. Badli Bai, W/o. A.Laxmana Nayak, Occ Household, R/o H.No. 8-2-329l82lclF 1107, Gynizail Singh Nagar, Road No 8,Fitm Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶11

...Petitioners/Appellant

¶12

AND

¶13

M/s M.M. Travels Rep. by Mohd. Shamshuddin R/o. H.No 21-4-9, Mosa Bowli, Hyderabad.

¶14

The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, 22-7 -28911, Near Mohal Complex, Opp Jublee P6st Office, Devandivrdi, Hyderabad. .,

¶15

...Respondents/Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants: Sfll V ATCHUTA RAM

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.l : None appeared

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI P HARINATH GUPTA

¶19

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE) SUDIIA

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.N0.229 L of 2OL4

¶22

J(IDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal is frled against the Order dated 29.l2.2OO7 rn O.P.No.2O62 of 2005 passed by the Motor Vehiclesr Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Ill Additional Chiel Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶24

The appellants/ petitioners filed O.P.No.2O62', of 2OO5, claiming compensation of Rs.8,98,5OO l- tor the dt:ath of the deceased A.Hanumanthu Nayak in the road tralfic accident occurred on 05.O5.2005. The deceased ll'as working as a Sales Trainee in Jana Harsha Estates and carning Rs.6,,500/- per month. There is no dispute rcgarding thc accident and negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle.

¶25

3- The Trial Court considering the oral and dr>cumentar5z evidence granted Rs.3,30,5O0/- with interesl @, 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit. Challenging the quantum of compensation as nreagre, the petitioners have hled the present appeal.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the appellants/ petitioners further contended that the age of the deceased vvas 23 1,e:.rs, but the

I i, Ii, t;

I I i

i l

trial Court has wrongly taken the^{muitiplieras 13.64 insteadof} 18 and his future prospects were^{not added.Therefore,} requested tlte Court to modify^{the award of the trial Court'}

¶32

As per the^guidelines of^{the Hon'ble Apex Courtin dictum} of Sarla Venna Vs. Delht Trdnsport^{Corporation,I if the} deceased was unmarried,^{7z of his income has to be deducted as} there are 2 dependents^{towards his personalexpenses' Thus,} the annual income of the^{deceasedafter deductingpersonal} expenses comes to Rs.39,O00/^{- per annum and the Honble} Apex Court in the dictum^{of NationalInsuro,nceCorrytang} Limited Vs. Pranag^{Sethi2,held that the future prospectsof} income of the self-employed^{deceased shallalsobe included in} determination of^{the compensation. Thus, considering the age} of the deceas ed,^{4oo/o of the incomehas to be addedtowards} future prospects and^{thus the amount} .^wouldbecome Rs.54,600/-. This sum^{ifmultiplied with the multiplier} applicable to the^{age of the deceased i.e.18, it wouldcome to} Rs.9,82,800/-. Thus,^{the appellants/petitionersare entilledto} Rs.9,82,800/- under^{the head 'Lossof Dependency''}

'^{(2009) 6 scc l2l}

'(2orz)^{t6 sccrao}

Besides, the appellants are also entitled for comperLsation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of Itla'tionrrl Insurqnce Company Limited. Vs. Pranag Setftl, i.e., Rs. I5,O00/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- t:wards funeral charges.

¶37

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the authority of Magma General Insttrance Comltang Limi.ted. us. Nrrnu Rrrm Alio.s Chuhru Ram & otherss, and in the authority between United Ind.ia Insurq.nce Compang Limlted. us. the amounts for loss of consortium sha-Il be awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their pal ents as 'parental cons<;rtium' and to the parents as, 'frlial consortium' for the loss of thcir grown-up children, to compenseLte their agony, Iove and affection, care and companionship of cleceased children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.SO,0O0/ - as filial consortium to the petitioners.

¶38

¶39

Thereforc, the appellan ts / petitioners are entitled for the compensatiolr rn rhc followrng terms:

¶40

' 1:o^{r ty ts sct'r to}

'1:ozo; e scc c.r.l

$:-

I \ I

¶45

I I . I I I I

¶46

I	Lossofdependency	Rs.9,82,8O0/-
c	ConventionalHeads	Rs.30,000/-
J	FilialConsortium	Rs.80,0OO/-
	TOTAL	Rs.10,92,8OO/-

¶47

In the result, the appeal is allowed by^enhancingthe compensation amount from^{Rs.3,30,5OO/- to Rs.1O,92,8O0/-} (Rupees Ten Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand and Eight^Hundred only) with interest at the rate^{of 7 .SVo per annum from the date} of hling the petition titl date of realization.^Respondent No.2/Insurance Company sha-ll deposit the entire^amount within a pcriod o[ one month from the date of order.^On such Deposit, the appetlants^a-re entitled^{to withdraw the} said amount with interest equally. The appellants / petitioners are directed to^pay the^deficitcourt fee on the enhanced amount.^There shall^{be no order as} to costs-

¶48

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall^stand

¶49

closed

¶50

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL, ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Motor Accident^{claimsTribunal-cum-lll Addl. chief Judge, city civil} Court at Hyderabad.^{(Wlth records, if any)}

¶55

One CC to SRI V^{ATCHUTARAM,Advocate} [OPUCI

¶56

One CC to SRI P^{HARINATH GUPTA, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶57

Two CD Copies

¶58

ADK a[k

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2291 of 2014

¶63

gE !; T A.i +: oa
{
q
o 1B itiq 29lt
'tJ
,,
.i.

¶64

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

,s"'

¶66

,-t-i

¶67

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶68

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE ,

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶71

MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 229't oF 2014

¶72

Between:

¶73

t. f- !91man Nayak S/o. Late Bidhya Nayak Occ Labour R/o. H.No. 8-2-329182tctFt107, Gynizait Singh Nagai, Road No. 8,Fitm Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶74

Smt. Badli Bai, Wo. A. Laxmana Nayak, Occ Household, Rl/o. H. No. 8-2-329l82lctF t107, Gynizait Singh Nagar, Road No. 8,fitm ruagar, Hyderabad.

¶75

...petitioners/Appellant

¶76

AND

¶77

't. !l/s^{M M Travels Rep. by Mohd. Shamshuddin R/o. H.No. 214-9,Mosa} Bowli, Hyderabad.

¶78

2 The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, 2:-7-28.911, Near Mohat Comptex, Opp Jublee post Office, Devand6vidi, Hyderabad.

¶79

...Respondents/Respondents

¶80

Appeal Rled Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicres Act,19aB against the order and decree in oP No.2062 of 2005 dated.2 g-12-20o7 on the file of the court ot the Motor Accident claims Tribunar-cum- r Addr. chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad.

¶81

of appeal, _ ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing the Judgment and Decree of the Lower bourt and and upon perusing the m"teiiar the pipers groundsin fe caqeand upon hearing the arguments of sRr v ATCHUTA RAM, ndvocate for the Appellant and of SRI P HARTNATH GUprA, Advocate for the Respond"ni uo.z and none appeared for the respondent no.1

¶82

To,

¶83

//TRUE COPY'

¶84

SD/- MOHD, ISMAIL, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. v

¶85

SECTION OFFICER

¶86