Partly allowed

Muthyam Pravitha v. M/s. Ennar Gas Service

Telangana HC3 Mar 2023MACMA/2471/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal questioning the compensation quantum but partly allowed the claimants' appeals. The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 7,07,000 to Rs. 12,90,000 considering future prospects and consortium, to be deposited within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 7,07,000 to Rs. 12,90,000 with 7.5% p.a. interest; deposit to be made within 8 weeks without security.

Muthyam Pravitha Vs M/s. Ennar Gas Service — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NOS : 1954 0F 20 06 2471 0F 2007 AND 868 0F 2023

¶7

MACMA NO.1954 0F 2006:

¶8

Between:

¶9

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Ameerpet Branch, Rep. by its Regional Manager, T.C.Cell, 41-Kareem Trade Centre, 4'n Floor, Flat No.401 & 402, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT NO.2

¶11

AND

¶12

Muthyam Pravitha, W/o late Sathyanarayana Goud Business and Agriculture 2. Muthyam Srayan, S/o late Sathyanarayana Goud, Age 8 months occ: nil Respondent No.2 is minor, rep. by natural guardian and mother Respondent No.1)

¶13

'Both are Rlio Julapally of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. Present Ri/o'H'No'1-9-295' Majeed Lane' Vidyanagar' Hyd-erab€d

¶14

ndents/^petitioners

¶15

M/s Ennar Gas Service, Plot no.1, A.S.Rao Nagar, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

Muthyam Agaiah, S/o Rajaiah Business and Agriculture

¶17

Muthyam Laxmi, W/o Agaiah House Wife Both are R|/o Flat no.506 A2 Block, Radhakrishna Towers, Mayuri Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶18

(Respondent No.S is not necessary)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶20

MACMA NO.2471 0F 2007:

¶21

Between:

¶22

'1. Muthyam Pravitha, W/o late Sathyanarayana Goud Business and Agriculture 2. Muthyam Srayan, S/o late Sathyanarayana Goud, Age 8 months occ: nil (Appellant No.2 being minor, rep. by mother cum guardian Appellant No.'l ) Both the appellants are Rl/o. Present Rl/o.H.No.'l -9-295, Majeed Lane, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.

¶23

.. ...Appellants/ Claimants

¶24

And

¶25

M/s Ennar Gas Service, Plot no.1, A.S.Rao Nagar, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶26

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Ameerpet .Branch, Rep. by its Regional Manager, T.C.Cell, A1-Kareem Trade Centre, 4'' Floor, Flat No.401 & 402, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶27

3.. Muthyam Agaiah, S/o Rajaiah Business and Aqriculture

¶28

Muthyam Laxmi, W/o Agaiah House Wife Both are Fl/o Flat no.506 A2 Block, Radhakrishna Towers, Mayuri Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶29

.......Respondents / Respondents

¶30

MACMA NO.868 ot 2023:

¶31

Between:

¶32

Muthyam Laxmi, W/o Agaiah House Wife Rl/o. Julapally Village, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶33

And

¶34

.....AppellanU Respondent No.4

¶35

'1 . Muthyam Pravitha, W/o late Sathyanarayana Goud Business and Agriculture 2. Muthyam S.rgfqn, S/o late Sathyanaraya-na Goud, Age B months oc6: nil (Petiti-oner NO.1 is the natural mother and guardian ind Respondent on behalf of petitioner No.2

¶36

e^gtl :tg !o^ {gtgO.ally of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District, present R/o. H. No.1-9-295, Majeed Lane, Vidyanaqar. Hvderab-ad. (BE 1 & 2 dismissed for default vide bourtbrdeiaarca ZZtShtl (RRl & 2 restored in vide Court Order dated 06112113 in MACMA Mp 6021113)

¶37

¶38

1. M/s Ennar Gas service,^ptot no.1, o r *r; iul;Sl"*1;,ffir'|.f"riii:HJ:J^-' Ranga Reddy District.

¶39

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Ameerpet Branch, Reo. bv its Reg-ional Manager, T.C.Ceil, 41-Kar-eem Trade Centrb, 4h Floor, flai trto2or & 402, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶40

Muthyam Agaiah, S/o Rajaiah Business and Agriculture Flat No.506, A2 Block Radha Krishna Towers, Mayurmarg, BegumpeI, Hyderabad. (Respondent 3 is not necess ary p*ty inlhis o.etition)

¶41

ondents/ Respondents

¶42

Appeals under section 173 of tMotor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in oP No.2770 of 2003 dated 23t0612o06 on the file of the court of the XXll Additional chief Judge -cum- before Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, cdminal Court at Hyderabad.

¶43

ORDER: This 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 Kota subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Respondent No.1 in MACf\4A No.2471 of 2OO7 and Respondent No.S in MACMA SR No.54879 of 2008 and of Sri Ramachandra Rao Vemuganti, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Appellants in MACMA No.2471 ot zool and Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in MACMA No.86B/2023 and of Sri p.sravan Kumar Goud, Advocate for the Appellant in 86812023 and Respondent No.4 in MACMA No.247112007

¶44

This Court doth Order and decree as follows

¶45

1 That the MACIVIA No.'1954/2006 be and hereby is dismissed

¶46

However, the MACMA No.2471 of 2007 filed by the claimants and tvlACMA SR No.54879 are be and hereby are allowed in part enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Court below from Rs.7,07,0004 to Rs.1 2,90,0001

¶47

That the enhanced amount shall carry interest at7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶48

That the respondent / lnsurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of (B) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Judgment on such deposit, claimants are permitted to withdraw entire amount without furnishing the security.

¶49

Amounts shall be apportioned between the wife, son and the mother in the ratio of 50% to 30% and 20% respectively.

¶50

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

¶51

(

¶52

'E&S^"^fl'H.'3't+HiA //TRUE COPY/I q$

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

¶55

The XXll Additional Chief Judge -cum- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶56

Two CD Copies

Kj.

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/03/2023

DECREE

MACMA.Nos.1954 of 2006, 2471 ot 2A07 And 868 ot 2023

¶62

,. (.{,.; .
,;: .<br>,s
I c
$ :ti ,
I \ ,.; jl
t .,' '-y
-.-. 1/

¶63

DISMISSING THE MACMA NOS.,I954 OF 2006, AND 2471 OF 2OO7 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.868 OF 2023 .

c72

?A13

[³²³⁰ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶68

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶71

M.A.C.M.A. NOS: 1954 OF 2006, 2471 OF 2007 AND 868 OF 2023

¶72

Appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in OP No.2770 of 2003 dated 2310012006 on the file of the Court of the XXll Additional Chief Judge --cum- before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Criminal Court at Hyderabad.

¶73

MACMA NO.1954 0F 2006:

¶74

Between:

¶75

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Ameerpet Branch, Rep. by its Regional Manager, T.C.Cell, ,A1-Kareem Trade Centre, 4"'Floor, Flat No.401 & 402, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶76

...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

¶77

Muthyam Pravitha, W/o late Sathyanarayana Goud Business and Agriculture 2. Muthyam Srayan, S/o late Sathyanarayana Goud, Age 8 months occ: nil Respondent No.2 is minor, rep. by natural guardian and mother Respondent No.1) Both are F/o Julapally of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. Present Ri/o.H.No.1_9_295, Majeed Lane, Vidyanagar, Hyd_erabad. ndents/^petitioners

¶78

M/s Ennar Gas Service, Plot no.1, A.S.Rao Nagar, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶79

Muthyam Agaiah, S/o Rajaiah Business and Agriculture

¶80

Muthyam Laxmi, W/o Agaiah House Wife Both are R/o Flat no.506 ,A2 Block, Radhakrishna Towers, Mayuri Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶81

(Respondent No.5 is not necessary)

¶82

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶83

MACMAMP. NO: 4525 OF 2006

¶84

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased stay the execution of decree and^{judgment passed} in OP.NO. 2770 of 2003 dated 23-

¶85

6-06 on the file of the XXil Addt Chief Judge -cum- Before the MACT City Criminal Court, at Hyderabad

¶86

For the Appeltant : SRt KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate

¶87

For the Respondent No.1 : SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETW, Advocate

¶88

For the Respondent No.4 : SRI MEHAR SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate

¶89

For the Respondent No.5 : SRr RAMACHANDRA RAo vEMUGANTT, Advocate

¶90

MACMA N0.2471 0F 2007:

¶91

Between:

¶92

Muthyam Pravitha, wo rate sathyanarayana Goud Business and Agricurture 2. Muthyam Srayan, S/o late Sathyanaray"i.i eord, Age g months o"E, nit^{-- -} (Appellant No.2 being mlnor,rei. by mbther curnguiroian npperrini r.ro. r r Both the appeilants a-re Rl/o'preserit ny".ri.r.f".l_d.zss, MaijJd iinL,'-^', Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.

¶93

.....Appellants/ Claimants

¶94

And

¶95

'1 . M/s Ennar Gas Service, plot no.1, A.S.Rao Nagar, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶96

The New lndia Assurance..Cgmpgny Limited, Ameerpet .Branch, Rep. by its $gq9n1t_V.anageI,^{T.C.Ceil,41 -Kar6emfrade Centrb,4rh Ftoor,'} f rai^rrf o2O i n 4u;2, KantgunJ, Secunderabad.

¶97

Muthyam Agaiafr, S/o Rajaiah Business and Aqriculture

¶98

Muthyam Laxmi, W/o Agaiah House Wife

¶99

Both are Rl/o Flat no.S06 42 Block, Radhakrishna Towers, lrrlayuri Marg, Begumpet' Hyderabad'

¶100

.......Respondents / Respondents

¶101

For the Appellant : SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO VEMUGANTI, Advocate

¶102

For the Respondent No.2 ; SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate

¶103

Forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI P.SHRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate

¶104

MACMA NO. I 68 ot 2023:

¶105

Between:

¶106

Muthyam Laxmi, W/o Aoaiah House Wife R/o. Julapally Village, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶107

And

¶108

.....AppellanU Respondent No.4

¶109

Muthyam Pravitha, w/o rate sathyanarayana Goud Business and Agricurture 2. Muthyam srg-yan, s/o rate Sathydnaraydni cord, Ag" e months-ocE:'nii^'- " (Petitioner NO.1 is the naturat motfrer inA gu-ardiln ind Respond;;i o; behalf of petitioner No.2

¶110

)

¶111

Both are Rl/o. Julapally of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District, pr-esent R/o.H.No.1-9-295, Majeed Lane, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. (RR 1 & 2 dismissed for default vide court order dated 2219111\ (RR1 & 2 restored in vide Court Order dated 06112113 in MACMA MP 6021113)

¶112

.....Respondents /Petitioners 1 & 2

¶113

M/s Ennar Gas Service, Plot no.1, A.S.Rao Nagar, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶114

5- The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ameerpet Branch, Rep. by its Regional Manager, T.C.Cell, 41-Kareem Trade Centre, 4'n Floor, Flat No.401 & 402, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶115

Muthyam Agaiah, S/o Rajaiah Business and Agriculture Flat No.506, 42 Block Radha Krishna Towers, Mayurmarg, Begumpet, Hyderabad. (Respondent 3 is not necessary partv't tn't o.:l:["Soondents/

¶116

Respondents

¶117

For the Appellant : SRI P.SHRAVAN KUMAR GOUD, Advocate

¶118

For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO VEMUGANTI, Advocate

¶119

For the Respondent No.4 : SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate

¶120

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶121

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1954 of 2006 2471 of2OO7 and 868 of2o.23 COMMON JUDGME NT:

¶122

Aggrieved by the award dated 23.06.2006 in O.p.No .2TTO of 2O03 passed by the XXII Addl. Chief Judge-cum-Before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabaci, the irrsurancr: company has filed MACMA No. 1954 of 2006 questioning the quantum of compensation, the wife and son of the deceased have liled MACMA No.247r of 2oo7 for enhancement of the compen sation and the mother of the deceased has filcd MACMA No.8b8 ol 2023 lo granl compensation.

¶123

I{avir-rg }-rcard Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned connsel for the insurance company, Mr. Ram Chandar Rao Vemugantr, learned counsel for the claiman[s i.e. wife and son of the deceased and Mr. p. Shravan Ku.mar Goud, learned counsel for thc claimant i.e. moLher o[ the dcceased and perused the entire material on record.

¶124

The claim petition i.e. O.p.No.27TO of 2OO3 was filecl by the wife and son of the deceased making the insurance company, o\,ner of the vehicle as well as the parents of the deceased as respondents claiming an anrount ol Rs.31,OO,OOO/- as compensation and the court belou, has granted an amount of Rs.7,07,O00/ _ as compensation, wherein Rs.3,37,OOO/_ was given to the uriclow o[ the deceased, Rs.3,3O,0OO/- u,as given to the minor son, Rs.1,OO,O00/_

¶125

.-:':7^

¶126

LK, J MACMA Nos.l954 of 2006, 247 | ol 2OO7 & 868 ol 2023

¶127

¶128

was given to the father of the deceased and the claim^{of the mother of} the deceased was dismissed

¶129

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that^the multiplier that was applied by the court below^was not right.^The deceased was aged about 46 years as on the date^{of accidentand the} multiplier that was applied is 'i7'.

¶130

As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in^Smt. Sarla Vartna Vs. Delhi Transport Corporationl, the^relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased is '17'. Hence, this^{court finds} no illegality with the award^passed by the court^belowand accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company^fails.

¶131

Then, coming to the claimants case i.e. wife and^{son of the} deceased, learned counsel appearing on their behalf^submitsthat when it is their case that the deceased was earning an amount^of Rs. 1O,00O/- per month, the court below has taken it as^Rs.S,O0O/- and has not calculated the future^prospects and^{even on the} conventional heads, the amounts that were granted^{were not} reasonable.

¶132

Learned counsel appearing for the mother of^{the deceased} submits that during the pendency of the^{appeal, the father diedand}

¶133

1 (2009) 6 s.c.c. 121

¶134

LI<, J MACMA Nos.1954 of 20()6, 247L of 2OO7 & 858 of 2023

¶135

¶136

only the mother of the deceased is surviving and she has no means to live and the apportionment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to them that nas done by the court below was not correct.

¶137

Coming to the income of the deceased, no evidence was adduced by the claimants and it is stated that he was doing business, but, however, the court below has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,0OO/- per month. Without there being any evidence, the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.1O,00O/- cannot be considered. Hence, this court is not inclined to take the monti'rly income of the deceased at Rs.1O,O0O/-. As the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 46 years, 40 percent of the income has to be included as future prospects and as the dependants are four members, I /4th ol tine income shall be deducted towards persona.l expenditure. Thus the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be of Rs.63,0O0/- (Rs.5,250X 12). If this sum is multiplied with relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased i.e.17, the total comes to Rs. 10,71,O00/-. The claimants are entitled to this amount under the head of loss of dependency.

¶138

As regards the consortium to be paid to the claimants is concerned, they are entitled to Rs.44,0O0/- each towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble $ggx court in National Insurq.nce

¶139

LK, J MACMA !aos.1954 of 2()()6, 247 1 oI 2OO7 & 468 of 2023

¶140

¶141

Cornpany Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi dnd others2.^{with regardto} the funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants^{are entitled to} Rs.33,0O0/- (Rs. 16,500/-X2), whereas the court below has^grartcd meager amount.

¶142

In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the^claimant is entitled to the foliowing amounts:

¶143

Head

¶144

Compensatiol aw4rded

¶145

(1) Loss of dependency (2) Funeral expenses and Loss of Estate

¶146

Rs. 10,71,0O0/(Rs.5,2Sox12X17)

¶147

Rs.33,OO0

¶148

(3) Loss of spousal consortium Rs.44,OO0 (4) I-.oss of parental consortium Rs.44,OOO (5) Loss of lilial consortium Rs.88,O0O (6) Legal epenses,'Legal epenses,'e*penses,' Rs. 1O,O0O/

¶149

(6) Legal epenses,'Legal epenses,'e*penses,'

¶150

Total compensation awarded

¶151

Rs.12,9O,OOO/-

¶152

I i. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the insurance company fails ald the^same is dismissed.^However,the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the claimants and^MACMA No.868 of 2023 are^partly allowed by enhancing^{the compensation}

¶153

2 zol.z ae ztoo

¶154

LK, J MACMA Nos.l954 of 2006, 2471 ot 2OO7 A,868 of 2023

¶155

¶156

¶157

amount awarded by the court below from Rs.7,07,OOO/_ Rs.12,90,OOO/-

¶158

(a) Tlie enhanced amount shall carry interest at Z .5%o p.a. frorn the date of petition titl the date of realization.

¶159

(b) The rcspondent / insurance company shall deposit the amount u,ithin a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimants are permitted to u,ithdraw enlire amount without furnishing the security.

¶160

(d) Amounts shall be apportioned between the wife, son and the mother in the ratio of 5O%, 3Oyo and 2O%o respectively.

¶161

Pendi1rg lnisccllaneous petitions, if any, shall s-tand closed.

¶162

Sd/-P.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTAN-T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYtt (p

¶163

SECTION OFFICER

¶164

¶165

The )(Xll Additional Chief Judge-cum-before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad.

¶166

One CC to Sri Ramachandra Rao Vemuganti, Advocate [OPUC]

¶167

One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶168

One CC to Sri P.Sravan Kumar Goud, Advocate [OPUC]

¶169

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/03/2023

JUDGMENT

-" ,- \i.' 1
-?
.$ v
o
t
lr: t
[] .) t a1
<.:r..
(L -+l(: r l{ol''i

¶175

MACMA.Nos.l 954 of 2006, 247 1 ot 2007 And 868 of2023

¶176

DISMISSING THE MACMA NOS.1954 OF 2006, AND 2471 OF 2OO7 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.868 OF 2023

Muthyam Pravitha v. M/s. Ennar Gas Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthyam Pravitha v. M/s. Ennar Gas Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurma Saya Gonda, Tadkole [v], Nizamabad Dist., and 5 Otrs. Vs Sri Shanker, and Anr.

G.Sowndarya Vs v.Venkateshwar Rao

Smt. a. Paravathi Vs M/S Ravi Cranes, and Another

T. Muthyalu, Hyderabad Vs the Apsrtc, Rep by Its MD and Anr, Hyderabad

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anot Vs T. Muthyalu

Muthyam Laxmi Vs Muthyam Pravitha