Partly allowed

Neeradi Ratna and 2 Ors. v. Amin Virani and Anr.

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023MACMA/2540/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from Rs. 6,32,000 to Rs. 10,67,200, citing Ranmachandrappa for income assessment in agricultural labor cases while confirming the liability of the owner and insurer.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced the compensation award to Rs. 10,67,200/- with interest from the date of application.

Neeradi Ratna and 2 Ors. Vs Amin Virani and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NQ: 2540 OF 2q08

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in MVOP No.628 of 2004 dated 0310112008 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -+um- District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 . Neeradi Ratna, W/o.N.Laxman Household

¶10

Neeradi Gangadhar, S/o.N.Laxman

¶11

Neeradi Rajawa, W/o.late Balaiah

¶12

[All^{are Fl/o.KothapetVillage, Malkapur, Nizamabad mandal and District]} (Petitioner. No.2 is minor claiming compensation under the guardianship of his mother'^{'1"'petitioner} herein) ...A''ELLANTS/^pETrrroNERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Amin Virani, S/o.Malik Ali Virani, Major Rl/o. C/o.Diamond Goods Transport, 5-25-200 I N95, New Osmangunj, Hyderabad. (Rl disd. for default vide Court Order dated 1310712016)

¶15

United lndia Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager Divisionar office-Vrrr, United rndia ,""':.:EeB["d[.BEr^lt5,rHEBB6oo=*r,

¶16

For the Appellants : SRI LAKKADI DAYAKAR REDDY, Advocate

¶17

For the Respondent No.2 : SRI SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate

¶18

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶19

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A No.254O of 2OO8

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

Aggrieved by the award dated 03.01.2008 in O.p.No.628 ot 2OO4 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional Chief Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal,,), the claimants have filed this appeal.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereineLfter be relerred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who ztre the wife, son and mother of the Mr.N. Laxman (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") filed a petition, claiming compensation of Rs. 15,O0,00O/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 28.06.2003.It is stated that on that day the claimant was travelling on his scooter on tht: road leading from Nizamabad to Varni, at about 10-00 P.M., the deceased noticed a vehicle coming from opposite direction a nd in order to avoid collision with that vehicle, he came into contact with the stationed lorry bearing No.AP-9/U-8900 which was park.ed in middle of the roacl in a negligent manner. Resultantly, the deceased fell dou.n on the road and sustained grievous injuries

\ \

::ni1.-J!
-r

PSS. J Macma 2540 2008

¶28

and died on the spot. The Police, Nizamabad^{PoliceStation,} registered a case in Crime No. 139 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 304-4 of I.P.C. against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-9/U-89OO and took up the investigation. It^is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as a Farm Servant and earning Rs. 10,OOO/- to 12,OOO/- per month. Since the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the lorry, the claimants laid the claimpetition against respondent Nos.l and 2, who are the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle, respectively.

¶29

4 Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 remained ex parte.

¶30

Respondent No.2, hled counter denying the averments in the pe tition including the manner in which the accident took place, involvement of crime vehicle and registration of criminal case as claimed by the claimants and also the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. It is specifrcally contended ttrat the rider of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective .driving license at the time of the accident and as such, respondent No.2Insuralce Company is not liable to pay the compensation. lt is further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

¶31

¶32

PSS, J Macma 2540 2008

¶33

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal fra:med the following issues:

¶34

l) Whether the accident has taken place due to r.lsh and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.Ap-9/U-8900?

¶35

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled lo any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

¶36

1. To what relieP

¶37

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, p.W.l and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to A7 were marked. On behalf of the 2"a respondent, R.W. I was examined and Exs.Bl was marked.

¶38

AfLer analyzing the evidence available on reco::d, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the Lorry and accordingly awarded an am,lunt of Rs.6,32,00O/- with interest @) 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the clate of realization to be paid by the respondr'nts.

¶39

9 Heard and perused the material available on record

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the age of the deceased is 25 years and income can be taken as Rs.4,50O/per month instead ol Rs.3O0O/ -.

¶41

¶42

... 11

¶43

PSS, J Macma 2540 2008

¶44

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded^just and reasonable compensation, which needs no interference.

¶45

A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.l as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent parking of the lorry by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W. 1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically obserwed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the driver of the lorry and has answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the linding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the driver of the lorry.

¶46

Insofar as the quantum of ccmpensation is concerned, though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.1O,OO0/ to Rs.15,O0O/- per month by doing agriculture and also working as tractor Driver, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,OOO/- per month as the claimants have not produced any document to prove the income of the deceased. ln Ranmachand.rappa v. Manage1 Rogal Sundaram Alliance

¶47

¶48

l.4acma 2540 2008

¶49

Insurq.nce Compang Limitedl the Apex Court held thar_ even in case of an agricultural labourer also a sum of Rs.4,5O0/- per month can be taken without any evidence. Thus, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.4,5O0/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased, future prospects at 4O,Yo i.e., Rs.1,8OO/- shall be added, then the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,3OO/ -. Out of which, 1/3ra is to be deducted towards personal e::penses which cornes to Rs.4,2OO/-. Applying the appropriate multiplier '18'the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,I)OO/- x 12 x 18: Rs.9,O7,2OO/- As the clairnant No.3 being the mother of the deceased she is entitled for RS.4C|,OOO/towards parental compensation ald claimant No.2 being the son of the deceased is entitled to Rs.SO,OOO/- towarcts filial cornpensation and clairnant No. 1, who is his wife lost her husband at the age of 22 years, she is entitl,:d for Rs.4O,OOO/- under the head of loss of consortium. The claimants also entitled to Rs.15,OOO/- towards funeral expenses and transportation and Rs.15,OOO/- towarcls loss of estate. Thus, in all the claimants are entit..ed to Rs.1O,67,2oOl-.

'^(2or l)¹³ scc 236

.|t

PSS, J Macma 2540 2008

¶54

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.6,32,O00/- to Rs. 10,67,2O0/-. with interest @ 7.5oh p.a. from the date of fiiing application till the date of realization. Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount within one (1) month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.SO,OOO/- to each of them, lst petitioner is entitled for balance amount, on such deposit all the parties are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accorded on it. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶56

closed

¶57

Sd/-MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qD

¶58

SECTION OFFICER

¶59

¶60

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -District Judge at Nizamabad. (with records)

¶61

One CC to Sri Lakkadi Dayakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kj \ V

l l I I ir

I i t I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/06/2023

J.lt c-rr. ,.-.,:
(-)
:r.
"tr s -]-
l
,) t5
I 0r f l't'

¶69

JUDGMENT

¶70

MACMA.No.2540 of 2008

¶71

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS.

{ r>1
<br>

[³²⁰⁸ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶76

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

¶77

PRESENT

¶78

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶79

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2540 OF 2008

¶80

Between:

¶81

Neeradi Ratna, W/o.N.Laxman Household

¶82

Neeradi Gangadhar, S/o.N.Laxman

¶83

Neeradi Rajawa, Wo.late Balaiah

¶84

[All^{are Rl/o-Kothapet Village, Malkapur,} Nizamabad mandal and District] (Petitioner No.2 is minor claiming compensation under the guardianshif of his mother, 1"' petitioner herein)

¶85

...APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS AND

¶86

Amin Virani, S/o.Malik Ali Virani, Major Rtio. C/o.Diamond Goods Transport, 5-25-200 I N95, New Osmangunj, Hyderabad.

¶87

_^{(E1 Oi:9. for default vide Court Order dated13t07 t2016)}

¶88

United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., through its Divisi6nal Manager

¶89

- Divisional Office-Vlll, United lndia Towers, Basheer Bagh, Hydera6ad.

¶90

..RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶91

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in MVOP No.628 of 2004 dated o31o112008 on the fite of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶92

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 Lakkadi Dayakar Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶93

This Court doth Order and decree as follows :

¶94

That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed.

¶95

fhat the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal enhanced from Rs.6,32,000/- to Rs.10,67,2004 with interest @ 75% from the date of filing application till the date of realization.

¶96

That the Respondent Nos.1 &^{2 are} iointly^{and severallylierble to pay the} compensation respondent No.2 be^{and hereby directed to deprlsit the amount} within one ('1 ) month from the date of receipt^{of copy of the ordt:r.}

¶97

That the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled^{for Rs.50,0001 tc each of them,} 1"t petitioner be and hereby entitled for balance^{amount'on s,uch depositall} the^parties are^permitted to withdraw^{the entire amountalorrg with interest} accorded on it.

¶98

That save as aforesaid, the decree^{of the Lower Court shall stirnds confirmed} in all other respects; and

¶99

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

¶100

Sd/-MOHD.SANALILLAH ANSARI ASSISTACJ REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECi.iON OFFICER

¶101

¶102

'1 . The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- District Judge, at N izamabad.

¶103

Two CD Copies

Kj "\k

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/06/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.2540 of 2008

¶110

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS.

Neeradi Ratna and 2 Ors. v. Amin Virani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeradi Ratna and 2 Ors. v. Amin Virani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Srikanth Vs J. Bal Reddy

Smt Kodali Vineela Vs Smt. Kodali Shobharani

T.S. Mahalaxmi Vs M. Ravindranath

Dandugula Rajaiah, Vs Sri P. Ramchandram, (Major)

Ameena Bai Vs Abdul Satha (died) by LRs

Gandla Nageshwar Rao Vs Gandla Laxmi