Allowed

Gandela Padma and Anr. v. a. Sathyamaiah and Anr.

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023MACMA/2626/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal involved challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of a minor daughter. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 4,70,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,70,000 with interest at 6% per annum directed to be deposited by Respondents.

Gandela Padma and Anr. Vs a. Sathyamaiah and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT C lVlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 2626 OF 2008}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P No.119 of 2002, Dated 09-06-2004^{on the file} of^the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal-cum-ll AdditionalDistrict} & Sesslons Judge, Nalgonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gandela Padma, W/o. Guruvaiah Household Fl/o. Kalalwada,^Mlryalaguda ibwn, Nalgona District.

¶10

Gandela Guruvaiah, S/o. Ramulu Labourer Rl/o. Kalalwada,^Mlryalaguda town, Nalgona District.

¶11

APPELLANT/PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

A. Sathyamaiah, Sio. Raiamallaiah, age Major R/o. H.No.19-1-3!,^Re{dy Colony,'Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.^{(Ownerofthe Leyland Tipper} No.AP-24-T-7533)

¶14

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, rep.,^{by its Branch Manager,} Branch Office, 18-121161A, Ashoknagar, Miryalaguda^{Town NalgondaDistrict.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI K.SRINIVAS

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: N MOHAN^KRISHNA

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HC N'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{P. SREE SIJDHA}

¶20

tvt.A.CMA.N o .2626 0F²⁰⁰⁸

¶21

UDG ENT:

¶22

This appe tl under Section^{L73 of the Motor} '/ehicles^Act, 19BB (for shor , 'the Act'),^{is filed by the arppellar.ts-claimants} aggrieved by tle order^{and decree, dated 09 06.20:r4, passedin} O.P.No.119 ctf 2002^{by the Chairman,Motcr A':r: t.en:s Claims} Tribunal-cr-tm II Additional^{District Judge, Nalgrlnda} ii:>r^{short, 'the} Tribunal').

¶23

Heard the ltlarned counsel^{for the appell;rntsar :l tl- e learned} Standing Cour st:l appearing^{forrespond€'ntlJo.2-lnsurance} Company

¶24

The subj rct O.P. was^filed by the^{appell':ltsclaiming} compensatiorr tf Rs.1,00,000/-^{for the death cf th:irminor} daughter, G. Di^{/ya Rani, aged about10 years, in a rTr.rtor accident'} The Tribunal tide impugned order,^{dated 09.06.i:.)04, granted} compensatiorr^r f^{Rs.60,000/- with interest 3[ $ol,} [)t]r^{lnnum as} well as costs f^o x the date of^{filing the petition'.ill the date of} deposit of the^{awardedamount. Havingc issatisl ed withthe} award of Rs.6( ,Cr00/-^{as compensation,the appell;lrrts'claimants}

¶25

PSS,.] M.A.CMA.No.2626 of 2008

¶26

¶27

I rl ii I I

¶28

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶29

There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal is meager. The deceased was aged about 10 years at the time of accident. The appellants lost their minor child at the tender age of 10 years. The i appellant No.1, mother of the deceased, underwent Tubectomy operation and she cannot beget children. The sudden death of the deceased caused great loss to the appellants, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Learned counsel further contended that in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another

¶31

v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and anotherl, wherein, a minor boy, aged about seven^years, died in a motor accident, the Honourable Supreme Court awarded an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.40,000/- to each of the^parents towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore,

¶32

' 1zozz1^{t scc} ttt

¶33

J PSS,J \t. \ r MA^,Jo 262b oi200a

¶34

I I

¶35

in view of judg nt:nt rendered by the Honouratrle Su grr-errre Court in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali's case (supra), the appellants are also entitle I lo a compensation of Rs.4,70,000,/- .

¶36

Consideri rc the said submissions and in vievv tt,'the decision rendered by tl e Honourable Supreme Court in l( rr rvern Ansari alias Kurvan \li's case (supra), this Court finds ii^.ea:;onable to grant an amornt of Rs.4,70,000/- towards comt)€n:jation to the a^{p pe} lla nts.

¶37

Acco rd in c y, the appeal is allowed an(l th,3 r:orr pensation granted by ti e Tribunal is enhanced from F l;,60 000/- to Rs.4,7O,OO0/Rupees four lakhs seventy t'rous;e rrri only) with interest at the a -e of 60lo per annum from thr: dati: :rf p,etition till the date of re; ization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2,lr: jrtintly and severa lly liable to pay the said amount. [{esporr:1ent No.2 is directed to dep o:;it the said amount within rr perio:l of one (1) month from tht date of receipt of a copy of this o'rl:r. On such deposit, the a )pellants are permitted to rit'ithdri)u, tne entire amount eq ua lli . However, the appellants a re dirr:cted to pay Court fee on tl e excess amount granted by this (:,: rrt than the claim made. fh :re shall be no order as to cost:;.

¶38

I'SS.J

¶39

¶40

M.A CMA.No 2626 of 2004

¶41

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this aPPeal shall

¶42

stand closed.

¶43

SD/-N.SRIHARI ASSISTA'llr REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII riD

¶44

SECTTON OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

¶47

One CC to SRI K.SRINIVAS, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶48

One CC to SRI N.MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies.

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:23106,2023

rr.)i: ::<br>C,'
I
/r 7'ri
N8 Li
1l [\g

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

MACMA.No.2)126 of 2008

¶59

ALLOWING THE MACMA
&.,
q\ "3

¶60

I³²⁰⁶ l

¶61

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶62

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

¶63

PRESENT

¶64

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶65

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2626 oF 2008

¶66

Between:

¶67

Gandela Padma, Wo. Guruvaiah Household F/o. Kalalwada, Mlryalaguda town, Nalgona District.

¶68

Gandela Guruvaiah, S/o. Ramulu Labourer Fl/o. Kalalwada, Mlryalaguda town, Nalgona District.

¶69

...APPELLANT/PETITIONERS

¶70

AND

¶71

1 h. Sathyamaiah, S/o. Rajamallaiah, age Major Rl/o. H.No.19-1-31 , Reddy Colony, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District. (Owner of the Leyland Tipper No.AP-24-T-7533)

¶72

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limlted, rep., by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, 18-121161A, Ashoknagar, Miryalaguda Town Nalgonda District

¶73

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶74

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P No.119 of 2002, Dated 09-06-2004 on the file of the Court of the Chairman lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

¶75

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 cif Sri K.Srinivas, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri N.Mohan Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶76

This Court doth Order rnd Decree as follows :

¶77

That the h,lotor \crident Civil [t4iscellaneous Appeal be anc rerr-,by is Allowed, enhancrng the € rlranced f rom Rs.60,000^ to Rs.4,70,000, -.

¶78

fhat the enhanr erl amount shall carry on interest at the^.z ter of 3% per annum

¶79

from the date of petition till the date of realization,

¶80

That the Respc rdent Nos-1 and 2 are jointly and severz ll; liable to pay the said amount.

¶81

That the Respc lclent No.2 is directed to deposit the s.riC antount within a period of cne (1 nronth from the date of receipt of a copy,r>, .his order.

¶82

That the on suc r rJeposit, the appellants are permilted to,r,ithdraw the entire amount ecually. H:wever, the appellants are directerd to per; Courl fee on the excess amount^, rzrnted by this Court than the claim rade.

¶83

That save as aft re said, the decree of the Lower Co:rt shir I stards confirmed i( all other respe lt i;

¶84

That there sh;rll re no order as to costs in thls appeal.

¶85

SD/.N.SRIHARI ASSIS'rANr REGTSTRAR ,aJi S E,:NON OFFICER

¶86

//TRUE COPY//

¶87

To, 1. The chairmarr l\ oror Accident claims Tribunal-cunr-ll A,ccl iioral District & Sessions J udrle lrlalgonda.

¶88

1. fwo CD Copiers.

HIGH COURT

DATED:23106,2023

DECREE

MACMA.N o.2ti2l6 of 2008

¶95

ALLOWING TI{E MACMA @da Et-6t['"

Gandela Padma and Anr. v. a. Sathyamaiah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandela Padma and Anr. v. a. Sathyamaiah 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

The Project Dir, Dist Women and Child Devp Agency and Another Vs Bala Bhaskar Rao, Khammam and Another

Syed Meer , Syed Ameer Vs Abdul Waheed and Another

M.R.Chandra Shekar and Anr. Vs M/S.Road Carrier of India and Anr.

Mohammad Gouse Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyd.

Shaik Yakub R/O Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad Dist Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Other

Mohd Afzal Hussain Vs Tirukkevluri Prashanth Kumar and 2 Ors.