Allowed

Boina Padmamma and 3 Others v. D. Venkatesh and Another

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023MACMA/265/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to the parents of a deceased motor accident victim from Rs. 2,70,000 to Rs. 8,69,000. The Court revised the income assessment, applied the correct multiplier, and added amounts for loss of filial consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,69,000 including loss of dependency, filial consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, with interest at 7.5% p.a.

Boina Padmamma and 3 Others Vs D. Venkatesh and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 265 OF 2014

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No. 1583 of 2008 dated 11-05-2010 on the fite of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -.cum- lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Boina Padmamma, Wo Ramulu, Occ- House hold, R/o H.No.2€1, Madaram Village, Parigi Mandal,

¶9

Boina R_amulu, S/o Bagaiah, Occ: Labourer, R/o H.No.261, Madaram Mllage, Parigi Mandal,

¶10

Boina Shekhar, S/o Ramulu, Occ: Nil, R/o H.No.261, Madaram Village,^parigi Mandal,

¶11

Boina Mallaiah, S/o Ramulu, Occ: Nil, R/o H.No.261, Madaram Village, parigi Mandal,

¶12

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

D. Venkatesh, S/o Rama Chandraiah, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.2-33, Old Lingampally, Ward No.14,

¶15

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited,, Rep.by its Manager, D.NO.239/2 1st floor, Aishwarya Complex, Chandanagai, Hiderabad.^-

¶16

...Respondents/Res pondents

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri. T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri. NARESH BYRAPANENT, Advocate

¶19

Counsel for the Respo{rdent No.1: None Appeared

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HOI{'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No.26S OF 2OL4

¶23

JTIDGMENT:

¶24

. This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.05.2010 passed in O.P.No.1583 of 2OO8 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Ill Additional Chief Judge- City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for short, "the Tribunal").

¶25

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2008 at about 20.30 hours near Kondurg village, Mahboonagar District, while the deceased was travelling in al auto, at the accident spot, the driver of crime Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP-23AB-TR-8316 drove it rashly and negligently and dashed said Auto, as a result of which the deceased sustajned grievous injuries and died. Hence, the claim petition is seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00, OOO / -.

¶27

¶28

RRN.J MACMA No.265^of20la

¶29

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.l was set ex parte, and respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter^by denying all the petition allegations.

¶30

To prove their case, petitioners examined^PWs. I and² and got marked Exs.Al to A5. On behalf of^{respondent No.2,} no evidence was adduced and Ex.B-1 is marked.

¶31

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation^of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of^petition till the date of realisation.

¶32

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the contribution of the deceased to the appellant in a proper manner in view of the Apex Court^judgement in Sarla Verma case and the Tribunal has wrongly considered the earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.S,OOO/- per month, and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and granted compensation amounting to only Rs.2,70,OOO/-, instead of ttre claim amount. Further, the Tribunal should have applied the Dro^per multiplier while assessing the

¶34

¶35

RRN-, MACIIA No.265 0f20la

¶36

compensation, and also that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest @12%o at least instead of @ 60l, per annum. Hence, learned counsel prayed to allow thr: appeal by enhancing the compensation.

¶37

9 On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposes the enhancement of amounts because the accident occurred only due to the deceased negligence and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appea_I.

¶38

karned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,OOO/- p.m. As per the petitioners, version of the deceased was 20 years old and working as a labourer, earning Rs.S,O0O/- per month. But, the petitioners did not produce any evidence to that effect. As such, the Court below hxed the Rs. IOO/- per day and monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,OOO/- p.m. only, which is very meagre. This Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,OO0/- itself. To this, future prospects @4Oo/o^{are to be} added as the deceased was aged,20 years, as

¶39

¶40

RRN-J MACMA No.26J of20l4

¶41

. ri /

¶42

per the^{decisionof the Honble Supreme Court in National} Insurance^{Cornpang Ltd. Vs. Pranag Sethit'Thus,the} monthly^{incomeof the deceased, along with futureprospects,} is Rs.7,OOO/-^{(Rs.S,OOO/-+ 4Oohl arrd annually,it comes to} Rs.8a,0OO/-(Rs.7,0OO/-^{x12) as the deceased was aged 2O} years. Both^{counselrightly stated that5Oo/o of the income is} to be^{deductedtowards his personal expenditureas held by} the Hon'lrle^{SupremeCourt inSarll: Venna Vs, Delhi}

¶43

Transport^{Corporatlon2 as the deceasedwas a bachelor.} Thus, his^{contributionwouldhave been Rs.42,O00/-p.a} (Rs.84,OOO-50%).^{The Tribunalwronglyconsideredthe} multiplier as^{'15' as per the age of deceased'smother. The} appropriate^{multiplier as per the decision of Sarla Verrna} Vs. Delhl^{T'ranspotaCorporatTonsis '18".Thus, the total} loss of^{dependency would come to Rs.7,56,OOO/-(Rs.a2'OOO} x 18).

¶44

11.^{The Tribunal did not granted any amount with regards to} loss of filial^{consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate.} But as^per the^{MagmaInsuranrce Cornpang Ltd. Vs. Nanu}

¶45

I (2017) 16 scc 6Eo.

¶46

'?(2009)^{6 sccr2t.} I (mo9) 6 scc t2 t.

¶47

¶48

I{RN I NTACMA No.26J of20l4

¶49

Ram @ Chuhrtt Rcma petitioners No. I and 2, being the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.4O,OOO/- each i.e. Rs.8O,OOO/ - towards loss of filial consortium. As per pranag Setht (supra) petitioners are also entitled to Rs. 16,500/(Rs.15,000+ l07o) towards funera-l expenses. The Tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of estate. This Court is inclined to grant Rs.16,5OO/- (Rs.15,OOO+ 1O7o) towards loss of estate. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the

¶50

quantum of compensation as follows:

¶51

Sl.No	Natureofhead	Amount awardedby Tribunal	Amountnow awardedby thisCourt
1	Lossof dependency	Rs.2,7O,oOO/-	Rs.7,56,OOO/-
3	Lossof Estate	Nil	Rs.i6,5OO/-
4	Funeral Expenses	Nil	Rs.16,500/-
5	Loss offrlial Consortium	NIL	Rs.80,OOo/-
	Total	Rs.2,70,OOO/-	Rs.8,69,(X)O/-

¶52

The Tribunal granted interest @ 60/o p.a. as the rate of interest rate was prevailing at that time. Now, it has been modified to 7.5o/o p.a. only on enhanced amount.

¶53

In all, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to Rs.8,69,000/- towards compensation. Though the claimed

¶54

a2Ol8 Law Suit (SC) 9O4

¶55

¶56

RRN,' MACMA No 265 of20l4

¶57

amount is Rs.5,OO,OOO/-, invoking the^{principle of just} compensation, and in view^{of the law laid down by the Honble} Supreme Court in^{Ro;ieshas. Raibtr Singhs, and in a catena} of decisions, this Court is^{empoweredto grant compensation} beyond the claimed amount. However,^the petitioners/appellants shatl pay the deficit^{Courtfee on the} enhanced compensation.

¶58

L4. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is^{allowedagainst} respondents No.1 and 2.^{The compensation amountawarded} by the Tribunal is enhanced from^{Rs.2,7O,OOO/-to} Rs.8,69,OOO/- (Rupees Eight lakhs and^{Sixty Nine Thousand} only) with interest @ 7.5^o/o p.a. on the^{enhanced amount,} from the date of petition till the^{date ofreaJization.} Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed^{to deposit the said} amount with costs and interest^after. deducting^{any amount} already deposited wittrin two months of^{receiptof a copy of ttris} judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with^{the mannerand} proportion as determined by the Tribunal,^{subject to payment} of deficit Court fee within two months^{of receiptof a copy of} this^judgment. There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶59

5 MANU/sc/o4to/2013

¶60

¶61

RRNJ MACMA No 265 of20t4

¶62

Miscellaneous petitions, if arry pending, shall stand

¶63

closed

¶64

Sd/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -rum- lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (with records)

¶69

One CC to Sri. T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate [OpUCl 3. One CC to Sri NARESH BYRAPANENT, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

PSR

c\[-

1.&'/r,+

\ I

HIGH COURT

DATED:06l0gl2023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.265 of 2014

lATE OA
(
a\\ N-\ ],C)
*
.,Jirq
4o ,)
C

¶79

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶80

S"**r)r$

¶81

¶82

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶83

WEDNESDAY, THE^{SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶84

PRESENT

¶85

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶86

OTOR ACC^{IDENTCIVILMISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO:265oF 214}

¶87

Between:

¶88

Boina Padmamma,^{Wb Ramulu, Occ-Household, R/oH No 2-61' Madaram} Village, Parigi^Mandal,

¶89

Boina Ramulu,^{S/o Bagaiah,Occ: Labourer, R/oH'No 261, MadaramMllage'} Parigi Mandal,

¶90

Boina Shekhar,^{S/o Ramulu' Occ: Nil, R/o H-No2-61, MadaramViltage'Parigi} Mandal,

¶91

Boina Mallaiah,^{S/o Ramulu, Occ: Nil, R/o H.M2-61, MadaramVillage'Parigi} Mandal,

¶92

'.'APPellants/Petitioners

¶93

AND

¶94

D. Venkatesh,^{S/o Rama Chandraiah, Occ: Business, R/o D'No'2-33'Old} Lingarnpally, Ward^No.14,

¶95

The New^{lndiaAssurance Company Limited,,Rep by its Manager' D NO'2-}

¶96

isE iii fl'ooileisnwarya compiex, bhandanagar, Hyderabad'

¶97

'..ResPondents/ResPondents

¶98

AppealUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorderanddeffee ino.P.No.1583of2008dated11.o5-2oloonthefileofthecourtofthechairman Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal --cum- lll Additionalchief Judge,city civil court,} Hyderabad.

¶99

ORDER: The appeal^{comiflgon for hearing and uponperusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment^{and Decreeof tlrc Lower Court and the material papersin} the case and^{upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri' T' VISWARUPACHARY'} AdrocatefortheAppellantarrdofSri.NARESHBYRAPANENI,Advocateforthe Respondent^{No.2.and for the Respondent No 1 t'tone Appeared eitherin person} or by Advocate.

¶100

This Court doth^{Order and Oecree as follows:}

¶101

l.ThattheMotorAccidentCivilMiscellaneousAppealbeand,herebyis allowed by enhancing^{the Compensation amount awardedby thetribunal} from RS.2,7O,OOO/-^{to 15.8,69,000/-with interest@7 '5o/o per annum on the} enhancedamountfromthedateofPetitiontillthedateofrealization'

¶102

That the Respondent^{Nos.1 and2 are directedto deposit the said amount}

¶103

'withcostsandinterestafterdeductinganyamountalreadydeposited within two months after^{receipt of a Copy of this Judgment'}

¶104

3.Thatonsuchdeposit,thePetitionersPermittedtowithdrawthesamein accordance^{with the manner and proportion as determined by the Tribunal'} Subject to Payment^{of deficit court fee withintwo monthsof receipt of a} CoPY of this^Judgment.

¶105