Allowed

Bacharapu Mallaiah and Anr. v. K. Suguna Ratnakumari and Anr.

Telangana HC9 Nov 2023MACMA/2763/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana enhanced compensation to Rs. 3,72,500 in motor accident claim appeal, applying Supreme Court precedents on notional income, future prospects, and consortium losses for the parents of a deceased minor.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,72,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs; respondents directed to deposit amount.

Bacharapu Mallaiah and Anr. Vs K. Suguna Ratnakumari… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^THREE.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶5

M.A.C.M.A.No.2763 of 2007

¶6

Appeal under Section^'173 of the Motor Vehicles^{Act, againstthe orderand} decree dated^{27 .1o.2OOGpassedin M.V.O.P.No.799 of 2004 on the file of the Court} of the Motor vehicle Accidenl claims^{Tribunal+um-lllAdditional District & sessions} Judge^(FTC) at Medak.

¶7

Belween:

¶8

Bacharapu Mallaiah, S/o.Durgaiah,m^{agd 47 years, Occ:Labour'}

¶9

Bacharaiu Bhoomamma,^{W/o. Mallaia6,aged} !3^{y.ears,Occ:Housewife} (Both are Fl/o. Mansanpalli Village, Jogipet Mandal'^{M€dak District.)}

¶10

..-Appellants/Claimants.

¶11

AND1. K.Suouna Ratnakumari, W/o. Abraham Lincon, Owner of the Lorry No.AP-23v-48i7 Q. No.987 lF, BHEL.,^{Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad}

¶12

National lnsurance Company^{Limited,rep.,'by its Divisional Manager 4-68/6, ll} Ftoor, Mailareddy comptex,^{Ferozguda,a."rno:l1o&odoMents/Respondents.}

¶13

(R.1 dismissed for default vide court order dated^11.07.2016)

¶14

Counsel for the^{Appellant: Sri Palle Sriharinath.}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: Sri Ramachandrareddy Gadi.}

¶16

The Court made the^{following: JUDGMENT:}

¶17

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶19

M. .c.M.A .No.27 63of2o07

¶20

]U ME T:

¶21

. This appeal has been filed by the claim petitioners aggrieved and dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation amount granted in the decree and order dated 27.70.2006 in o.p.No.7gg of 2004 0n the r.ile of III Additional District and Sessions Judge_Cum _Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Medak (for Short,.the tribunal,,).

¶22

The claim petitioner,s case in brief is that, on 13.11.2004 t.he claimants and their deceased daughter went to a Tea Hoter near r:he chowrastha of Hanuman Temple at logipet. After taking tea t:he clai.mants and deceased were going to Government Hospital, Jogipet, when they were crossing at the end of road the lorry bearing No.l\p_ 23-V-48L7 came from Annasagar village side proceeding towar.ds Sangareddy town side at high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased and the lorry ran over from the deceas;ed due to which the deceased died on the spot. The police of Jogiltet registered a case in cr.No.124 of 2oo4 against the driver of cri ne vehicle. The deceased age was 15 years at the time of her death and she was assisting the claimants in agricultural operations a nd contributing worth of Rs.2,000/_ per month. Due to sudden death of

¶23

NBK,J 2 MACMA-2763-2007

¶24

deceased, the^{claimantsput to loss mentally and monetarilyand put to} indescribable^{agony and distress' The deceased was the only daughter} to claimants.^{The respondentNo'1 is owner of crimevehicleand} respondent^{No.2 is insurer to the said vehicle' Thereupon' the parents} of deceased^{filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act'} 1988^{(for short"the M.V'Act') seekingcompensationof Rs'1'20'000/-'}

¶25

The learned^{Tribunal,considering the materialon recordheld} that the^{accident occurreddue to rash and negligentdrivingof the} lorry and^{awarded Rs'6O,OO0/- with 7'5olo interestper annum by} resting^{the liabilityagainst the owner and insurer of the lorry/1'tand} 2nd respondents.

¶26

In appeal,^{appella nts/claim petitioners (forshort 'the} petitioners') contended^{that the tribunalought to have consideredthe} settled^{prepositionof law in delineating notionalincome' Furtherno} future Prospects^{areaccountedand meager amounts are granted} underconventionalheads'Thus,prayedforre.assessment.

¶27

on the^authority placed reliance 5. In supPort,^the Petitioners Kurvan Ali^v. Shyam^Kishore between Kurvan^{Ansari Alias} Murmul^{and pleaded that for the deathof 7 Year old boy in the}

¶28

t (2022) t {c aL7

¶29

¶30

t\ BK,J MACMA_2763_2007

¶31

accident the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken notional income at Rs.25,000/- per annum and prayed for adopting the same in the instant case.

¶32

6' The learned counser for the 2nd respondent/insu re r (for short,the respondent') pleaded that the tribunal had lenienuy considered the claim and awarded appropriate amounts. However, fairly submitted that by considering the settled law, just compensation may be awa rded .

¶33

7 In this position, the point arises for determination is:

¶34

"Whether the claimants are entitled for any enhancemenl. of compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount,,?

¶35

B. The petitioners pleaded that the deceased was aged about 15 years and he was school going boy by the date of the accident. lfhe deceased was not only a student but, also it is the contention oF the parents of the deceased that he used to earn Rs.2,OOO/_ per month by doing agriculture work and used to contribute the same to the fanrily. As per the material available on record, the age of the decease<l is shown as 12 years. Taking into account the averments oF the petil:ion and since none have challenged the same by way of cross examination, the age of the deceased can be safely accepted at 12

¶36

NBK,] MACttA-2763-2007

¶37

¶38

¶39

years. Though^{the parents of the deceased stated that the deceased} was earning^{Rs.2,000/- per month by way of agriculture operations'} but, at the^{age of deceased, no income generatingavenue can be} preiumed.^{However, having regard to the settledpropositionin the} authority^{KurvanAnsari (supra) the notional incomeof the deceased} can be^{presumedas Rs'25,0OO/-per annum'}

¶40

g.InNationallnsurancecompanyLtd.vs.Pranaysethiand held that^{whileassessingthe} others2^{the Hon'ble APex Court} prospects shall^{be taken into} compensation^{for the death future} account.^{Accordingly, considering the age of the deceased4Oolo ot} income^{is addedtowards futureprospects and out of this 50o/o of the} i.ncome has^{to be deducted towards personalllving expenditure' Thus'} annual^{contribution of the deceased to the petitioners would be} Rs.17,500/-.^{If this amount'}s multipliedwith the multiplierto the age} of the decease^{d i,e.,12, the sum comes to Rs.2,62,500/.(Rs.17,500x} for this^{amount towards 'Loss of} 15). The Petitioners^{are entitled} DependencY'.

¶41

Besides,^{the petitioners are also entitled for compensation under} prescribed in^{the dictum of PranaYSethi} 'conventional^{heads' as}

'?(2017)^{t6 sccE6o}

=_------.----

I\IBK,J MACMA_2763_2007

¶46

(supra) i.e., Rs.15,000/- for funeral charges and Rs.15,000/_ tow;rds loss of estate.

¶47

Further, the Hon.ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to'consortium' given in the authority of Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors.r, in the authority between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kau. @ Satwinder Kaur and othersa reinforced that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the parents for the loss of love ,tnd affection and companionship of their children. Correspondingly, the 1,r and 2nd petitioners being the parents are entitled to Rs.40,000/_ each towa rds filial consortium.

¶48

L2. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the compensat ion as follows:

¶49

DESCRIPTION LossofDe enden LossofEstate	AMOUNT Rs 2 500.00 1500000 2
FuneralCha es Filialconsortiumto1 and2 etitioners	. 15 000.00 80,000.00
TOTAL	3 72 500.00

¶50

The Section 16g of M.V.Act contemplates duty on the Courts to award just compensation to the claimants. In Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal '(20^t8)18 scc r3o

¶51

a Civil Appeat No.27O5 of2020, dr.30.06.2020

¶52

¶53

NBK,J MACMA-2763-2007

¶54

Singhs the^{Hon'bleApex Court held that in the absence of any bar in} the Act, the^{competent Court is entitled to awardhigher compensation} to the^{petitioners, if they are entitledfor such compensation'For the} reasons, the^{above arrived sum shallbe grantedto the petitioners'}

¶55

L4 For the aforesaid,^{the appeal is allowed in the following terms:}

¶56

(i) The Petitioners^{areawarded Rs.3,72,500/-(Rupeesthree} lakhs seventy^{two thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 7'5olo} per annum with^{costs., from the dateof petition till date of realization;}

¶57

(ii) the owner^{and the insurer ofthe lorry/l'tand 2nd} respondents^{are jointlyand severallyliable to pay the compensation} and they^{are directed to deposit the enhancedamount by setting of} the amounts^{paid, if any, withinone month from the date of receipt of} a copy of^{this judgment;}

¶58

(iii) the apportionment^{among the petitioners shall be in terms} of the tribunal^award.

¶59

(iv) on deposit^{of the awarded amount' the petitionersare} permitted to withdraw^{entire amount apportionedin their favour' on} payment of Court^{fee on enhancedcompensationamount'}

¶60

s (2003) z scc zzq

¶61

¶62

ABK,J MACptA_2763 .t007

¶63

¶64

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶65

closed

¶66

SD/-P. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANTAEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \vv

¶67

SECTION OFFICER

¶68

To,

¶69

1 The Motor Vehicre Accident craims Tribunar-cum-lll Additionar District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak.

¶70

2 One CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath. Advocate IOPUCI

¶71

3 gne qq to Sri Ramachandrareddy OaOi, ndvocate'1OeUC1 4 Two CD Copies

¶72

JCK

¶73

MY b

i.,!, L;.4t

-1;r

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911112023

rl i (J' -:
\ ,,r.
\' : -.,i...

¶79

JUDGMENT + DECREE

¶80

MACMA.No.2763 of 20Ol

¶81

Allowing the M.A.C.M.A @"ru

¶82

0 r<)
L 7*
t

¶83

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶84

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶85

PRESENT

¶86

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶87

M.A.C.M.A.No.276 3 oI 2OO7

¶88

Between:

¶89

'1. Bacharapu Mallaiah, S/o.Durgaiah,m aged 47 years, Occ:Labour.

¶90

Bacharapu Bhoomamma, W/o. Mallaiah, aged^{43 years, Occ:Hous€wife} (Both are Rl/o. Mansanpalli Village, Jogipet Mandal, Medak District.)

¶91

...Appellants/Claimants.

¶92

AND

¶93

K.Suguna Ratnakumari, W/o- Abraham Lincon, Owner of the^{Lorry No.AP-23-} V-48'1 7 Q. No.987/F, BHEL., Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad

¶94

National lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by its Divisional^{Manager 4-68/6, ll} Floor, Mallareddy complex, Ferozguda, secunderabad.ondents/Respondents.

¶95

(R.1 dismissed for default vide court order dated 11 .O7.2016)

¶96

Appeal uMer Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 27.1O.2OOO^passed in M.V.O,P.No.799 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District & Sessions Judge^(FTC) at Medak.

¶97

' 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 Palle Sriharinath, for the Appellants and of Sri Ramachandrareddy Gadi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶98

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶99

1 . That this appeal is be and herety allowed-

¶100

That the petitioners are awarded Rs.3,72,500/- with interest @ 7 .5o/o pet annurn with costs, from the dat€ of^petitioh till date of realization.

¶101

That the owner and the insurer of the lorry/1"r and 2tu respondents are^jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount by setting of the amounts^paid, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this^judgment;

¶102

That the apportionment among the^petitioners shall beⁱⁿ terms of^the hibunal award;

¶103

That on deposit of the awarded amount, the^{petitioners are permittedtc,} withdraw entire amount apportioned in their favour, on^payment of Coutl fee on enhanced compensation amount.

¶104

SD/.P. NAGABHUShIAMBA ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// <,/V

¶105

SECTION OI'FICER,

¶106