Allowed

V. Jayasri v. Jasmeet Singh Jolly

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023MACMA/2797/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation arising from a motor accident. The court enhanced the awarded amount, confirmed the insured vehicle's liability despite the driver's license issue, and dismissed the insurer's separate appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.20,00,000 to Rs.28,97,600 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondents directed to deposit amount within two months.

V. Jayasri Vs Jasmeet Singh Jolly — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MACMA NOs :2797 0F 2014 AND 1493 0F²⁰¹⁵

¶7

MACMA NO.2797 0F 2014:

¶8

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decreeⁱⁿ O.P.No.1792 of 2009 dated 17.06.2013 on the file of the Court of the^Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - ll Additional Chief Judge at^Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 . V. Jayasri, Wo Yadagiri, Occ Household.

¶11

Y.Yadagii, S/o Achaiah, Occ Nill, R/o 6-9-48, Vivekanandnagar, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶12

Presently residing at Flal no. 2O2, Padmasri Apartments, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . Jasmeet Singh Jolly, S/o.Balbir Singh Jolly, Occ Business, Rl/o^15, Sukhjivan Colony, Kabdi Chowk, Nagpu(MR)^(Owner of the^{lorry bearing} no^lvlH-31 AP 939)

¶15

United lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manger,^{DO-1, 1-7-} 241110, Ramalaya Buildings, Near Paradise, S.P. Road, Secunderabad, P.8.No.1651. (Policy No. 2301021311O110110004147 valid from^14-2-2OOB to 13-2-2oog)

¶16

..RESP.NDENT.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(MACM AMP. NO: 3416 OF 2014)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may^{be pleasedto pass} orders PERMITING the^petitioners to substitute the claim^amount of^Rs. 30,50,000/- by deleting Rs. 20,00,000/- and to effect^{consequential arilendments} in the claim application in O.P. No: 1792log^{on file} of^{MACT- Cum ll ADDL.Chief} Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRI T.} VISWARUPA CHARY

¶20

Counsel for Respondents: SRI^E. VENUGOPAL^REDDY

¶21

MACMA NO: 14¹³ OF 2015

¶22

Appeal U|crer :3 cliorr 173 of llotor Vehrcles Act agailst lho^{I )rd€,r} and Decree in O.P No.1712 rl 1009 dated^17.06 2013 on the file of the Co rt c,f the Chairman, Ir,4otor AcciCent C aims Tribunal - cLrrn - ll Additronal Ch ef .lud;t: at lJyderabad. Between:

¶23

United lnd.3 nsurance Company Limited, Rep. br its Dvi,ional Manager,^DO- 1,1'/'2-tt1'10, Ramarava Buildinss Near^paradist,, "^{fl:,$i€iiifif,itl"rig,fil_}

¶24

AND

¶25

V Jayasr,. {,o Yadagiri, Aged 49 -vrs, Occ Houserold.

¶26

V. Yadagir ,^:S/o Achaiah, Age. 55^years, Occ. Nil^Botl-t R,t^H,No.6-9-48, Vivekanan Jalagar, Yatanannareddy Nalgona Torvn ant t)istrict.^Presently Resing at i lat No. 202. Padmasrt Apartments, Mt lakpet. I^yderrabad.

¶27

3 Jasnree. S rgr Jolly,, S/o Balbir Singh Jolly, Age 5)^{year; ()cc} business,^R/O 15, Sukhjir rr Colony, Dadbi Chowk, Nagapur, lt4aharas.ta Sttrte. [Owner of Lorry bean rgr No.[/H-31 P 939]

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

l.A. NO: 2 OF 20 4!MACMAMP. NO: 5704 OF 2014)

¶30

Petition ur ie r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circLirstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavr: filed n support of the^petition, the High Corrt rray l)e f leased^{to grant} stay of all furtre^p roceedings including execution of the d -'(^'ee dt.^17lOGl2O13 passed in^(fP.no 1792 of 2009 on the file of the MF,CT-t;Lrn ll l\dditional Chief Judge, CCC , Hyr erabad

¶31

Counsel for the I p;:ellant: SRI E. vENUGOPAL REDIIY

¶32

Counsel for the I espondents: SRI T. VISWARUPA CHARY

¶33

The Court made he. following: COMMON ORDER

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.IESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A .Nos.27 97 of2OL4 and 1493 of2O15

¶35

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶36

These two appeals are being clisposed of by this common judgment since M.A.c.M.A.No.1493 of 2or5 fired by the Insurance comparry and M.A.C.M.A.N o.2297 of 2or4 filed by the peiitioners/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation are directed against the very same order and decree dated 17'06'2013 passed in o.p.No.7792 of 2oo9 on the fire of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Il Additional chief Judge, city civil Court, Hyderabad (for short^,the Tribunal).

¶37

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

¶38

Brieffacts of the case are thaton I1.0g.200g atabout7.15 p.m. while V.Srinivas (deceased) was proceeding on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.Ap_29_M_9039 from Habsiguda to Nacharam, and rvhen he reached in front of NTR Gardens at Nacharam, one lorry bearing No.MH-31-Ap-939 came in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed from his behind and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, he fell down and

¶39

?Rrl.J li,'<sup>( l,r ).1 '. 797 14 & 1.191 15

¶40

sustilin,--(l !-i.vous i.tjLr.cs. Immcdiat,,l], .r r,..as sl-riftccl to Kamir-re.i Il.spital, l-.B.Nirgar. lor trrrarrn:t t. *.h.re u-hile undergc,irrll tleertment dicci on 12.0g..1O0g.^.[her,:fore. the

¶41

petition,,-rs, r ho are p.trents of tl-rc deceasel, fitr rl th,: O.p. claiming compensatio r rf Rs.20.00,000/-

¶42

4 . Aftr:r r:onsidering the orai and doc:r rr.ren tary evidence availablt: c)n record, the Tribunal has e warct::[ .n zrmount of Rs.20,00.O(lC / rvith interest (4 7.Sol, per zrnnlrr. frr,m tl.re date of petition till t rr: date ol realizatior-r to be oaid Lr1 esltonclent Nos.l and 2 .joir:tl ald severally. Challenginq thr: said ainard, the petitioners h: vt: filed tl-re present appeal seei<ing :r:hancement.

¶43

l,earn;cl counsel appearing for thr, pet ti,)nors contended that the Cour r below erroneously fixed the futulr: prtspects of the deceased al. i O'% instead of 5001,. The court belc,w' r>ught to have graflted zrn an rount of Rs.1,OO,00O/- towardr; lor.e zrnd affection, but no amount r;r al; awarded under the said lead.^'ihe: court below ought to hav, awarded more compensation 1-h e n cl,{med by the petitioners. I r support of his contention, learrxrd ccunsel for the

¶44

L-

¶45

RRN, J M. A.C.M.A. No.2797 14 & 1491 15

¶46

petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in ADAM INDTIR

¶47

MUTTEMMA AND OTHERS Vs. RATIIOD REDDIA AIVD O?IIERSI.

¶48

On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondents has contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The court below erred in fixing the multiplier '17'. It is further stated that the Tribunal did not consider the fact that the driver of the lorry was not having a valid driving licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle and that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

¶49

7 . A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the court below having framed issue No.l as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and having considered the evidence of PW.3, an eye witness to the accident, coupled with the documentar5r evidence i.e., Ex.AI-FIR and Ex.A-4-charge-sheet, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Iorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-939 and has answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of the court below

¶50

'^{20t 5 (4) ALD585 (LB)}

¶51

¶52

¶53

RRN,J 11.A.:..M A l'..,197 1.1&'191 15

¶54

that tht: ar:ci k'nt occun-cd d ue to the rash arr<l n :gl:gcrtr driviug o[ lhe driv,:r oI he lorrv

¶55

As rr g rrds the contention of the lezrrnt , i ccunsel for the Insurance C< n-rpany that. the driver of the lorr.v r',;; not l-raving valid driving at tL e time of the accident and therclc, e, the Insurance Companv is^.rr>t liable to pav compensatic,n, t.l r : court below has categorirlll] c rl;erved that the 2"d responde rt fetile 1 tr ex:rmine an1, official Iionr he RTA to shou' that ttre drivcr of r rLe ,tffending lorr-v r,r,as not ha-vi r11 a valid driving licence ar the r,ir..'),- cf thr: accident and thereforr , both respondents are liable to li:y :ompensation. Therefore, th s Court is of the considered vieu :1r: r the court below has rightl.; held that both respondenrs ar(, liabk: to pay compensatior to r he pet irioners.

¶56

9 As r :gards the age of the dr cea.s,:cL is concerned, considering - )x.A-2-Inquest report and Ex.A-! l:,MIl report, the Tribunal has r Lghtly taken the age of the dr:cear.,ed as 28 years, which needs r o interferencc by this Court

¶57

Insola r- as the income of the deceas:d is ,:,rnr,erncd, as per the evidence of PW. 1, the deceased was u,ork:r ng as a Senior Research Sc:h rlir in IICT and was getting ar ir-rcorr.c of Rs.20,OO0/-

¶58

)

¶59

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.2797 14 & 149i 15

¶60

per month and as per the e\ridence of PW.2, the deceased was drarving a salar5r of Rs. 18,200/ - per month. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 18,200/- and the same needs no interference by this Court. To this, Soyo future prospects are added as the deceased was aged 27 years. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.La,2OOl- + 5Oo/o = Rs.27,300/- and annua-lly it comes to Rs.3,27,600/ (Rs.27,3OO/- x t2l. As the deceased was a bachelor, sO%o has to be deducted towards personal expenses as per National Insurance Compang Ltd. Vs. prqndy

¶61

Sethi2 and it would come to Rs. 1,63,800/-. Thus, the tota.l loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,63,800 x 17 = Rs. 27,g4,600/-. The petitioners are further entitled to Rs.33,0OO/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs. 15,OOO/- + LOo/ol towards loss of estate and funeral expenses as per Pranag Setht (supra). The petitioners are further entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards frlial consortium as per IIIAGhIA GDNERAL IMSURAJVCE COMPANV UMITED Vs. NANU RAM ALIAS

¶62

CHUHRU RAM3. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.28,97,6001- (Rs.27,8a,600l- + 33000/- + 80,000/-).

¶63

2 (2or7l t6 scc 680

¶64

20r8 (18) scc t30

¶65

¶66

M.A :.4'.,1.i1 ) t7'e/- i4 & -,4, c Rii. 15J

¶67

1 1. In -t e rr:sult, NI.A.C.M.A. No.2Z97 ol ,.)., 4 s ailoncd and tltc compcts rrion am()Llnt au,arcled lt.v the r:oul l,cl<,u,is cnltanced from Rs.2O.( O,OOO/_ to Rs.2g,97,6OO/_ u,ith r r.:rc,st g.7.5 t,/o p.a. fr-orn tl- r: rl, tc of pctition till the datc or. r.::el ization. The respondr-nts rr: directcd to deposit the saic arrc l.l t L ,.vith costs and interest, aft.et giving due credit to the amotrnt i1 tr aclr deposited, if

¶68

an-,, with n a greriod of trvo months from rhc d:L.e r,f receipt of a co;t-r' of tlt.s jrrdgment. On such deposit, r:lr€ p(ltitioners are

¶69

permittecl to yj thdraw the same u,itl_rout firrnislting any security. Ho'"r'ever, the 1 etitioner is directed to deposit the rie,licit cor-rrt fee on the enharrced rrlount

¶70

M.A.C.&r4=19 .1493 of 2015

¶71

In vr er ol the above findings ln \4.A O lvI.l..No.279T of 2014, whicl.r ir; decided in favour of tht-. pr:titioners. this M.A.C.M.A.No. 493 of 2O15 filed by the Lrsi-rran,;t: Company is hereby dismiss rcl. No order as to costs.

¶72

As a se 1 rel, miscellaneous petitions, if anv pe rdine shall stand closc,d.

¶73

To,

¶74

Sd/. MOHI]. SAIIAULI.AH ANSARI //TRUECOpy//^{trSStS__A!.\REGTSTRAR} se:;r-itir,r oFFrcER

¶75

1 The Chairna , Motor Accident Claims Tribunal _ cum -_ ll Ad(litionat Chief Judge at H,rdr rabad. 432 R!9 \Jre I wo uL CD Copir 9! to !"^Srr )fl tr Venuooo,ll l^{I Vrswarupa Chary Advocare} Reddy Advocate IOpUC)IOPUC] MBQ c_<

}{IGH COURT

DATI]l.): 1610612023

4' ,, i
,. .::
/.
'l ll ,J \ 1E []$ 2s8
-
\ t, .'i/
I '\ .)
a/

¶82

COMMON JI.JDGMENT

¶83

MACMA NOS: 2797 OF 2014 AND 14930F2015

¶84

A LLOWING THE MACMA NO.2;'97 OF 2014 & DI ;MISSING THE MACMA NO.I49it OF 2015

WIT}{OUT COSTS

[³³⁰⁴ I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶90

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

¶91

PRESENT

¶92

) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO I

¶93

MACMA NOS: 2797 OF 2014 AND 1493 0F 2015

¶94

MA NO.27 7 0F 2014

¶95

Between:

¶96

1 V. Jayasri, W/o Yadagiri, Occ Household. 2 V.Yadagiri, S/o Achaiah, Occ Ni , R/o 6-9-4g, Vivekanandnagar, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶97

AND

¶98

Presently residing at Flat no. 202, Padmasri Apartments, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS

¶99

1 Jasmeet Singh Jolly, S/o.Balbir Singh Jolly, Occ Business. Rl/o 15. Sukhiivan C^olony, Kabdi Chowk, Nagpur(MR) (Owner of the lorry bearing no MH_3i Ap 939)

¶100

2 United lnsurance CgqO.gnV Limited. Rep by its Divisional Manger, DO_l, 1_7_ ?41119, \a-al.gya^{Buitdings,N,earparadisei, S.p. Road, Secun"deiabad,'} f:ts:t\o-. 1 Qq^{1 ( Poticy No. 2301 02 I 3,1I 07 I 01 I 00041 47 vatidf} rom¹ 4_2_2OOB to 13-2-2OO9)

¶101

l.A NO: 1 OF 2014 MACMAMP. NO:34 16 0F 2014)

¶102

...RESPONDENTS

¶103

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 to pass orders PERMITING the petitioners to substitLte the claim amount of Rs. 30,50,000/- by deleting Rs. 20,00,000^ and to effect consequential amendments in the claim application in O.P. No: 1l92l19 on file of MACT- Cum ll ADDL. Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶104

MACMA NO: 1493 OF 2015

¶105

Between:

¶106

AND

¶107

United lndia lns^urance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, DOl,1-7-241110, Ramataya Buitdings Near^parddis6, S.p. Road, Secund"erdbad. ...APPELLANT/PENTIONER

¶108

1 . V Jayasri, W/o Yadagiri, Aged 49 yrs, Occ Household,

¶109

V. Y;roag. tr ,^{S/crAchaiah, Age.55 years, Occ.Nii Both tt I H No.6-9-48,} Vivekanart ianagar, Yatanannareddy Nalgona To^,rn attt [. istr ct.^Presently Res ng^,1. lat No. 202 Padrnasri Aparl.ments.^l,4 i^,akper.I vdr,rabad.

¶110

Jasrrcc: S ni1 Jrrlly,, Sro Balbir Singh Jolly, Age 51^yt-'ar; )cc^{busir-ress,R/O} 15, S ukll rr ar Colony, Dadbl Chowk, Nagapur,^{Mirharerst'r:} St,tte. lowner of Lorr,l bea r tg No' lvH-31 P 9391

¶111

...RESPoNoENrs

¶112

l.A. NO: 2 OF 20 4J^{MACMAMP.NO: 5704 OF 2014} Petitron ur 1e,r Se$ion 151 CPC praying that in the crir(.i.mslances statedⁱⁿ the af fidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Ccurt nle^y te Jrleased^{to grant} stay of all furthe ;rroceedings^{includrngexecution of the de't:ree dl.1710612013} passed in OP nc ' 7tt2 of 2OOg on the f rle of the It4ACT-ot rr -ll r\dditional Chief Judge, CCC., lly e^'abad

¶113

COMMON PRAY:F

¶114

Appeal Un<ler Se 1 :n 173 of Motor Vehicles Act^agairst :he '-r'der^{and Decreein} O.P.No.1792 of : C()9 daled 17.06.2013 on the^{file of the Corrt ol the Chairman,} Motor Accident Cl rirns Tribunal^- cum ll Additional^{Chit:fJudgr: rt Fyderabad.}

¶115

ORDER: This ap )eal coming on for hearing and upcn^perrsing the^grounds of appeal, the Juc^gr ent and Decree of the Lower Court ard the I:lterial^papers in^the case and upon h ,aring the arguments of Sri T. Viswarupa '3.;rry, lounsel for the Appellants n IllA )t\lA No.2797 of 2014 and Respondents in i'ACvlA No.1493 of 2015 and or Sn E Venugopal Reddy, Counsel for Respondent; I It/ ACtvlA No.2797 of 201 4 and Apoe ant in MACMA No.1493 of 2015.

¶116

This Court doth O C€lr and Decree as follows:-

¶117

That the M rtc,r Accident Civil I,4 iscellaneous Appr:al No ilⁱ⁹⁷ cf 2014 be and hereby is a orved.

¶118

That the co nprensation amount awarded by the Court belo\v is enhanced from Rs.20,00,0{ 0/- to Rs.28,97,6001 with interest @^{7.5o1, P:)r} alnum from^the date of tire re.ition till the date of reliazation.

¶119

That the re pondents are directed to deposit the said arnr: unt with costs and interest afte -giving due credit to the amount already degro:;ite<l if any within a Period^{of tw} ) rnonths from the date of receipt of cooy of t t,:j Ju(lgment.

¶120