Allowed

Smt. S.Anitha and 3 Others v. B.Ramesh and Another

Telangana HC30 Aug 2023MACMA/2901/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Telangana High Court allowed a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal regarding compensation for death. The court enhanced the award from Rs. 8,30,000 to Rs. 16,80,200, fixing the deceased's income at Rs. 8,000/month, adding future prospects, and awarding conventional heads like consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,80,200 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondents directed to deposit the amount within two months.

Smt. S.Anitha and 3 Others Vs B.Ramesh and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA".,ESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 29jl OF 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under section of M.V.Act, 1986, against the Judgment and decree dated^'1.07.2010 in O.P.No.788 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Judge cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Smt. S. Anitha, W/o. Late S. Ramesh, aged 24 years, Occ:Housewife

¶10

2 Master Bharath, S/o. Late S. Ramesh, aged 3 years

¶11

3 S.Balaiah, S/o. Ramulu,. aged 55 years, Occ:Nil,

¶12

4 Kum.S.Rajitha, D/o. S.Balaiah, aged 22 years.

¶13

Appellant No.2 Minor repby its mother and natural^guardian Appellant No.¹ herein Fyo. Vasundhara Apartment, Bagh Lingampalli Hyderabad

¶14

...APPELLANTS/PETITION ERS

¶15

AND

¶16

B.Ramesh, S/o. Ramarao, AGED Major, Occ: Owner of^Bolero Vehicle^No. AP 16BD 2565 R/o. 15-75 Main Road, Nandigama Krishna District

¶17

M/s. IFFCO Tokio General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep.^by its Regional Manager Panjagutta, Hyderabad

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

Counsel forthe Appellants: SRl. G PRASANNAANJANEYULU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T MAHENDER RAO

¶21

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPII RA.IT)STIWAR^RAO

¶23

M.A.C.M.A.No.29OL OF 2C' 1 1

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

Thi: MACMA is filed under Section l'73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ,988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and rlecree dated 01.07.20 l0 passed irr^,l.t'.No.788 of 2OO9 by the Mctor Accident Claims Tribunirl-r;urn III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ('ol.,short "the Tribunal").

¶26

2 For convenience, the parties vvill be hereinafter referred to as tlrey are arrayed before the Tri.runal "

¶27

.)a Brie f facts of the case are that the peti'-ioners filed a claim seeking compensation ol Rs. 12,00,000/- or ;tccrunt of the death of Ramt:sh (hereinafter referred to as^{ucle:ea.sed")} in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.C l.2ot)9t.

¶28

3(1) It is statr:d that on 10.01.2009 at atrout 3.O0 a.m., near Amrutha Milk Factory, D'warakanageLr, C'-r:rpad Mandal, Kadapa District, while the deceased along with his friend was proceeding on Qualis vehicle, at the accidcrrt spot. tLLe driver of crime Bolera ve hiclc bcaring No.AP- l6BD-2565 drove Lt in a rash and negligent roanner and dashed the said^,Qualis vel:icle. As a

¶29

¶30

RRN.J MACMA No 2901 of20l t

¶31

result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

¶32

4 Before the Tribunal, respondent No.l was set ex parte and respondent No.2 filed a counter by denying all the petition allegations. They mainly contended that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Qualis vehicle.

¶33

To prove their case, petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A9. Adduced no oral evidence on behalf of respondent No.2, but Ex.B I was marked.

¶34

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P. by awarding compensation of Rs.8,30,000/- with [email protected]% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.

¶35

7 . learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the deceased's income only @ Rs.4,000/- per month when it is proved by the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.8,100/- per month as salaq/. He further contended that the Tribunal, deducting 1/4tt' towards personal expenses of the deceased, ought to have

¶36

RRN,,I Mr⁽ MA No l()01 ol l0ll

¶37

considered the income of the deceased as Rs.6,0()C /- per month in view of the judgment ol the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla V rrma and aught to have awarded^t-he entire claim amount as claimed by the petitioners. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appez.l.

¶38

8 Per contra, learned Counsel appearing I,:r respondent No.2 mainly contended that the Tribunal hzrs right.ly considered salaqr of the c eceased and no interference is r,:cuired by this Co urt.

¶39

9 Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶40

i0. The:e is no dispute regarding the involvement of vehicles, manr er of accident, and rash and ne,3l;gerrce on the part of the dr ver of the crime Bolera vehicle b,:aring No.AP16BD-2565. As such, this Court is not intt:nding to go into the aspect of neglig ence.

¶41

PetiLioners claimed that by the timt: of death, the deceased was aged 28 years and was working ar; a Collection Executive ln tndusind Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, and earning Rs.8,1OO/- per month. In proof of income of the de,:eased. the petitioners file I Ex.A8-salary certificate. Ihey a lsc examined PW.3, who dr:posed that the deceased was vrorking asa

¶42

¶43

RRN.J MACMA No 2901 ot20l I

¶44

Collection Execution in the said Bank and earning Rs.B,OOO/per month and he issued Ex.A8-salaqz certificate. When the author of Ex.A8 is examined, without any reason, the Tribunal did not consider Ex.AS and wrongly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to fix the deceased's inccme at Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶45

t2. The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12). To this, future prospects of 4Oo/o i.e. Rs.38,400/- is to be added as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nationol Insurance Compang Ltd. Vs. Pranag Sethir as the deceased was aged 28 years. Since the dependants are 3 in number, a deduction of 1/3.d of the deceased's income towards personal expenses, which the deceased might have spent for himself, is proper. The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Sarla Venna Vs, Delhl Transport Corporationz is "17". Thus, the total ioss of dependency would come to Rs. 15,23,200/- (Rs.96,OOO/-⁺ 4Oo/o Minus ll3raxlTl.

¶46

I izoru I Io scc oto.

¶47

'^{lzooe;o scc tz I.}

¶48

<br>

¶49

¶50

R RN.I MACMA No 2901 of20ll

¶51

, I

¶52

The Tribunal awarded Rs.14000/- torvards the loss of consortiunr. However, the petitione-s ar(^,:ntitled to compensation under conventional heads a:; per the decision of the Honble A rex Court in Pranag Sethi (supral aod Magma Insurance Compang Ltd. Vs. Nanu Rata @ Chuhru Ram3, Petitioner No. being the wife of the deceaserl, is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium, pr:titione r Irlo.2 being a minor son, anrl petitioner No.3, being the father of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.4O,0O0 /- each i.e. Rs.80,000/- towards loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium ernd petitioners are also entited to Rs. 16,500/- (Rs. 15,0r)0/-^+10'7r) towards funeral expenr,es and Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,C00/-⁺ 10%) towards loss of estate. Since petitioner No.4 is an trnmarried sister, she is not entitled to any consortium. With regard to interest, the Tribunal rightly considered the interest at 7.5'k p.a., which needs no interlerence.

¶53

t4. In;dl, the petitioners are entitlt:d to F:s.l6,80,200|towards com:ensation. Though the claimr:d amount is Rs. 12,00,000/-, invoking the principle of just coropensation, and in view of the law Iaid down by the Hon'bte Supr-enre Court in

¶54

32018 Law Suit (SC ) 904

¶55

6 RRN.J MA(:MA No 2901 ot l0ll

¶56

Rajesh us. Rajbir Singh+, and in a catena ol decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the petitioners/appellants sha-ll pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation.

¶57

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,30,OOO/- to Rs.16,80,2OOl- (Rupees Sixteen lakh, eighty thousand and two hundred only) with interest @7.5 %o p.a. from the date of petition til1 the date ol realization. Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest a-fter deducting the amount, if any, already deposited within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same AS in accordance with the manner and apportionment determined by the Tribunal, subject to payment of the deficit Court fee within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶59

SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 4 ,.__ SECTION OFFICER

¶60

¶61

To,

¶62

.,1. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional chief Judge, city civil Court, Hyderabad.^{(With Records if any)}

¶63

One CC to^{SRl.G PRASANNA ANJANEYULU, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶64

One CC to SRl. T MAHENDER^RAO,Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

Two CD^Copies

HIGH COURT

RRN, J

DATED: 3010812023

JUDGMENT

:\i,r,,
-a1 ,i1, $;TA r,j o>1:..
18 tr$ ?m

¶73

MACMA.No.:2901 ot 2011

¶74

ALLOWING HE MACMA

¶75

r, \t,4
>3
<br>

¶76

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶77

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶78

PRESENT

¶79

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶80

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 290'l OF 2011

¶81

Between:

¶82

1 Smt. S. Anitha, Wo. Late S. Ramesh, aged 24 years, Occ:Housewife

¶83

2 Master Bharath, S/o. Late S. Ramesh, aged 3 years

¶84

3 S.Balaiah, S/o. Ramulu, aged 55 years, Occ:Nil,

¶85

4 Kum.S.Rajitha, D/o. S.Balaiah, aged 22 years.

¶86

Appellant No.2 Minor repby its mother and natural guardian Appellant No. 1 herein R|/o. Vasundhara Apartment, Bagh Lingampalli Hyderabad

¶87

...APPELLANTS/PETITION ERS

¶88

AND

¶89

B.Ramesh, S/o. Ramarao, AGED Major, Occ: Owner of Bolero Vehicle No. AP 16BD 2565 Fyo. 1 5-75 Main Road, Nandigama Krishna District

¶90

M/s. IFFCO Tokio General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager Panjagutta, Hyderabad

¶91

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶92

Appeal filed under section of M.V.Act, 1986, against the Judgment and decree dated 1.07.2010 in O.P.No.7B8 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Judge cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶93

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 SRl. G PRASANNA ANJANEYULU, for the Appellant and SRI T MAHENDER RAO, Advocate for Respondents.

¶94

This Court doth Or ler and Decree as follows:

¶95

That this ap real be and hereby is allowed enl'ancinr; .he compensation amount awa^-ded by the Tribunal from Rs. 8,30,000r- to |Ls.16,80,200/(Rupees Sixleen lakh, eighty thousand and two hundre d onlv) with interest @^{7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realiz::tior;}

¶96

That the Rer;pondents are directed to deposit the sairl amcunt with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any already' de,posited within two months l'om the date of receipt of a copy of this Ju Jgment;

¶97

That on sucl' deposit, the petitioners are permitted to^tivithdr:rw the same in accordance with the manner and apportionment as determined by the Tribunal, sut^ject to payment of the deficit Court lee witrin two months from the date of rrrceipt of a copy of this^judgment;

¶98

That save irs aforesaid, the decree of the l-ower Couri shall stands confirmed in lll other respects; and

¶99

That there slrall be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶100

StY.A.V.S. PRASAD ASSI 3'IANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEc-tdff OFFICER

To,

The Motor Atrident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional Ctrief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderlbad.

¶105

Two CD Cop es

¶106

pr $"

HIGH COURT

RRN, J

DATED: 3010812023

DECREE

MACMA.No.2901 of 2011

¶112

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶113

e3
\o

Smt. S.Anitha and 3 Others v. B.Ramesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S.Anitha and 3 Others v. B.Ramesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Younus, Hyd. and 3 Others Vs C. Chaitnya, Hyd. and Another

Syed Ayesha Siddiqua , Vs Deputy Commissioner

The Apsrtc, Rrep.by Its Md, Musheerabad, Hyd and Another Vs Smt.Ch. Hamsa

Nalika Narsimha, Vs The State of Telangana

Namani Prameela Vs Apsrtc

K. Vasantha and 3 Others Vs S. Chinnathesvar and Another