Allowed

Smt. a. Paravathi v. M/S Ravi Cranes, and Another

Telangana HC2 Mar 2023MACMA/3248/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. It clarified that an apparent typographical error in vehicle number records did not preclude liability. The court recalculated compensation based on the deceased's actual income and enhanced the award from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 6,73,296.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.6,73,296 with 7.5% interest; respondents to deposit within 8 weeks.

Smt. a. Paravathi Vs M/S Ravi Cranes, and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No.3248 of 2008

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.v.o.P.No.1662 of 2004 dated 08.1'l.2006 on the fite of the court of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal --cum- ll Additional chief Judge, city civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

9T! 4^Paravathi,Wo .late^{Shanker,aged 4l years,} Occ: House hotd R/o H.No.B-3-22816781 194, Karmikanagar, yoiusufgud-a, Hfderabad.-

¶10

...APPELLANT/C LAIMAN T

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Y{.. By,^C.lanes, rep_. by_K.p. Chowdary, aged: major, Occ: Business Rt/o H.No.6-1 6/5, Kukatpatty, R.R. District.

¶13

The united lndia rnsurance company Limited, Rep. by its Divisionar Manager, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appettant: SRI CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY GOptREDDy

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. p. SAfya MANJULA

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT.^{JUSTICE LALITHA KANNPGANTI}

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No.3248 of 2OO8

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This is an appeal prefcrred^{by the claimantaggrievedby the} award passed by the II^{Adctitional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,} Hyderabad in O.P.No.1662^{of 2O04dated 08.11.2006.}

¶22

Heard Mr. Chandra Shekar^{ReddyGopi Reddy,learned} counsel for the appellant^{and Mrs. P. Satya Manjula,learned counsel} for the respondent/insurance^{company and perusedthe entire} material on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for^{tl'rc appellant/ claimantsubmitsthat the} claimant's son died^{rn the accirlctlt and she claimedcompensationof} Rs.6,00,000/-, but the^{Tribun:ri has awarded only Rs.50,000/-'The} son of the claimatrt "r'its^{n'ol king as an AccountantinMatrix} Laboratories clrau'ing.tn^{amollnlof Rs.7,0OO/-per month and he was} aged.27 years as^{on thc date ol accident.On 18.O4'2004,whilethe} deceased was^going on a^{FIcr oHonda motorcycle from his office} situated at Paraclisc^{to$,arcislris rcsidence,at about 11.3oam, while} he was crossing thc^{grave yard, a trpper bearingNo.AP 9V 2032 came} from his back sirlc in a rash^{and negligent manner and hitthe} motorcyclc, as a^r csult of^{rvhich, the deceasedfell down and} sustained injuries artd he s,as sltifted to NIMS hospital. On the^same day, a crimc was rcgisterecl agiurrst the driver of the tipper.

¶24

\ tK, \ MACMA_3 244_2008\

¶25

¶26

The respondent insurance^{company filed counter alfidavit} denying the manner^{of occurrence of accident, age and occupation of} the deceased and they^{have also contendedthat the driverof the auto} did not possess^{any valid driving licence and there was negligenceon} the part of thc deceased^{itself for the occurrence of the accident and} the 1.t respondent^{violated the terms and conditionsof policy by not} intimating the occurrence^{of theincident' Theamountof} compensation claimed^{is highly excessive.}

¶27

Learned counsel^{for the insurance company furthersubmits} that court below has^{refusedto grant compensation observingthat} according to the^{claimantand the eye witnesses, a tipper lorry} bearing No.AP 9V^{2032 dashed against the motorcycleand then,a} Home guard shittcd^{the injured to the NIMS hospital' The evidenceo[} thc 4rl' respondent^{is that he was observing the person coming ona} Her<-r Honda motorcycle^{indicatinga turn at Road No'2 and [hat a} Tipper bearing No.^{AP gV 2032 came behind him at a highspeed and} clashed against the motor^{cyclc.He furtherdeposedthat he attendcd} on the motor cyclist^{and shiftedthe said person to NIMS and the} public stopped the lorry^{and later it was shifted to the police station'} whcreas the contcntion of the^{insurance companyis that the tippcr} bcaring No.AP 9U 2032^{was involvedin the accidentand not Tippcr} bcaring No.AP 9V 2032.^{lL is further observed by the court belo*'that}

¶28

LK, J MACMA_3 248_200a

¶29

¶30

a perusal of Ex.Al FIR disclost:s that the vehicle that was involved in the accident is a tipper bearing No.AP 9U 2032 and even according to the contents of Ex.AS Chargc shcct, the vehicle that was involved in the accident is AP 9U 2032 and the police have got the vehicle that was involved in t he acciden t, examined it by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and as per the contcnls o[ Ex.A4 MVI Report, it was tipper bearing No.AP 9U 2032 thaL u,:rs involved in the accident. It was also observed that Ex.B1 Policy relirtr.s to a tipper bearing No.AP 9V 2032 and the owner of the tipper is ont' Mohd. Mirza Ansari and according to the claimant, the tipper that u'as involved in the accident is owned by Ravi Cranes bearing No.A[,^()U 2032. It u.as also observed that a vain attempt was made by tht' r:l:rirnant bv examining PW2 and PW4 to rectify the said mattcr in t lrc policc rccords and PW I tried to contend that the accident occrrn', cl ciue to the tipper bearing No.AP 9V 2032.

¶31

Learned counsel for tlit insurar]ce company further submits that the version of PW2 and [,W.1 :rre quitc contra to the contents of Ex.Al to A5 and thereforc, l[)c c]ourt bcl<tw has disbelieved the evidence of PW2 ancl PW4. Thc t'ourt belou, also observed that PWI is not able to establish r,t,hcthcr t ht. ;rccident occurred due to the tipper bearing No.AP 9 U 2032 or n [) qV 2032 and asserting that the accident occurred (lue ro thc tipper bearing No. Ap 9y 2032, the

¶32

LK, J MACMA_3 24A_20(,8

¶33

¶34

claimant secured Ex.A9^{B-Register of motorcycle to substantiatethat} vehicle bearing No.AP 9U^{2032 is} in^{fact a Bajaj 150 Auto Rickshaw'} It is further observed that^{when PW4's attentionwas drawn to this} discrepancy in the number of^{the vehiclethat was involvedin the} incident, he asserted that the accident^{was as a resultof lorry tipper} bearing No.AP 9V 2032, but in^{the contentsof Ex.Al,whichis given} by him, there has been a ment.ion^{of the number of the tipper to be} AP 9U 2032 itsetf and in fact, it^{is seen} that^{V'wasover written as} 'U'. It is further observed that the court do not understand^{when the} vehicle involved is a tipper bearing No. AP 9V 2032,^{how the Motor} Vehicle Inspector could make a mention in Ex.A4 that^{he has} examined a tipper bearing No.AP 9U^{2032 arrd there} is^{no evidence} placed on record to substantiatc that respondent No'l is^{owner of the} either thc tipper bcaring No.AP 9V^{2032or the Bajaj Auto bearingNo.} AP 9U 2032 and hencc it is difticult to^{arrive as to which is the} vehicle that u'as involved in the incident.

¶35

7 . Lcarned counsel tor the appellant submits that^{the day when} the accident has l'rappcned, immediately^{the crime was registered and} the vehicle u.as taken to thc^{police station.It is submitted that the} evidence of all the n'itncsses consistently shows^{that the accident has} happencd duc Lo thc rash and negligent driving^{of the driver of the} tipper. Thc court f<.rr the bcst reasons^taking a^{technical objection}

¶36

LK, ., MACMA_3248_200a

¶37

¶38

and that too whether^{the num ber of vehicle includesthe alphabet 'U'} or V'has failed to^{grant the compensation. It is submittedthat if the} vehicle bearing No.AP^{9U 2032 is a tipper, it supports the case of the} claimant that the^{said number rvas wrongly mentioned by the Motor} Vehicle Inspector. It^{is submittcdthat just becausethe number is} wrongly mentioned^{by the Motor Vehiclc Inspcctor,that alone cannot} be a ground for^{the court belorv for not consideringthe case of the} claimant for^{granting the compcttsation.}

¶39

Learned counsel^{for thc appcllant has reliedon the judgment} passed by the Hon'ble^{Apex Cottrt in NotionalInsurance Compang} Ltd, as. Chamundesuari^{and otherst, rvtrerein, the Hon'bleApex} Court has held that^{if any evidt'nce beforcthc Tribunal runs contrary} to the contents in^{the First lnforrnation[?cport, Ll.re evidcnce which is} recorded before the^{Tribunalilits to bc givenu'cightageoverthe} contents of the First^{InformationReport Basingon that,he submits} that the entire evidence^{is consistcnt atlrl trustu'orth-y and the court} below ought to have^{believed ttrt'sameand oughlto have granted the} compensation.

¶40

karned counsel^{for tht' appcllanLsubmitsthat at any point} of time, either in the counter^{:rl'l'irlavit} or additional counter afiidavit, it u,as not at all the case of lltc inslrrance compan\ that the said

¶41

'2021(11)^scALE

¶42

\ Lt(, ) MACMA_3 24a_2008

¶43

¶44

tipper is not^{involved in the accident.However,without taking such'} plea, they have advanced^{thc said arguments during the courseof} trid

¶45

lO. karned counsel for^{the insurance company submits that as} the appellant could^{not substantiatc his case as to whichvehicle is} involved in the^{accidentand as there is discrepancyin the vehicle} numbers and the details^{of lhe owner, the court belowhas rightly not} considered the case of thc^{claimant and granted compensationof} Rs.50,0OO/- under No fault^{tiability against the owner. It is submitted} that the claimant could^{not make out grounds for enhancement of the} compensation.

¶46

1 1 The wholc issue^{re volvcs} around^{the numberof the vehicle} involved in the accidcnt.^{Theve hiclc bearingNo.AP 9U 2032 is a Bajaj} 15O Auto Rickshaw and the^{vchicle bearing No.AP 9Y 2032 is a} tipper. Immediatcly alter^{the accident has taken place, the Home} Guard shifted the injured to the^{NIMShospital and a crime was} registered and the vehicle^n'as takcn^{to the police station.There is no} dispute about the fact that^{the said tipperis bearing No.AP 9V 2032.} This court has observcd^{that the FIR and other documents show that} a tipper was invoh,ed irr tht'accident,^{but, in the FIR and in the other} documents, there appcars to^bc a^{corrcction in the numberof the} vehicle and it appears that 1/'^{is correctedas 'U'.}

¶47

LK, J MACMA_3 248_2004

¶48

¶49

t2 From the^{material availableon record right from thc FIR and} evidence^{of eye witnesses,itclearly shows that the tipper was} involved^{in the accident The courtbelowcouldnot have cometo} such^{conclusionif the othervehiclethat is mentioned is also a tipper} $.hich^{gives rise to a confusion rvhichvehiclewas involvedin the} accident.^{But, in this case' the only vehicle that was involved in the} accident^{is a tipper and itis just a mistake olmentioningone} alphabet^{in the said vehicle number'The court bclou ought to have} given credence^{on records Hence' this court is ol the considercd} opinion^{that the vehicle involved in the accidcntis bearing No AP 9V} 2O32^{whichis insured with the insurance company :rs the accident} has happened^{due to the rash and negligentdriving o[ the tippcr'} Accordingly,^{theinsurance companyis liirble to paythe} comPcnsatlon

¶50

Then,^{coming to the compe nsation' it is the case o[ the} claimant^{that he rvas earning an amount of Rs 7'000/-per month} u,orking^{as an Accountant in Matrix Laboratories'[n support of the} same,^{the claimant has got examinedPW3 and also markedEx-A6} Appointment^{letter, Ex'A7 Remunerationdcterilsol the deceasedand} Ex.Xl^{Salaryparticularsof the deceascd Thoughit is stated that the} dcceased^{\tas earningan amourlt ol Rs 7,000/-' but' Ex Xl and the} et,rclcnce of^{PW3 showsthat the det:cascclu'as earningan amount of}

¶51

\ TK, \ MACMA 324A 2008

¶52

¶53

Rs.4,106/-. Hence, this court^{is inclined to considerthe income of} the deceased as Rs.4,1O6/-^{per month. Consideringthe age of the} deceased, future prospects at^{4Oo/o havc to be included which} comes to Rs.5,748/-. As^per the^{decision of the Hon'ble Supreme} Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v Dethi Transport^Corporation2 ,^{5Oo/o of} the income has to be deducted towards^{personalexpenses} as^the deceased was a bachelor which come s to Rs.2,874 /-. Therefore,^the annual contribution of the deceased to the appellants^{comes to} Rs.34,488/-. The relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '17'. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,86,296l- (Rs.34,488/- X l7).

¶54

In the light of the law laid down in National Insurance Co.

¶55

Ltd. Vs. Pranag Sethi:, the clztimant is grantcd Rs.33,OO0/- towards funeral expenses and loss o[ estate and Rs.44,OOO/- towards loss of parental consortium.

¶56

Therefore, the claimant is eligible for the compensation as

below:

Head

Compensation awarded

(1) t oss of dependency

¶61

Rs.5,86,296

¶62

(2) Funeral expenses and [,oss of Estate

¶63

Rs.33,OOO

¶64

'z^{zooslolscc rzr} '^{2ou (6) r7o (sc)}

¶65

LK, J MACMA_324a_200a

¶66

¶67

i \

¶68

(3) Loss o[ parental consortium Rs.44,0OO

¶69

(4) Legal expenses

¶70

Rs.10,0OO

¶71

Total compensation awarded Rs.6,73,296/ -

¶72

ln the resuit, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is allorned enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the court belou'from Rs.50,OO0/- to Rs.6,73,296/- as hereunder:

¶73

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest aL 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶74

(b) The claimant shall pay the court fee on the enhanccd amount of compensation.

¶75

(c) The respondents/insurance company shall dcposit the .imount within a period of (8) weeks from the datc of receipt of copy of^judgment. On such deposit, claimant is cntitlecl to

¶76

withdraw the entire amount without furnishing thc securitv.

¶77

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶78

SD/. B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶83

2 One CC to Sri Chandra Shekar Reddy Gopi Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI

¶84

3 Qne CC to Smt. P. Satya Manjula, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies gbr

i : I IIIt

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210312023

JUDGMENT

S';A iE o
i.
tt JUN NB
L)-,
i

¶91

MACMA.N0.3248 of 2008

ALLOWING THE MACMA

tntttt @

6 ag

[³²³⁰ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶97

THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶98

PRESENT

¶99

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶100

M.A.C.M.A. No.3248 ot 2008

¶101

Between:

¶102

Smt. A. Paravathi, W/o late Shanker, aged 47 years, Occ: House hold Fl/o H.No.8-3-228167 8l 194, Karmikanagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

¶103

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶104

AND

¶105

M/s. Ravi Cranes, rep. by K.P. Chowdary, aged: major, Occ: Business Ryo H.No.6-16/5, Kukatpally, R.R. District.

¶106

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶107

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶108

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.Noj662 of 2004 dated 08.11.2006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal --cum- ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶109

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 Chandra Shekar Reddy Gopi Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt. P. Satya Manjula, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶110

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶111

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awardd by the court below from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.6,73,2961,

¶112

¶113

That the enhanced amount shall carry interest al 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization_ The respondentsi insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is entiUed to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security.

¶114