V.Devi Vs Depot Manager

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

MAC MA NO.325l oF 2014

¶6

Appeal fired under section 173 of M.v. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.12-20213 made in MVop No.206 oFzors, on in" t:i"lt tnu court of the chairman, Motor Accidents craims iribrn"r-"rr-cni"ilrag"]'citv Civil Court,Hyderabad

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1. V.Devi Wo late V.Denya

¶9

V.Sunitha D/o late V.Denya

¶10

V.Balaji S/o late V.Denya

¶11

V.Sai Kumar S/o late V.Denya

¶12

(Petitioners 3 and 4 being minors represented by their mother the 1sr petitioner)

¶13

V.Sona Wo late V.Sakku

.

.. Appellants

AND

'^{BSBSI,Y,"o:?ffihip3lli?"t6?S,?,sh.state Road rransport coproration Udayasiri} ' l?:$ll tsi"'6tg"d["',:11:,f,,?sr'"Ii3[:s: I rlTl"TSJ ",^{repbv its M a n a gi n g}

¶18

.Respondents

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Sri C.M.prakash, Advocate

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.l & 2:Sri Thoom Srinivas, SC TSRTC

¶21

The Court delivered the fo[owing JUDGMENT :

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶23

M.A.C.M.A.No.3251 of 2Ot4

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

Being not seLtisfred with the quantum of compensation awarded in the ittt'ard and dccree dated 30.12.2013^passed in M.V.O.P.No.2Orr of 20 13 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum-Chiel Judge, City Civil^Courts, Hyderabad (tor short "thc Tribunal"), the^appellants/ petitioners pref:rred thc present appeal^seeking enhancement of the compcnr;artion

¶26

For the sa,<e of couvr:niet-ice, the^{parties wilibe} hereinafter referred to as thc5.' are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶27

Brief facts ol the case arc that the^petitioners, who^are the wife, children and mother o[ one V.Denya, filed^a petition under Ser:tion 166 of thc Motor Vetricles Act,^19t38 claiming compenr;ation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of V.Denya (h.ereina'ter relerrcd to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle acc:id<:ni. It irs stated that on 23.11.2012 at ab.;ut 3.30 lror-ris rvhile tire deceasecl and

¶28

2

¶29

RRN, J Macma 3251 2014

¶30

others were proceedings in an Auto bearing No.Ap 24 V 3354 from Ambagiri to Janapadu Saidulu Darga and when the Auto reached Adarshapally Village on Hyderabad_ Nagarjuna Sagar Highway, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.Ap 28 Z 4866, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Auto, due to which, the deceased received severe injuries on his head and died on the spot. One of the other inmates of the auto also died and two inmates sustained severe injuries. It is a_lso stated that the deceased was aged about 34 years and hale and healthy and was earning Rs.6,0OO/- per month by doing labour work. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the claimants liled the claim petition against respondents 1 and 2

¶31

Before the Tribunal, the respondents filed a counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further

¶32

RRN, J Macma 3251 2014

¶33

contended that ttLe compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim pctition.

¶34

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

¶35

Whethet the pleaded accident occurred resulting in the death of V.Denya, due to the rash ancl negligent driving of the motor vehicle (r\PSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.AP 28 Z 4866lrby its driver?

¶36

Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensrrtion, and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liabilitl, of the respondents?

¶37

To what relief?

¶38

To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs.l and 2 and marked E:<s.Al to A6. On behalf of the respondents, neit.-rer oral nor documentary evidence was produced.

¶39

After consicle:ring the oral and documentary evidence available on recrtrd, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negiigenr driving of the driver of the

¶40

4

¶41

RRN, J Macffa 3251 2014

¶42

RTC bus and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.4,57,00O/- with interest @ 7.5o/o per anflum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents L and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filcci by the petitioners seeking enhancement.

¶43

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously lixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,OOO/- though the deceased was working as Coolie and earning Rs.6,OOO/_ per month. As per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Natlonal Insurance Compang Llmited Vs. pranag Sethi^qnd. otherst, the petitioners are entitled to future prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads. It is further submitted that as per the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Compang Limited u. Nanu Ralz- @ Chuhru Rann and

¶45

I 2,017 AcJ 27oo

¶46

/

¶47

RRN, J I'l'acma 3251 2014

¶48

others2, petition,rr Nos.3 and 4, who are the minor sons of the deceased, a-e entitled to Rs.4O,00Ol- each towards parental consortium and petitioner No.5 being the mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards hlial consortium. The Tribunal has not a'*,arded^just compensation under other heads and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and uniustihable.

¶49

On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondents would submil that the Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly awarded compenr;ation and the same needs no interference bv this Court

¶50

i1. A perusal ol the impugned award would go to show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C. bus by it.s driver, to rvhich the Tribunal after considering the. evidence of P.W .2 coupled rvith the documentary evicellce, has categorically observed that the

¶51

t1:orn;r8scct:o

¶52

6

¶53

RRN, J Macma 3251 2014

¶54

accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving cf the driver of the R.T.C. bus and has answered in favour. of the petitioners and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason. to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of tl're driver of the R.T.C. bus.

¶55

L2. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was doing labour work and earning Rs.6,OO0/- per month, tl-re Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum, as the petitioners did not produce any proof to show that the deceased was earning Rs.6,0O0/- per month. The Apex Court in

¶56

Rq.morchandrappa Vs. Rogal Sund.arqm Alllqnce Insurance Co. Ltd.3 has considered the income of a coolie as Rs.4,5O0/- per month even in the absence of documentar5r evidence. Therefore, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,5OO/- per month even in the absence of documentary evidence. Apart from the same, as

¶57

'1zot11^{ra scc 2s6}

¶58

1

¶59

RRN, J I'liacma 3251 2014

¶60

per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranqg

¶61

Sethi's case (supra), the petitioners are also entitled to the addition of 4O'/c' :owards future prospects, as the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the rronthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.a 500/-⁺ Rs.1,800/-). From this, 1/4ttt is to be deductecl towards the personal expenses of the deceased following So,rla Verma a. Delhi Transport

¶62

Corporation+ :r..; the petitioners are five in number. After deducting 1/4tl- amount tou,ards his personal and living expenses, the contribution ol the deceased to the family comes to Rs.4,725/-. Since the age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is'16'as per the decision reported in Sarla Vermq.'s case (supra). Adopling multiplier'76', the total loss of dependency com€s toRs.4,725 l- x l2 x 16 = Rs.9,07,2OOl. Tl-re petitioners 1re also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional I-reals as per Pran.ag Setht's case (supra). Further, consicir:ring the fact ttrat claimant Nos.3 and 4,

¶63

l{loe AC J [c8 (Se )

¶64

8

¶65

RRN, J Macma-3251-2014

¶66

who are minor^{childrerrof the deceased' this Court is} inclinedtoawardaSumofRs.40,0O0f.eadntothemunder the head^{of the parental consortiumand petitionerNo'S} being the mother^{of the deceasedis entitled to Rs'4O'000/-} towardsfilialconsortiumasperthedecisionoftheApex C<-rurtinNanuRorm@ChuhrttRcm'scase(supra)'Thus' in all, the^{petitioners are entitled to asum of} Rs.11,04,20O/-.

¶67

Though^{the claimed amount is Rs'8'00'O00/-invoking} the principle^{of just compensation,and in vierv of the law} lai,l down by^{the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Ra;'eshus'} RaJbir Singhs,^{and in a catena of decisions' this Courtis} empowered to^{grant compensationbeyond the claimed} amount.

¶68

Accordingly,^{theM'A'C'M'A' isallowed' The} compensation^{amount awarded by the Tribunalis hereby} enhanced from^{Rs'4,57,ooo1- to Rs'11'o4'2ool-(Rupees} eleven lakhs four^{thousand tvro hundred only) with interest}

¶69

5 MANU/sc/o+8olzo t3

¶70

t)

¶71

RRN, J \4acma 3251 20'14

¶72

at 7.5oh p.a. fi,)m the deite of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount within trvo months from the date of^{receipt of a} copy of this^judgrnent. On such deposit, the^{petitionersare} permitted to wittLdraw their respective share amounts. The enhanced amottnt sha11 be apportioned in the^{manner as} are ordered by the Tribunal. However, the^petitioners directed to pay l)ehcit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs

¶73

Miscellaneo;s petitions, if any are pending^shal1 stand

¶74

clo sed

¶75

Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( lI)

¶76

SECTION OFFICER

¶77

To,

¶78

The Chairman, l/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad.(with records)

¶79

One CC to MR. C M.Prakash, Advocate [OPUC]

¶80

One CC to Mr Thoom Srinivas, Advocate

¶81

Two CD Copies

k,an

Po^u.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 30.06.2023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

e o/.
4 SEP 2m C)
{'
,1 i
\ \ + c1)
rJ
:- )

¶88

MACMA.No.32S1 of 2014

¶89

ALLOWING THE: MACMA, WITHOUT COSTS

¶90

Prrr0.. t\t-9

¶91

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶92

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶93

PRESENT

¶94

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶95

MACMA NO.3 51oF 2014

¶96

Between:

¶97

V.Devi Wo late V.Denya

¶98

V.Sunitha D/o late V.Denya

¶99

V.Bataji S/o tate V.Denya

¶100

V.Sai Kumar S/o late V.Denya

¶101

(Petitioners 3 and 4 being minors represented by their mother the 1"t petitioner)

¶102

V.Sona Wo late V.Sakku

¶103

.. Appellants

¶104

AND

¶105

t state Road rransport coproration Udayagiri

¶106

BSEST Y,?:?ffifi lft 3ll;7"t5?lg,?ll

¶107

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Trancnnrr .inrzra.-

¶108

Dii;a6.., bio BG"di,;;;1f^ffSr'":i:l:rfifiTgTsxon^{rep bv its Manasins} .Respondents

¶109

Appeal fired under section .17! ot-M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.12.20213 made in rr,|voF ruo.zod oF 2013, on the fire of the court of the chairman' Motor Accidents ctaims irrarnri"rr-cr,iuiirig",'c,ty Civil Court,Hyderabad

¶110

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order and Decree of the court berow-, the ,'iGt5i papers in the originar petition 3nq:qoj^{hearingthe argumenrsof Mr. c.M.piai"rri,airo"rl"'i"r-ilE'npp"i[.t,} and Sri Thoom Srinivas, SC TSRTC for ttre Respondlnt ruos.t and Z .

¶111

This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

¶112

21^{. That this Appeal be and here by allowed in MACMA;} . That the compensation a19y1i 1ryarOed by the iriLrnat is hereby enhanced from Rs.4,57,000/- to Rs 11,0a,_2!0t (RupeL, uf"r"n lakhs four th;r;;;; t*; hundred onty) with interest at7.5% f.a.'rrom inu Jrt" of petition till the date of realization;

¶113

That the respo.dents are directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy oi this judgment;

¶114

4 That on such deposit, the petitioneis ar" p"r-.ittud to withdraw their respective share amounts;

¶115

That the enhanced amount shal be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal;

¶116

6 That however, tre petitioners are directed to pay Deficit court Fee on the enhanced amount

¶117

That there is no rtrder as to costs.

¶118

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REODY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (

-tr>

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Chairman, l/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (with records)

¶123

2 Two CD Copies

?ru^.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 30.06.,2023

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.No.3251 ot 2014

¶129

ALLOWING THEI MACMA, WITHOUT COSTS

¶130

@-p^q, r\k\r-'r

V.Devi v. Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Devi v. Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Korlapati Pradeep Kumar, Khammam Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Dr.M.Ravinder Reddy, Vs Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Adilabad

J Hari Venkata Vaddi Babu, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs R.Shekhar, R.R. Dist 7 Anr.

Masadi Linga Rao and 3 Others Vs Vardineni Narsinga Rao and 2 Others

Smt R. Andalu, Vs S. Narsa Reddy

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nelli Mallesham and 3 Others