Allowed

A. Chandramma and 3 Others v. Md. Nazeer and Another

Telangana HC29 Aug 2023MACMA/3312/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the compensation award in a motor accident death claim. The High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.4,16,000 to Rs.9,24,000 by recalculating loss of dependency, allowing filial consortium, and increasing funeral expenses, directing deposit within two months.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.9,24,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondents directed to deposit amount within two months.

A. Chandramma and 3 Others Vs Md. Nazeer and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE N/VENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3312^{OF 2012}

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against^{the Judgment} and decree in O.P.No.670/2O11 dated.16l08l2112 on the file of the^{Court of the} Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief^{Judge, City Civil} Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

A. Charrdramma Wo. Narsimha, Occ Household, R/o. Ambetipally^(Village) Lingala-Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶10

A.Narsimha,, S/o. Latchumaiah, R/o. Ambetipally^(Village) Lingala-lvlandal' Mahaboobnagar District.

¶11

A. Ramakrishna, S/o. Narsimha R/o. Ambetipally^{(Village) Lingala-[Vland al,} Mahaboobnagar District.

¶12

A.Jamadhagni,, S/o. Narsimha R/o. Ambetipally^(Village) Lingala-Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶13

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 MD. Nazeer, S/o. Md. Dawood, Occ Business, R/o. 75, GF Tigore^School, Yellammabanda, Hyderabad.

¶16

2 The Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by^{its Deputy Manager} (Legal) 608% 609, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI^REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None appeared

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI. A RAMAKRISHNA^REDDY

¶21

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAMAVARAP'U^RAJESHWARRAO

¶23

M.A.C.M.A.NO.3312 0F 2012

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

This M.A.C.M.A. is hled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved 1n by the order and decree dated 16.08.2012,^passed O.P.No.67O of 2Ol1 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad^(for short "the Court below").

¶26

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 163 ol the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,0O,O0O/on account of the death of A-Kalyan (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") stating that on 14.05.2010 at about 12.40 hours, near Shifting office, Coca-cola company, Ammenpur, Patancheru, Medak District, the deceased was tagging the tadpatri on the lorry bearing No.AP-16-U-7247 after it was loaded with coca-cola bottles. While so, the driver of the

¶28

RRN I MAC[rA No -]l l2 of20l2

¶29

¶30

lorry bearing No.AP-15-T-5599^{drove it in a rash and} negligent manner from inside^{the premisesof the coca-cola} company and dashed the^{lorry bearingNo.AP-16-U-7247.} Due to the impact, the^{deceasedwas crushedin between the} two lorries and sustained^{grievous injuries. Immediately, he} was shifted to Mamatha Hospital,^{Kukatpally, and was} admitted there for treatment.^{While undergoing treatment} in the said hospital,^{he died of the injuriessustainedby him} on 23.05.2010. On a complaint,^{the Ramachandrapuram} Police Station registered a^{case in Crime No. 172 of 2010} under Section 337^IPC and^{after the death of the deceased,} the section of the law^{was altered as 304-4IPC against the} driver of the crime lorry.^{Hence, the claim petitionis} seeking compensation^{of Rs.5,OO'OOO/ -.}

¶31

Before the Court below,^{respondentNo.l set ex parte'} Respondent No.2^{filed a counter denyingthe allegationsmade} in the claim petition.^{Theymainlycontendedthat the driver} of the crime lorry^{did not possessa valid drivinglicense at the} time of the accident and^{prayed to dismissthe O.P.}

¶32

In support of their case,^{the petitionerexaminedas} PW. 1 and PW.2 and got marked^{Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of}

¶33

RRN.] MACMA No.l3l2 ol20l2

¶34

¶35

the No.2, no oral^{evidencewas produced.However,the copy} of the insurance policy of the^{crime lorry was markedas} Ex.B1.

¶36

On appreciation of the evidence^{on record, the Court} below allowed the O.P. in^part by^{awarding compensationof} Rs.4,16,0O0/- with interest @7oh^{p.a. from the date of} petition till the date of realizafion. Aggrieved^{by the same, the} present appeal is filed by appellants/^petitioners.

¶37

Heard both sides and^perused the^record.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted^{that the} Court below ought to have considered^{the fact that the} deceased was working as a cleaner^{and was earning} Rs.6,OO0/- per month. However, it erred^{in considering the} income at Rs.4,5O0/- per month^{without taking into} consideration the future^{prosPects and the Court below} ought to have seen that the^{f,nd petitioneralso suffering from} ill-health as such, he was also^{dependanton the deceased.} The Court below failed to award the^{compensationon} various heads claimed by the^{petitioners. Accordingly,} prayed to allow the appeal.

¶39

¶40

RRN,J MAclvlA No.rl l2 ol20l2

¶41

g. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent^No'2 submitted that^{as per the learned counsel for the petitioners'} the deceased is^{working as a cleaner, but no evidence} produced. The Court^{belowrightlyfixed the income of the} deceased Rs.4,500/-^{p.m. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss} the appeal.

¶42

Learned counsel^{appearingfor thepetitioners} contended that the^{deceasedwas aged 20 years,workingas} a cleaner, and^{earning Rs.6,OOO/-per month' But' the} petitioners did not^{produceany evidence to that effect' As} such, the Court^{below fixed the monthlyincome of the} deceased at Rs.4,500/-^onlY.

¶43

This Court,^{having considered the contention of the} counsel for^{petitioners and on perusal of the materialon} record, is inclined^{to fix the monthly income of the} deceased at Rs.5,O00/-.^{To this, 4O"h of future prospects} are added as the^{deceased was aged 20 yearsas per the} decision in National^{InsuranceCorntrtang Limited rts} Pranag Sethi and^{otherst. Thus, the monthlyincomeof}

¶44

'(2o17)^{16 scc680}

¶45

¶46

RRN.J l\tA( l,tA No llI2 0f20Il

¶47

the deceased is Rs.5,OOO/- + 4Oo/o Rs.7,OOO/- and annually, it comes to Rs.84,OO0/- (Rs.7,O00 /- x l2l.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased was a bachelor and the Court below rightly deducted 50% of the deceased income deceased towards his personal expenditure. Even as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Venna Vs. Delhi T?:anspot:t Corporation2, this Court is inclined to deduct @5O%o of the income of the deceased and the same is to be deducted from the annual income and it comes to Rs.42,O0O/(Rs.84,000 - 50%).

¶49

He further submitted that the Court below wrongly took the age of the deceased mother and applied multiplier '13'. But, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarlc Vertna (supra) is 18. Hence, the deceased income i.e. Rs. 2,O0O/- is to be multiplied with '18'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,56,000/(Rs.42,O00/- x 18).

¶50

'(zoos)^{o scctur}

¶51

¶52

RRN J N, Aclvl A No l3l2 ol20l2

¶53

The Court below did not grant any amount under^the head of 'filial consortium'. However, the petitioner^{Nos.1 and} 2 are entitled for compensation under 'filial^{consortium'as} per the decision of the Hon"ble Apex Court in Magma Insurance Cotrytang Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @Chuhnt^Ram3 and this Court is awarding Rs.4O,OOO/-^{eachto petitioners 1} and 2. The Court below did not award^{compensationunder} the head 'Loss of estate'. As per Pranag Sethi^(supra),this Court is inclined to grant Rs.16,500/-^{(Rs. 15,OOO/-+ lO"h)} and the Court below was awarded^{Rs.1O,OOO/-towards} 'funeral expenses', but as per the Pranag Setht^(supra) ,^it has to be increased to Rs.16,500/-^(Rs.15,OOO/- + lOYo) The Court below awarded Rs.S,OOO/- towards^transportand Rs.50,OO0/-toward medical expenses, it^is rightly^granted, needs this Court requires no interference.

¶54

Therefore, this Court is inclined to^enhancethe quantum of compensation as under:

¶55

Head	Amount arrived atbythe Court below	Amount arrived at bythisCoutt
Lossof	Rs.3,51,OOO/-	Rs.7,56,000/-
de denc
Lossoffilial	I nil	Rs.8O,OOO/-

¶56

32O 18 Law Suit (SC) 904

¶57

¶58

RRN ] MACI{ No.lll2 otl0l2

¶59

¶60

consortium		(40,OOO+4O,OOO)
Loss of estate	nil	Rs.16 soo/-
Funeral	Rs.1O,00O/-	Rs.16,5OO/-
ex ENSCS Transportation	Rs.5,000/^-	Rs.5,OOO/-
Medical	Rs.50,O00/-	Rs.5O,OOO/-
e enses
Total	Rs.4,16,OOO1-	Rs.9,24,OOO/-

¶61

The Court below^{granted interest} @^{7% p.a. as the} interest rate was^{prevailing at that time. This Court awards} interest @7.5o/o P.a.^{on the enhanced amount.}

¶62

L6. Though the claimed^{amount is Rs.5,OO,0O0/-in view} of the law laid down^{by the Honble Supreme Court in} RaJesh as. RaJbir^{Singha,and in a catena of decisions,this} Court is empowered to^{grant compensationbeyond the} claimed amount. However,^the appellant/petitioner^{shall pay} the deficit Court^{fees on} the^{enhanced compensation.}

¶63

L7. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A^{isallowed, and the} compensation amount awarded by the^{Court below is} enhanced from Rs.4,16,000/- to^{Rs.9,24,Ooo/-(Rupees}

¶64

a uauuTscTo+8o/2013.

¶65

¶66

RRN,J MA('MA No ll l2 ol" 2012

¶67

Nine Lakhs and Twent5r Four Thousand only) with interest @7.5^{o/" p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of} petition till the date of realization. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after 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 in the same ratio as determined by the Court below, subject to payment of the deficit Court fee within two months receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶69

closed.

¶70

SN'. P PADMANABHA^REODY' --''abiisraNr REGISTRAR.

¶71

//TRUE COPY//

¶72

SECTION^OFFICER

¶73

To, 1 The Chairman Judge, City^{Civil Motor Court Accident (rast i'ict< Claims Court)' Tribunal-cum- Hyderabad lX (With records' AdditionalChiefif any)} 2 6"JcCt,i snr.^{JAGATHPAL REDDYxnsr ireoov'Advocate[oPUC]} ? o;; aa io^{snr. n RAMAKRISHNA REDDY' Advocate [oPUC]} 4 Two CD CoPies

ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:2910812023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3312 of 2012

¶79

1 $E SrAr €'
(
q
2
ooJ 2 3 JAN 202[ C)
.<br>*
.,rrJ ,
.oas

¶80

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶81

b
D-Y

¶82

rN rHE HrGH "orIfSIotJtoBt#E

¶83

oF TELANGANA

¶84

TUESDAY,^{THETWENTYNINTH DAY OF AUGUST} '"-"iruo rHousAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶85

PRESENT

¶86

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶87

MOTO^{R ACCID ENTCIVILMISCE LLANEO US APPEAL NO:3312oF 2012}

¶88

Between:

¶89

1 A Charrdramma Wo^{Narsimha'-Occ Household' R/o Ambetipally (Village)} ' Lid;;-ivlr;oai, uanauoounasar District

¶90

A.Narsimha,,^{S/oLatchumaiah'R/o Ambetipally (Village)Lingala-Mandal'}

¶91

Mahaboobnagar^District

¶92

A. Ramakrishna,^{Sio Narsimha R/o Ambetipally (Village)Lingala-Mandal'}

¶93

Mahaboobnagar^District'

¶94

A.Jamadhagni,,^{S/o NarsimhaR/o' Ambetipally(Village) Lingala-Mandal'} Mahaboobnagar^District'

¶95

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶96

AND

¶97

' MD. Nazeer,^{S/o Md' Dawood' Occ Business' R/o 75' GF Tigore School'} Ve-llammabanda'^HYderabad

¶98

The Baiai^{Allianz General lnsurance Co Ltd ",Repby its Deputy Manager} aeg u mpet'^Hvderabad

¶99

' ii:"s il'6b'8;/""60^g, w'nli"' H "'ie'

¶100

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶101

Appeal^{filedUnderSection 173of Motor VehiclesAct againstthe Judgment} and decree^{in O.P.No'670/iott a""a tolo8t2o12 on the file of the Courtof the} chairman^{MotorAccidentclim, rriornrl-cum-tX AdditionalchiefJudge,city civil} Court^{(Fast Track Court), Hyderabad'}

¶102

ORDER:^{This appeal coming on for hearingand upon perusingthe grounds'of} appeal,^{the Judgment} 'na^{O""'"""otthe Lower Court and the material papersin the} case and^{upon hearing *"';;;;;tit} "t^{tl'..i|9lIIPALREDDY KAsl REDDY'} A RAMAKRISHNA^{REDDY' Advocatefor the} Advocate^{for the Appella"t} '""Jinr' nesponAent^{No.2and none appeared for the respondent no-1}

¶103

This Court doth^{Order and Decree as follows:}

¶104

That the^{MotorAccidentcivil lvliscellaneousAppealbe and hereby is allowed}

¶105

,nJ tf'. compensation^{awarded by the Tribunalis.enhancedfrom} n"J,ro,oool-^{to Rs.9,24,000/-( Rupees Nine-Lakhs and Twenty Four} fhor.rna only)^{with interest atihe'rate of 7 '5o/o perannum on the enhanced} amount from^{t-hedateof petition till the dateof realization;}

¶106

Ihalthe^{RespondentsNo.1 and 2 be andhereby are directed to deposit the} said amount^{with cost and interest afterdeducting the amount, if any,already} deposited within^{two months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this} Judgment;

¶107

That on Such^{deposit, the petitioners be and hereby arepermitted to withdraw} the sameⁱⁿ the^{same ratio as determined by the Tribunal,Subiectto payment} of th" d"fi"it court^{fee withintwo months receipt of a copy of this judgment;}

¶108

That save as aforesaid,^{the decree of the LowerCourt shall stands confirmed} in all other resPects;^and

¶109

That save^{as aforesaid, the decree oftheLowerCourt shall Stands confirmed} in all other resPects;^and

¶110

That there^{be no order as to costs in this appeal}

¶111

SD/- P PADMANABHA^REDDY' ASSISTANT REGIS RAR.

¶112

//TRUE COPY//

¶113

SECTION OFFICER

¶114

To, I The Chairman Motor^{Accident ClaimsTribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief} .f rJg", City Civil^{Court (FastTrack Court), Hyderabad (With records'if any)}

¶115