Allowed

Silmantula Laxmi and 2 Others v. M.A. Muqeem and Another

Telangana HC26 Sept 2023MACMA/3450/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The High Court of Telangana held the original award meager, enhanced the compensation by calculating future prospects and funeral expenses based on Supreme Court precedents, and allowed the appeal with increased quantum.

What did the court decide?

Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,75,000/- to Rs. 7,30,600/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.

Silmantula Laxmi and 2 Others Vs M.A. Muqeem and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

i I i

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT C lVlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3450 OF²⁰¹¹

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Order and Decreeⁱⁿ M.V.O.P.No. 578 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor^{AccidentClaims} Tribunal -cum- | Additional District Judge, Adilabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Silmantula Laxml W/o.Late Lingaiah, aged 53^years, Occ:^{Beedi Roller,} Ri/o. H. No. 1^-'1 -528, Ramnagar, Nirmal District Adilabad.

¶10

Silmantula Nagamani,aged 33^years, Occ: Household, Wo. Kishan Household, R/o. H.No. 1-1-528, Ramnagar,^{Nirmal District} Adilabad.

¶11

Silmantula Neelima, D/o. Late Lingaiah,^{aged 23 years,Occ: Household,} Rl/o. H.No. 1-1-528, Ramnagar, Nirmal^{District Adilabad.}

¶12

...Appellants /Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

M.A. MUQEEM AND ANOTHER,^{S/o. M.A.Lateef, Owner of AutoBearing} NO. APo1v-2971, Rl/o. H.No. 3-5-1/30^{A, Madina Colony, Bhainsa, Adilabad} District.

¶15

The New lndia Assurance Company^{Limited,, Rep. by its Branch Manager,} Branch Office Old Bus Stand, Nirmal,^{AdilabadDistrict.}

¶16

...Respondents/Respondents

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRl.^{S SURENDER REDDY}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^{SRI T. RAMULU.}

¶19

The Court made the following JUDGEMENT:

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.No .34so oF 2011

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This M.A.C.M.A. is hled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gB by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30. r2.2oog passed in O.P.No.578 of 2OO7 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for short "the Tribunal") seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶24

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

¶25

3 Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶26

On O4.LO.2OO7 at about 4.30 p.m. while, the deceased Chilamantula Srinivas was travelling as a pillion rider along with his friend on a motor cycle bearing No.Ap_l_ 1010 towards Manjulapur Village, one Auto bearing No.Ap_ 0l-V-297L came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, both iell on the road, and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police Nirmal (Rural) has registered a case in Cr.No.66 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 304_A IpC

¶27

against the driver of the offending^{vehicle. The deceast:d was} ha-le and heaithy, aged about^{28 years at the time of the} accident. The accident occurred^{due to rash and nt:gligent} driving of the offending vehicle's driver.^{Therefor:e,the} petitioners filed a claim petition claiming^{compensationof} Rs.6,00,000/-

¶28

Before the Tribunal, the lst^{respor-rdent fileda counter} denying the averments made in the^{claim petition. The2na} respondent filed a counter denying the^{averments made in the} claim petition, including the manner^{in which the accident} occurred, age, avocation and income^{of the deceased' It is} further contended that the compensation^{claimedis excessive} ar-rd prayed to dismiss the claim^petition.

¶29

PWs.l and 2 were examined^{and marked Exs.Alto} A8 to prove the petitioners' case.^{No ora[ or doc'umentary} evidence was adduced on behalf of^{the respondents.}

¶30

After considering the oral and^dor:umentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal^{alvarded iln amount} of Rs.1,75,000/- u,ith interest @ 7.5^{o/o p€r aflDUnrfromthe} date of petition till the date of realisation^{to be paid by the}

¶31

¶32

respondents. Challenging the same, the petitioners have hled the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶33

7 Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶34

8 l,earned counsel appearing [or the petitioners contended that the petitioners examined PWs. 1 and 2 and filed Exs.A-l to A-8 and proved that the deceased died in the accident. Though there is no rebuttal evidence by the respondents either oral or documentary, the Tribunal erred in not awarding the total compensation as claimed by the petitioners. Though the deceased was working as a welder and earning Rs.8,OOO/- per month, the Tribunal erred in hxing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,OOO/-. The Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation under other heads. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and unjustifrable.

¶35

9 Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd lssp6ndsnt contended that after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has ar,r'arded just compensation, which needs no interference.

¶36

¶37

The finding of the Tribunal with regard to thc manner in rvhich the accident took place has become [inal, as the respondents do not challenge the same.

¶38

1 1. lnsofar as the quantum of compensaLtion is concerned, the petitioners stated that the deceased worked as a Welder and earncd Rs.8,000/- per month. The petitioners have filed Ex.A-6 to show that the deceased has obtained a passport and trx.A-7 to show that the deceased was vvorking as a road ntaintenance worker. However, the decea.sed was young in age and he is capable of earning sufficie.ntly. In those circumstances, by relying upon the ludgment of this Court in UMTDD INDIA IIISUR./IJVCE COMhANY LTD., HYDERABAD Vs. T.GANDAMMA AND OTIIERSi, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,O0O/_ per month, which is very meager. In the changed circumsrances, even a coolie is getting a monthly income of Rs.4,500/ _. Therefore, as per the decision of the Honble Apex Court in RAMCIIANDRAPPA Vs. IYIANA@f,R, R2YAL \UNDARAM ALLIANCE I fSURA/rcE COM9ANY LIMITED2, this Courr is inclir-red to lix the monthly income of the dec:eased at

¶39

'^{loog((,) ,\L.D r 19} (t01t)lts(ct16

¶40

¶41

Rs.4,500/- per month. Apart from the same, the petitioners are entitled to an addition of 4Oo/o towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/-⁺ Rs.1,800/-). From this, 5O% is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased following Sa,rla Verma a. Delhi Transport Corporationt as the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident. After deducting 50% towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.3,150/- per month. As the deceased's^{age was} 28 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '17'. Adopting multiplier 17, the total loss^of earnings comes to Rs.3,150/ - x 12 x 17 = Rs.6,42,600/-.^The Tribunal awarded ar amount of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is very meagre. However, the petitioners^are entitled to Rs.33,0OO/- (Rs. 15,OOO/-⁺ Rs.15,OOOl-^{+ lOo/ol} towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, as^{per Pranag} Sethi's case (supra). Further, considering^{the fact that the l"t} petitioner is the mother of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of^{the filial}

¶42

'^{2oo9 RcJ1298(sc)}

¶43

¶44

consortlum as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magrna General Insurance Compang Limited. v. Nornu Ram @ Chuhru Ro,m and others+, The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection, which is very meagre and therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards love and affection. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,30,600/_.

¶45

The Tribunal has awarded the rate of irrterest at 7.5o/o per annum, which needs no interference by this Court.

¶46

Though the claimed arnounr is Rs.6,00,000/_, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Rc;esh us. Rajbir Singhs, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empou'ered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.

¶47

Thus, the petitioners a_re entitled to the enhanced compensation ol Rs.7,30,600 l_ as against the awarded amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-.

¶48

'(20r8) rs scc [o

¶49

'^{,IANU lit' o.ls()} 20 r

¶50

¶51

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. l,75,OOO/- to Rs.7,30,600/- (Rupees seven lakh thirty thousand six hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners in the sarne proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts. However, the petitioners are directed to deposit the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. No order as to costs.

¶52

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand

¶53

closed.

¶54

Sd/- K.^VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶55

;"t/

¶56

/TTRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶57

¶58

1 The Chairman,^{MotorAccident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District} Judge,^{Adilabad. (With Records).}

¶59

2 One CC to^{SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Advocate IOPUC]} J [oPUC] one cc^{to sRl r.} HlYSuP'*ate

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2610912023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3450 ot 2011

¶64

1rr e STAfei
(
Jq ,
C.j 13 0EC 208 ::o
*
's'1)
EsPAlC'

ALLOWING THE MACMA

WITHOUT COSTS

b
(
7t ll Lo)Z

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶69

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶70

PRESENT

¶71

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶72

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3450 OF 2011

¶73

Between:

¶74

Silmantula Laxml W/o.Late Lingaiah, aged 53 years, Occ: Beedi Roller, Ri,/o. H.No. 1 -'l -528, Ramnagar, Nirmal District Ad ilabad.

¶75

Silmantula Nagamani,aged 33 years, Occ: Household, Wo. Kishan Household, Rlio. H.No. 1-1-528, Ramnagar, Nirmal District Adilabad.

¶76

Silmantula Neelima, D/o. Late Lingaiah, aged 23 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o. H.No. 1-1-528, Ramnagar, Nirmal District Adilabad.

¶77

...Appellants /Petitioners

¶78

AND

¶79

1 . M.A. MUOEEM AND ANOTHER, S/o. M.A. Lateef, Owner of Auto Bearing NO. APO1v-2971, R/o. H.No. 3-5-1l30 A, Madina Colony, Bhainsa, Adilabad District.

¶80

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited,, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office Old Bus Stand, Nirmal, Adilabad District.

¶81

...Respondents/Respondents

¶82

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Order and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 578 ol 2OOl on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims ' Tribunal -cum- | Additional District Judge, Adilabad.

¶83

ORDER: This appeal coming for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papersin MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate for the appellants and Sri T. Ramulu, Advocate for the Respondent M.2^.

¶84

This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

¶85

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal is enhanced from Rs.'t ,75,000/. (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand oniy) to Rs.7,30,600/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred only) with interest @ 7 .5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶86

That the Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, il any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶87

That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts werer directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal.

¶88

4 On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their 1g5ps61iys share amounts. However, the Petitioners are directed to deposit the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount.

¶89