Partly allowed

Omprakash Dodiya v. Ravindra Sai and Another

Telangana HC25 Sept 2023MACMA/3466/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award, the High Court held that the insurer must pay compensation under a 'pay and recover' principle despite policy violations. The court enhanced the compensation awarded to the petitioner from Rs. 3,45,000 to Rs. 8,10,600.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,10,600 with interest; insurer directed to deposit amount and permitted to recover from vehicle owner.

Omprakash Dodiya Vs Ravindra Sai and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE Of TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD

¶3

MONDAY. THE T\A/ENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ANO TWENryTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCE NEOUS APPEAL NO: 66 0F 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 2663 of 20O6 dated 12.03.2009 on the fite of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional Metropolitan & Session Judge cum XVlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Q1ry9t9^s1_^{O-oOiya,S/oBhagr,\randasDodiya, aged3O years,Occ: Employee} R:/o 11-1323, Aghapura Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Ravindra Sai, S/o Venkata Narayana, R/o. Gollapudi pothipadu. Guntur District.

¶13

The Oriental lnsurance Compqny Limited, Represented by its Sr. Divisional Manager .D.O.|V, pawani Esiates, Besid; MCH Oifi"",^- Xtii.tioJ. Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appe[ants: SRl. C VIKRAM CHANDRA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N S BHASKAR RAO

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3466 OF 20 1 1

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded and the exoneration of the 2d respondent-lnsurance Company from the liability of paying the compensation vide award and decree dated 17.O3.2O09 passed in O.P.No.2663 of 2006 on the hle of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVIll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short "the court belo'"d'), the appellant/ petitioner preferred the present appeal.

¶22

For convenience, the parties hereinal'tcr^,,vill be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court^below.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that^{on 22.052005 at} about 2.15 a.m. while the^{petitioner and his frictlds rrt:rc} coming on a motorcycle from^{Palace Heights Hotel to} Agapura. and when they^{reached Abids X roads, onc DCM} Van bearing No.AP-07-TT-0996^{drivenby its drrverrashlv}

¶24

RRN,J M.A.C.rr1.A.No. 3<66 of^20l1

¶25

¶26

and negligently,, dashed against the^{motor cycle. As a} result, the petitioner sustained a^grievous head injury^and was immediately shifted to the NIMS Hospital for treatment. The Police Abids has registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was working as an Accountant-cum-Godown Incharge and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to the head injury and other injuries all over the body, the petitioner was unable to recognize his family members; he underwent a mqior operation and spent Rs.3,00,00O/ - towards medical expenses and treatment. Therefore, the petitioner filed the O.P. against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

¶27

Before the court below, the lsr respondcnt rcmatned ex-parte. The 2"a respondent filed a countcr clcnying all the averments made in the claim petition.

¶28

To prove the petitioner,s case, pWs. t to 4 were exarnined and Exs.Al to Al4 and Exs.X_l and X 2 u,erc marrked. On behalf of the respondents, RW. I u,as examrrred :rnd Exs_B- l to B_3 were marked.

¶29

RRN,J M a C.M.A.No-146,6 of 201I

¶30

¶31

After considering the^{oral and documentary} evidence available^{on record,the Courtbelow awardedan} amount of Rs.3,45,000/-^{with interest} @^{7 'SYo per annum} from the date of Petition^{till the date of realization to be} paid by respondent No.l^{alone and the claimagainstthe} 2'd respondent^was dismissed.^{Challengingthe said order,} the petitioner^{has filed the present appeal'}

¶32

Learned counsel^{appearingfor the petitioner} contended that^{the court belowerred in not assessing the} compensation^{as per the SecondSchedule of the M'V'Act} and thus awarded^{meager compensation to the petitioner'} The court below^{failed to take into considerationthe} evidence relied^{on by the petitionerwith regard to his} earnings frorn^{the employmentand it failed to appreciate} the ora-l and^{documentaryevidenceplaced belore it while} assessing^{and awarding the compensation' The court below} failed to^{appreciatethe evidencc o[ the doctor' rvho was} examined^{as PW.4,and the court belowfailed to take into} consideration^{the disabilitycertificate issued b1' the NIMS} Hospital.^{The Court below has not au'arded just}

¶33

RRN,J M.A-C.M-A-tlo- 3466 of 201I

¶34

¶35

compensation under other heads and therefore,^{the amount} awarded by the court below is very meager and unjustifiable.

¶36

l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner further. contended that the court below ought to have considered that even if there is any violation of policy terms and conditions committed by the owner of the vehicle, the court below ought to have directed the Insurance Company initia-lly to pay the compensation to t}re 3.a parties and to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle_ He relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Compang Llmited us Swaro,n Singh & others.r He also relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Shamanna V. Diuisonal Manage4 the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.z

¶37

No.2/lnsurance Company contended that since the l.r respondent has violated the terms and conditions o[ ttre

¶38

,r(x)+ t.l) scc 297 l(r! li(9r tSC |^,7)(

¶39

¶40

RRN,J M,A.C.M.A. No.l,{66 of 20'11

¶41

lnsurance policy, the court beiow was justified 1n dismissing the claim against the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶42

Upon bare reading of the impugned order, it is observed that the court below found that the 2"d respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to^pay compensation. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the policy was not in force as of accident date. The Honble Supreme Court in Swaran^{Singh (supra)and} in^ttre catena of decisions directed^{the Insurancc Companyto pay the} compensation, and^{liberty is granted to it to recoverthe paid} arnount from the^{owncro[ the vchiclc in case of violation of} the conditions o[^{the [nsurance Policy. InShamanna} (supra) the Honble^{Supreme Court held as under:}

¶43

7 1. In the^{presertt ca.s(',lo dt:rry the beneftt of 'pay} and recouer',^{u;/rot sccrn.s to hauesubstantioLly} weighed uith^{the H9LL ()tturl is the referenceto} lorger Bench^{mode bg the tLuo'JudgeBench} in NationaI^InsuronceCo Ltd u. Paruothneni and another (2OO9t B^{SCC 785 uhich doubtedthe} correctness of^{Llrc dcc'tsi<tristchicht exerciseof} juri.sdictiort unrfu:r Arick'^I !) of^{the Cottstittttionof}

¶44

¶45

RRN,J M.A-C-M.A.No. 3456 of 201 1

¶46

i ! i i i I t I

¶47

i J I i l

¶48

India directing tnsurance c,ampanq to pag tLrc @mpensation amount euen though insurance campanv lrf,s no liability to WA. In paruathneni @se, tllE Supreme Court pointed. out that Article 142 of the Constitutton of India does rwt auer such type of cases an-d. tfnt "if the insurance @mpanA hos no lia.bility tD Wg at all, then, it connot be ampelled by order of th.e court in ererci.se of its jurisdiction under Arttcle 142 of the Constitution of Ind.ia to pag the compensation amount and later on recouer it from the owrer of the uehicle". The aboue reference in^paruathneni cose has been d.isposed of on 17.09.2013 bg the tfueeJudges Bench keeptng the questions of lata open to be decid.ed in an oppropriate case."

¶49

Since the reference to the larger bench in Paruatfuteni case hns been d.isposed of bg keeping the questtons of law open to be d.ecid.ed in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Suaran Singh case fo oued in Loxmi Narain Dhut and other cases hold the fietd. The award passed by the Tribunal directing lhe irtsurance companA to pag th-e ampensation omount autarded. to the claimants and. thereafter, recouer the same from the owner of the uehicte h questiort, rs in acardance uith the judgntent po-ssed bg this Court in Suaran Singh and. LaxntL Narain Dhut

¶50

¶51

RRN,J M.A.C.M. A- No.l466 0f 2011

¶52

¶53

coses. WTLile so, in our utew, the High Court ought not to haue interfered uith the atuard passed bg the Tibunal directing the first respondent to paA and reauer from tle owner of the uehicle. Tle impugned judgment of the High Court exonerattng the tnsurance companA from its liability and directing the claimants to recouer the compensation from^{the ou.tnerof the uehicle is set aside and the} aluard passed by the Tribunal is restored.

¶54

So far as the recouery of the amount from tte outner of the uehicle, tLLe irsurance companA sha,ll recouer as held in tLLe deci.sion in Oiental Insurance Co. Ltd. u. Naniappan and alhgrB^{(2OO4) 13 SCC 224 utLere this Courl held} that^" . ...that for th.e purpose of recouering the some from^{the insured, the irsurershallnot be required} to file a suit. lt moA initiate a^proceeding before^the concented Executing Court as if the^dispute betueen the insurer and the ouner^{utas the} subject matter of determination^{beforethe Tibunal} ond the issue is^{decidedagainst the outnerond in} fauour^{of tLre insurer."}

¶55

I 1. Appl-ving the above^{decisions to the presentcase, this} Court is of thc^{vlew that the 2"d respondent/ [nsurance} Compan,u'cttrt^{bc directed to pay the compensation amount}

¶56

¶57

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.tlo.3166 of 2011

¶58

to the petitioner and recover the same from the respondent No.l as it is established that the policy issued by the 2na respondent in favour of the l"t respondent was very much in force as on the date of the accident.

¶59

Before the court below, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent submitted that since the lst respondent violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the 2"a respondent is not liabte to pay compensation to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court n NEW INDIA also the judgment of the Madras High Court in ASIRUAfiIAM AND OTHERS Vs. G.CTIANDRAS.EIAIRAJV AND ANOTHER4.

¶60

With regard ro fixing tiabitity, the Court below held as follows :-

¶61

It is evidence of R.W_ I that the crime vehicle is goods carry vehicle and the driver possessed LMV non transport and so R I Violated the terms and

¶62

'^{2oo9 (2)scJ4jo}

¶63

o 2oo8 ( l) AJR t92

¶64

¶65

RRN,J M.a.C.M. A. No.3465 of Z01t

i I I

1 il

conditions of ttre insurance policy and thereby they are not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. In support of the argument he submitted two decisions reported io 1) 2OO8 (1) AJR 792 Madras High Cour-t. in betueen Asiruo:tham and others .as, G,Chand.rasekara,n and another and. 2) 2OO8

¶70

(21 SCJ 47O in between New India Assurcnce Compang Limited as. Prabhu LcI. Advocate for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a third party and so both the decisions have no application.

¶71

Admittedly one K.Ravinder was the driver of the DCM van on that day and at the time of accident. Ex.B.3 is the R.C extract of the. said vehicle where the crime vehicle is goods carriage-LMV. Ex.B2 is the driving licence extract in the name of the said Ravindra who possessed LMV non transport. In the f-rrst decision, the driver o[ the vehicle possessed driving licence for driving heavy passenger vehicle and not possessed D. L for driving hear.y^goods vehicle. But the vehicle involved in^{the accidentis a} Iorry which is heavy^{goods vehicle.So, the tribunal} gave {inding that there is a breach of^{terms of the} insuralce and as such insurance^{company shall} not 1iab1e to pay the compensation^payable by^the owrrer of the vehicle. Whcn the matter went before the Honble High Court of Madras, the order o[ the

¶72

¶73

RRN,J M.A. C. rr^. A. No.3,{66 of 2011

¶74

tribunal confirmed and dismissed the appeal for the order against the insurance compary and modified the order enhalced the compensation to some extent. In the second decision, it is held that one Mohd.Julfrkar was driving the vehicle at the time of accident who possessed D.L for LMV and not possessed any driving licence for light goods carriage vehicle and so it is held that a light motor vehicle cannot always mean light goods carriage and accordingly confirmed the order of the lower court and set aside the order of the appellant court tagging the liability on insurance company. So, both these decisions directly applicabte and helpful in this case. Hence, R2 is not liable to pay the compensation awarded and the awarded compensation shall be payable by R I alone."

¶75

karned counscl appcaring for the 2nd respondent relied upon rhe .yudgment of the Honble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSI/R,AilCE COMpAity LIMITED Vs. SltZtR/llV SI IGIIS, whcrcin rhc Horr'blc Apex Court held as follows :-

¶76

"WHEN THE PERSON IIAS []F:EN ARANTED LICENCE F.oR ONE TYPE OF'I/I'I{ICLE I](IT A't.THE RELVANT r zool 1:; scc:lz

¶77

¶78

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.1466^{of 2011}

¶79

¶80

TIMD HE^{WASDRTWNGANOTHER TYPEOF} VECHILE:

¶81

84 Section 1O of tle^Act Provides for forms^and contents of lienes^{to d.riue'The licence hns to be} granted. in the^prescribed' form'^{T"ltts' a licence to} diue a light^{motor uehbb wouldentitlethe holder} there to diue^{the uehicte} falling^{uithin that class or} desciption.

¶82

Section 3 of^{the Act casts an obligatiott on a} driuer to^{Latd an effectiuediuing lience for the tgpe} of uehicle which^{le intendsto diue'Section 10 of the} Act enobles^{Centrol Gouemmentto prescribeformsof} diuing tienes for^{uaious @tegoriesof uehicles} mentioned in^{sub-section (2) of said section'The} uaious^{typesof uehicles d'escribedfor ruhich o dnuer} may obtain^{a licence} for^{otte or moreof themare (a)} Motorcgcle^{uithout gear,(b) motorcgclewith gear'(c)} inualid corrioge'^{(d) light motor uehicle'(e) transporl} uelicte,^{(fl road. rollerand (g) motoruehicteof otlter} spectfled^{descnption'TftE d"efnition clause in Section} 2of^{the Act d.efines uariouscategoies of uehicles} which^{are couered in brood' tApes mentionedin sub-} Theg^{are -goods canage} ' sectionh^{(2) of Section10} 'heouY-good.s uehicle" 'leauY Passeng(r tnolor 'rttaxruclttcle',^{'inualid cariage"'lightmotor-uehtcle'} cal;'.'rnedium^{goodsuehicle"'mediumpassettget} molor'uehicle','motor-cob"'motorclcle"'omft[bus'' ' p nu ate seruice uehicle"'semi-trailer"'^{tou nst u ehicle''}

¶83

¶84

RRN,J M.A.C.M.a.No.3,t56 of 20,|'l

¶85

ti ri

¶86

-tractor', 'trailer', and'transport uehicle'. ln claims for compensation for arcidents, uarious kinds of breacLes uith regard to the anditions of diuing liences arbe for^{ansid.eration before the Tibunal. Aperson} possessing a driuing liene for^'motorcgcle without gear', for uthich he has no lience. Cases mag also ari.se uhere a holder of diuing lience for^'light motor ueible' is found to be diuing a^{'moxi-cab', 'motor-cab'} or^'omnibus' for which hc h;o,s no licene. In each case on euidene led before the tibunal, a decision Lws to be taken whether the fact of the diuer possessing liene for one tgpe of uehicle but found drtuing another type of uehicle, u.tas the main or contributory cause of accident. U on facts, it is found thnt accident uas caused solelg because of some other uaforeseen or interuening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes hauing no nexus utith driuer not possessing requisite tgpe ol licence, the insurer taill rat be allowed to auoid its liabititg merely for technical breach of conditions conceming driuing licence.

¶87

We haue construecl and determined tLE scory of sub-clause (ii) of sub- section(2) of section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of m.edical flness cefltficate, requirement about age of tLre driuer and the ltke not found ro haue been the direct cause of the acctclent, Luould be treated. as minor breaches of inconserluential deuicttion in the matter of use of uelucles. Such minor and

¶88

¶89

RRN,J M.a.C.M-A. No.1466 of 2011

¶90

-::i:;;-:,
'/

¶91

,/,

¶92

inansequential deuiotions^{utithregardto licensing} conditions uould not canstitute^{sufficient ground. to} deny the benefit of auerage of^{insttrance to the third} parlies.

¶93

On all pleas of breach of liensirE^conditions taken bg the insurer, it would^{be opento the tibunal} to adjudicate the claim and decide^{inter se liobility of} insurer and insured; although^tuheresuch adjudication is likelg to^{entail undue delaytn decision} of the claim of tle uictim, tle^{tribunalin its discretion} may relegate th.e insurer^{toseek its remedyof} reimbursement from ttre nsared^{tn the ciuil court.}

¶94

In the present case,^{the crime vehicleis a goods} carrier vehicle, and^{the driver possessed LMV (non -} transportJ. So, the^{l"t respondenthas violated the terms} and condrtions^{of the insuraltcepolicy'In vieu' o[ caterrtt o[} decisions of^{the Honble Apex Court,as discussedabove'} the Insurance^{Company has to pay the entire amountto the} petitioner and^{recover the same from the vehicle 's ouner'}

¶95

I^(r With regard to^{the incomeof the pet itrotrcr ' tht'} 1tt:Litiortt:r^{stated that he was working as ar Act:outlt'tlltlll} Ambika^{Steelsand was ea-rning Rs'5'000i- per morrth and}

¶96

also earning^{Rs.3,500/- per month by steetloading and}

¶97

¶98

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.3466 of 2011

¶99

I !I

¶100

unloading and Ex.A-13 is the Salary Ceftificate. But, no authenticated document is filed in support of the said contention. As per Ex.A-12-lncome Tax Bill during the lrnancial year from OL.O4.2OO2 to 31.03.2003, wherein the total income noted as Rs.50,000/- and no tax was paid. As per Ex.A- 12, the salary was shown as Rs.36,000 l- and another amount Rs.26,000/- as sales commission. The second Saral form is for the frnancial year 2000-01 where the total income was shown as Rs.51,OO0/- and an amount of Rs. lO0/- was paid towards tax. So, the income as stated by the petitioner (i.e., Rs.5,000/- + Rs.3,500/-) is nor believable. The court below held that the injured is a private employee and when he is an Accountant there will not be any separate salary for the loading and unloading. The minimum wage of a labout is Rs.3,000/-. The court below observed that the earnings of the injured ranging from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4,000/- cannot be ruled out and fixed the income of the petitioner in between Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4,OO0/-, which is meager. In the changed circumstances, even a coolie is getting a monthty income o[

¶101

¶102

RRN,J M-A.C.M.A.No.1466 of²⁰¹¹

¶103

i ti t. 1

¶104

Rs.a,SOO/-.^{Therefore,as per the decision of the Hon'ble} Apex Court in^{RAMCIIANDRAPPAVs' MANAGER'ROYAL} SUNDARAM^{ALLIAI{CEI'VISURAIVCECOMPANYLIMIIEU'} this Court is inclined^{to fxthe monthlyincome of the} petitioner at Rs.4,500/-.^{As per NATIONAL IiISURAI{CE} COMPAMT LIMITED^{Vs. PRANAY SETHI ANDOTHERST, to} this, 40% is to be^{added towardsfuture prospects,which} comes to Rs'6,300/-^{(Rs'4,500/-+ Rs'1'800/-) and the} annual income^{would come to Rs.75,600/- (Rs'6,300/- x} 12). At the time^{of the accident,the age of the petitioner is} 26 years.^{As per the decisionof the Apex Court in SARLA} VERMA Vs.^{DELHITRAMPORT CORPORATI0NS'the} appropriate^{multiplierapplicablefor the age ofthc} petitioner is 17.^{The petitionerstated that he has} susta-rned^{50% disability and tothat effect' he has} Certificate.^{Therefore, this} produced^{Ex.X-2-DisabilitY} CourtisfixingthedisabilityatsookandthePetltloncrlS cntitled^{to Rs.6,42,5O0/- (Rs'75'6OO X 17 X 5O(){') to\tards} disability.^{The courtbelow awardedanamount of}

¶105

n(lotl)llscc216

¶106

' tol? AcJ l r00

¶107

, tooq AcJT rl98 (SC)

¶108

¶109

RRN, J M.A.C.M-4. No.1,165 of 2011

¶110

*li ffi

¶111

Rs.70,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment and Rs.2O,O00/- towards pain and suffering. This Court is granting another stun of Rs. 10,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.90,O0O/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,0O0/- towards medicines, extra nourishment and for pain and suffering. The petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. The petitioner stated that he was hospitalized for a period of 14 months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.63,000/- (Rs.a,500/- X 14) towards loss of earnings.

¶112

I i i

¶113

17 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the monttrly income of the petitioner may be fixecl at Rs.25,000/- per month. In support of his c:ontention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GURPREET ITAUR AND OTHERS Vs. UMTED INDU INSURANCE COWANT LIMITED AND OTIIERSe, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as [ollorr,s :-

¶114

lO-'l I.,!e l.iN (5C) 821

¶115

¶116

¶117

RRN, J M.A. C. M.A. No.1466 of 2Ol1

¶118

I I I : i

¶119

I !

¶120

"6. Keeping tn mind the rate at tthtch EMI wrLs being paid, the Tlibunol held. thet the d_eceased_ must be earning at least Rs. 2S,OOO/ _ per month prior to his death in tLe accident. Afier taking %th of month)y incom.e of the deceased toward s personal exrynses, the 'Tibunal applied multiplier of 1g and assessed the totat conTpensation as Rs. 43,75,000/ . Ttrc High Court, unforfiinatelg, ouerlooked. the factors relied. upon bg the Tibunal to assess the monthly income of th_e d.eceosed. at Rs. 25,OOO/- per montlL The High Court came to the conclusion thil tfle mere fact that tte d.eceased. tnd paid instalments of tfu loan could not itself be an euidence that the mDneA actuallg represented his income or can form the basis./or assessme nt of tncome of th-e deceased at Rs. 2S,OO0/- per montlL Taktng into consideration the Noti.,fi.cation issued by the State of Haryana, faing minimum uage ot the releuant time, tLrc High Court assessed the income of the d.eceased. at Rs. 7,000/- per month, and on this prembe, as stated aboue, the compensation was reduced.

¶121

We hnue heard learned counsel appeaing on beha{ of the parties and carefuLly perused the materiaL pLaced. on record.

¶122

8, Thougly there is no euidence on record regarding the income of deceased Pgara Singh, houteuer, fron the

¶123

¶124

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.3{66 of 2011

¶125

I il

¶126

testimonA of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar, Assisfant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited., it is clear tlat the deeased - Pgara Singh uas regularlg making the pagment of Rs. 1 1,550/ - as instalment to discharge his loan liability toutards the tractor. At this rate, the entire Ioon taas paid back utithin a gear or so. Tl'tnt clearlg establishes the earning capacity of th.e deceased. It is also the case of the appellants-claimants that the deeased was uorking as a contractor and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per montll Ttte Tribunal adopted a balaned approach and keeping tn uieu factors like : (i) the pagm.ent of monlhly instalment o/ Rs. ,l1,550/toutards loan of .the tractor; (it) Maintaining a familg compri.sing of wife, tuto minor chjldren and parents; (iii) Affording tractor and. motorcycle; (iu) that the deceased was uorking as a @ntractor,' assessed his income at Rs. 25,000/- per montll"

¶127

In the above case, the monthly income is calculated on the basis of EMIs paid by the deceased. Bur, in the present case, there are no EMI s paid and the petitioner has only produced his Salary Certificate. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.

¶128

¶129

RRN, J M.A.C.M. A. No.1466 of 2011

¶130

The Court below has rightly awardeci the rate of interest at 7 .5o/o per annum, which needs no interference by this Court.

¶131

In all, the peLitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8, 10,600/ -

¶132

2L. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the court below is enhanced from Rs.3,45,090/- to Rs.g,1O,6OO/- (Rupees eight lakhs ten thousand six hundred only) with inrerest@ 7.5^o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2"d respondent is directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same. The 2nd respondent/ [nsurance Compar-ry is at tiberty [o recover the amount from the l"trespondent/o\vner of the vehicle in accordance with [aw. Therc shall be no order as to costs.

¶133

¶134

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No. 3466 of 201 1

¶135

As a sequel, miscelLaneous petitions, if any are

¶136

pending, shall stand closed.

¶137

Sd/- NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHARRAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶138

¶139

sEcTtoN oFF|CER

¶140

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional Mefropolitan and Session Judge cum XV I Additionat Chiet Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶141

?. 9ne 99^{to SRl. C VTKRAM} QIANDRA, Advocare IOPUC]

¶142

Qne qq to sRt. N.S.BHASKAR RAo, Aoro"riJibCuq '

¶143

Two CD Copies

¶144

rcvnrer_trk

¶145

¶146

HIGH COURT DATED: 2510912023

¶147

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3466 of²⁰¹¹

¶148

l*
oc--1
*

¶149

PARTLY ALLOWING THE^MACMA

¶150

y4 6

¶151

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERAAAD

¶152

MONDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶153

PRESENT

¶154

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶155

MOTORACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEoUS^{APPEAL NO:3466OF 201'l}

¶156

Between:

¶157

Omprakash Dodiya, Sio.^{BhagwandasDodiya, aged30 years, Occ: Employee} No 11-1323, Aghapura Hyderabad.

¶158

...APPELLANT

¶159

AND

¶160

Ravindra Sai, S/o Venkata Narayana,^{fuo. Gollapudi Pothipadu,Guntur} District.

¶161

The Oriental lnsurance Company^{Limited, Representedby its Sr. Divisional} Manager D.O.lV, Pawani Estates, Beside^{tvlCH Office,Khairtabad,} Hyderabad.

¶162

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶163

Appeal filed under Section 173 of^t\ilotor Vehicles^{Act against the order} and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 2663 of^{2006 dated 17.03.2009on the file of the} Court of the Chairman Motor^{Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional} Metropolitan & Session Judge cum^{XVlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,} Hyderabad.

¶164

ORDER: This appeal coming on^{for hearingand uponperusingthe 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.^{C VIKRAM CHANDRA, Advocatefor} the Appellants and of SRI N S BHASKAR^{RAO, Advocatefor the Respondent No.2} and None Appeared for the^{respondentNo.1}

¶165

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶166

. That this appeal be and hereby is parfly allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the court below is enhanced from Rs.3,45,OgO/_ to Rs.8, 10,6001 (Rupees eight lakhs ten thousand six hundred only) with interest @ 7.So/o p.a. from the date of petition ti the date of realization;

¶167

2 That the 2d respondent be and hereby is directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶168

J That on such deposit, the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the same;

¶169

4 The 2nd respondent /lnsurance Company be and hereby is at tiberty to recover the amount from the 1"t respondenUowner of the vehicle in accordance with law;

¶170