Allowed

Parmila Tully and 3 Others v. T.Bhavani , Bharani and Another

Telangana HC4 Aug 2023MACMA/349/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 8,30,000 to Rs. 20,87,000. The court reassessed the deceased's income based on documentary evidence and awarded compensation under conventional heads like consortium, directing respondents to pay the enhanced amount within two months.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,87,000 with interest @ 7.5% p.a.; Respondents directed to deposit the amount with costs within two months.

Parmila Tully and 3 Others Vs T.Bhavani , Bharani… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

.t .. .^- rll' .', I_i. l .'

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE S1 ATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ,woii6ii..f,BUXJB?,i,!fr#ir"_r.T

" PRESENT

,,.r

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

MACMA NOi3490 F2014

¶8

¶9

'.i$t in O.p.No.20Appea 7 I Undei" of 2010 Sectiodated n 31.12.2O173 of Motor 12o Vehicles Act against the order and decree .r,,!}a , ,Jir:t r,: i:. (Mahila Motor Accident ClaimsCou rt)-cum-Xt Tribunal-cum_ Addin tional Metrothe fle of the Court of the Chatrman ,t-4, I Between: politan Sessions Jr.rdge X Additionat Chief Judge, City C

¶10

):r!t ,t.a r,min€l Court HFerabad. .B t...1.^parmila .Tully, ,a: ,i 392/4 ;Wloi. Late Brdce . .Tul

¶11

,a:.''t 2. Anitha /A/3, Melesasa rada Tully,NagaD/o. r, llew Late NallaB kunta, Iy, HyderabaOcc: Houd.seWfe R/o. H.No.2_1_ l:{ ,}li ruce ,TullY, Occ: ',! , 3 392t4tN3Mulroy 392t4/N3, , Neo, Sarada sI arada Tuily,,-NNa S/o., gar, . New Late ,.8Nallruce akunla,.Tul ly,HyderabaOcc: Studentd.Student, Ri/o. H No.2-14. H.P. Tuil aga r, New Na Ilakunta, Hyderabad R/o. H.No.2_.t_

¶12

) (Petitioner Sarada Nagar, New Y, No. 2Wlo. and LateNa3 beiO.A. Ilakunta,Tu[y, HyderabadOcc: Ho usewife, RIo. H.No.2-1_ 3g2t4/N3, ng minors rep. by mother and natural Guardian p.l)

¶13

AND ...CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS

¶14

¶15

'1b \ " ',11v^_i,- rf ,: 'rg 1: : ,l& i.:, : :t :, 't .r:, :

¶16

,lf ffi [il*"yJ:i:,ryrr,#ffi :gf"";,Housewire,Rro32_ aruql:itli;r: me##ri.'.lu";tli,,g;., il _;

¶17

.. ,,,:,,. . . :, ..;. -.... :. ,.. .,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

I Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. V. ATCHUTA RAM

¶19

: Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/S. K. KRTSHNA KUMART

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.l: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HOIV,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAII{AVARAP U RA.IESHWAR RAO M!A .c.M.A .IYo.349 OF 20 74

¶22

JUDGlu

¶23

This Mr is fited under Moror vehicres ol"'o aggrieved by the;,1:t-" bv the "rrl,:";:,,:,:: 3t 12 2ol2,assed in ;:; ;.:"' ;;1"#.::: tropolitan sessions criminal courts, ,rrol'^""-"'" Additional ",, 2. =.abad^(ror short "rhe ".":::.1::;", ^ "'^convenience' the parries r,r,,iil be hereinarrer ;r:: ,t*" berow. as they were arrayed before the Court

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filecl a claim petition claiming compensation o f Rs.tS,OO,OOO/_ on account of the death of Bruce T\Ily (here inafter referred to as "deceased,,) in a motor vehicle acciden t that crccurred on 24.o4.200s.

¶25

3(l) It is stated that on 24.O4.2OOL ar about S.45 p.m. the deceascd was proceeding on a scooter bearing No.Ap-g258 from Lalapet and -when he reached near flyover. a car bearing

¶26

illA(^{l!1i' :'r Il')} 'r^{lJl i}

¶27

No.AP-^{l1P-11959 which-'rias drirreir by it:i driver in a rash irrd} negligent^{mannerwith high speed came irom the opposite} direction^{cn the li'rong sitic of the roaci 'ancl hit the siooterof} the^{deceased. As a '"""rt' .n:} ::":-.-:-;r:::t:::: injuries^{ernd rvas taken [o GanclhiHospital w} ur-rdergoing^{treatment orr 2'/ 'O4'2'OC9' Thc FoliceMalkajgiri} registered^{a case in Cr'No'225of 2009 underSection304-A} IPC^{against the driver of the sald car"Hence 'the claim}

¶28

petitlon Befote^{the Cour-tbelov"'resPondentNo't u'as set ex} 4 ComPanY^{frled counter} parte^{and responrlent No2 / lrrsuretnce} ily denving^{all the petitioni:ll(P'ations'}

¶29

J To Prove^{theircase. petitionersexaminedPWs'1to} J and^{gotmarked Exs'Ai toA14. On behaif of the 2"d} respondent,^{no oral evidencewas adduceci, but Ex'BlcoPY of} the^{policy 'r'as markedw-ith the consent'}

¶30

C)n appreciatiot-r^{of the evidence on record'the} Court^{belou' alloweclthe O'P in part byanvarding} compensation of^{Rs-8,30 ,OOO} /-^{with interest @ 7 'SYo p'A' from} the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.

¶31

¶32

MACMA No t.19 0f20t1

¶33

l.earned counsel appearing for the petitioners interalia contended that the Court below failed to take the income of the deceased at Rs.3,50,O00/- per annum by not accepting that the deceased was the proprietor of M/s Max Neo Tech Systems in spite of documentary evidence under Ex.Al to A13 and that the Court below did not grant compensation amount under conventional heads as per the judgments of Apex Court. Hence, prayed to a,llow the appeal. He relied upon the following judgments:

¶34

l. In Shfua Kumq.r M Vs.The Managing Director, BMTCT of Hon,ble Supreme Court.

¶35

Smt. Rita Devi and others Vs. Sh. Ashish Mathotra and othersz of Himachal pradesh High Court.

¶36

C.M.A. No.3567 of 2019 dt.2Z.O8.2O2O between Saritha and. others Vs. Stnc and. others-s of Madras High Court.

¶37

8 Per contra, learned counsel appearing lor respondent No.2 contended that the Court below rightly granted compensation and no interference is required from this Court, and prayed to dismiss the appea,l.

¶38

9 Heard both sides. Perused the record

¶39

'20r7(4)ACC5r t 2o2o acj 2agE '^{202 t ncJt+29}

¶40

¶41

i\tAcNA N..lro ^Lt(rtl

¶42

lO. There is no dispute rvith rega;-d to^{the involvement} of a motor vehicle ancl the nlai-Incr^of the^{accident as stated in} the claim petition and the^is-sue in^{this regard whir:hrvas} decided in the fa'trour^r.rf the respondents/clairnants^{is not} challenged, thus attained finality.

¶43

The main contention of^{petitioners is that the Court} belot, has not taken into consicleration thc^{evidenceavailable} on record with regard to t he rn come of^{thc deceased- In} support of their contentiot-t, the]' got examincd^{P'v'.1 and She} deposed that the deceased^u,as aged 39^{years and-was doing} business in the name and style ol M/s^{Ma:<Neo Tcch Systems} and thal. he was the clezrlcr in^{tl-re 'lelangana area.Ex.A6 is} the original letter issued by Zeal^{Medical Pvt. Ltd., appointing} M/s Max Neo-Tech Systems as a sole distributor^{on behalf of} their Company. Ex.A7 is the Value Added Tax Registration certificate witl-r Cornmercial Tax Department. Ex.A8 is the Notihcation of VAT registration $.ith the firm address and name as M/s Max Neo-Tech Systems. Ex.A9 is the Registration Certihcate with Central Sales Tax. Ex.AlO is the original bunch of medical equipments for the years 2OO7 to 2009. Ex.All is the original bunch ol office copies of tax sales tax invoices. Ex.Al2 is the monthlv relurn for value added tax for

¶44

¶45

RRN-] MACMA No.rrq Dt'1011

¶46

supplied to M/s Max Neo-Tech Systems and Ex.A13 is the certificate issued by Dr. K. Gopal Singh showing that the deceased was supplied said equipment, and he was paid Rs.2O,0OO/- towards monthly maintenarce of medica_t equlpment

¶47

Apart from the above, the petitioners have also examined one T. Sairam, Finance Manager and authorised consultant, as PW.2. His testimony shows that he has filed sales tax returns of M/s Max Neo_Tech Systems and that the deceased used to get 2SVo to 3Ooh the sale proceeds from the sale of equipment toward s commission and also getting monthly salar5z of Rs. la,00O/ _ and he was earning Rs.3,5O,0OO/- per €rnnum.

¶48

In the cross-examination pW.2 says as per Ex.Al2, the turnover of M/s Max Neo-Tech Systems is Rs.1g,O00 /_ per month and it is also made it clear that Ex.Al2 does not contain his signature with endorsement saying that he filed returns. Ultimately, the lact remains that the deceased appea-rs to have been involved in business activities concerning M/s Max NeoTech Systems though there is no evidence that he u/as a proprietor. Considering the nature of business and

¶49

RR i'^! \4/\a\1^^{.-.lq ll'rl1}

¶50

¶51

involvernent^{of the deceased,the Cour'" below based on the} above evidence,^{fuied the monthly income of the deceased at} Rs.6,OOO/-^{per month. Hou'ever,as per Ex'A6' A7' A8' A1O'} A I 1 and^A 13^{though there is no signature on the said} docurnents, but^{indicate that the deceasedwas earning more} than Rs.6,OO0/-^{per month.Thc lorver Court taken the loq'er} side of the income^{of the deceasedAs such' this Court is} inclined to fix the^{incomc of the deceasedat Rs' 1O'OOO/-per} morrth.

¶52

The annual^{income of the deceasedu'ould colTleto} Rs. I,2O,GOO/-^(Rs.iO,O0O l'x^{121' To this, futureprospects of} 40% i.e. Rs.48,OO0/-^{is to bc actded as per thc decision of the} Hon'lrle Supreme Court in^{National InsuranceCompang Ltd''}

¶53

Vs. Pranolg Sethi< as the cleceased^{was aged 39 years' Since} the dependants are 4 in number, a deduction^{of 1} /4tt'^{of the} income of the deceased towards personal expenses which^the deceased might have spent for himself, is proper.^The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Scrta Verrna^Vs. Delhl Ttr:anspora Corporaltons is "i5'. Thus, the total loss

¶54

of dependency would come to Rs. 18,90,000/- (Rs. l,2O,OOOl-⁺ 40% Minus 1/4tr,x 15).

¶55

' 1zo^{n) ro} scc oto

¶56

'(2009) 6 SCC t2 t .

¶57

¶58

RRN.] MACMA No ll:19 of :01{

¶59

The Court below awarded Rs.S,OOO/-^towards luneral expenses, Rs.5,00O/- towards loss of^estateand Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to^{the petitioners} which are very meagre. However, the^{petitionersare entitled to} compensation under conventional^{heads as per the decision of} the Hon'ble Apex Court it^{PranagSethi(supra) and Magma}

¶60

htsurance Compang^{Ltd- Vs. Nanu Ram} @^{Chuhru Ram6} ' Ppetitioner No.1, being^{the wife of the deceased, is entitled to} Rs.44,OO0/- towards^{spousalconsortium, petitioners No'2 and} 3 minor children, and^{petitionerNo.4 being the mother of the} deceased are entitled^{to Rs.4O,0O0/-each i'e' Rs'1,20,000/-} torvards loss of^{parental consortiumand loss offilial} consortium, and^{petitioners are also entitled to Rs' 16'5OO/-} towards funeral^{expensesandRs. 16,500/- towardsloss of} estate. With regard to^{interest, the Court below rightly} considered at^{7 .Sa/o p.a., whichneeds no interference'}

¶61

In all, the petitioners/^{appellantsare entitled to} Rs.20,87,000/- torvards^{comPensation' Though the claimed} amount is Rs.^{15,OO,OOO/-,invokingthe principle of just} compensation,^{and in view of the law laid downby the Hon'ble}

¶62

620 18 Law Suit (SC)^goa

¶63

¶64

RRN.I M CMA No^j,lq of)0t4

¶65

Supreme Court in Rajesh us, Rajbir Singhz, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the petitioners/appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation.

¶66

In the Managing Director, BMTC (first supra), the Honble Supreme Court assessed the income of a daity worker at Rs.l5,0OO /- per month since he cannot have any proof of his income. But, in the case on hand, thcre is ample evidence to show that the deceased was earning by doing some business. Hence, the facts in the said above judge are different from that of the present case. As such, not considered with great respect to the dictum.

¶67

In Sh. Ashish Malhotra (second supra) and, others the Hon,ble High Court of Himacha,l pradesh dealt with future prospects and deduction of personal expenses. These aspects are already covered under pranag Sethi (supra). To avoid repetition, not discussed.

¶68

MANU/SC/0480/20I3

¶69

¶70

RRN-I MA( M^ No i{0 of20H

¶71

¶72

In Siuc (third supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dealt with the wages of a Mason per day depending upon the urban a-rea and cities etc., and needs a pragmatic approach while hxing the notional income of tLte^persons. In the case on hand, the deceased was a businessman, the facts in the above^judgment are not considered

¶73

19 ln the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Court below^is enhanced from Rs.S,30,00O/^- to^{Rs.2O,87,OOOl-(Rupees} Twenty lakh and eight seven thousand only)^{withint€rest} @7^{.5 o/o p.a. from the date of petitiontill 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 accordance with the manner and proportion as determined by the^Court below subject to payment ol the deficit Court^{fee withintwo} months from the date o[^{receipt o[ a copy o[ this judgment.} There shall be no^{orderas to costs'}

¶74

¶75

RRN.] 11 ci\L\ No t,r9 oi l0|J

¶76

Miscellareous petitions, if any pending, shalt stand

¶77

closed.

¶78

E SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL. I ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ir", 'r'ffi. . .r;.ir {' SECTION OFFICER r - The Chairman Motoi A@ident Claims,Tribunal-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions rkidge!. (MdhilaCodrt)tum-XlXAdditionat Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hydera bdd.i{p i:1 f f *1f,'2, .i One CC to Sri IV.{ATCH UTA RAM,'AdVdbAtE loPUCl 3. One CC to M/sr'KTKRISHNA KUMART; Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CopleS. Two CD CopleS. CD CopleS. CopleS. pleS. -.,nr

¶79

f
.i
1'

¶80

Two CD CopleS. Two CD CopleS. CD CopleS. CopleS. pleS. -.,nr

¶81

¶82

¶83

I
I
t
*'
$i
.lr' _
..iI .i
ii. :
tt.
w$ *
t;
8l
g. .l

¶84

r*d' r+J X HIGH COURT {$i

ffit,

DATED: O4lOOl2023

t I,

$it it ,T

{r .;.

JUDGMENT

1HE SI4 14'
q
3, zz oE[ zozl
.4
a *
Og TcHeg

MACMA.No.349 ot 2014

! :t

,{ t":t ' :
iil a
:r
: ri,'
reuowtNe MACMA:WITH OUT COSTS ',.
ii
l;
@ea
,i
?3

¶96

'| :

¶97

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶98

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶99

PRESENT

¶100

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶101

MACMA NO: 349 OF 2014

¶102

Between:

¶103

'1. Parmila Tully, Wo. Late Bruce Tully, Occ: Housewife' Fi/o. H'No'2-'l392141N3, Sarada Nagar,^{New Nallakunta,Hyderabad.}

¶104

Anitha Melesa Tully, D/o. Late^{BruceTully, Occ: Student, R/o H No'2-1-} 39214tN3, Sarada Nagar,^{New Nallakunta,Hyderabad.}

¶105

Mulroy Neol Tully, S/o.^{LateBruceTully, Occ: Student, Fi/o. H.No2-1-} 392t4tN3, Sdrada Nagar, New^{Nallakunta,Hyderabad.}

¶106

H.P. Tully, W/o. Late O.A. Tully,^{Occ: Housewife, R/o. H'No.2-1-392141N3,} Sarada Nagar, New Nallakunta,^Hyderabad. (Petitioner No. 2 and 3 being minors rep. by^{mother and natural Guardian P'l)} CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS

¶107

ANO

¶108

T. Bhavani @ Bharani,^{Wo. Venkata Krishna Rao, Occ: Housewife, Fyo' 32-} 3-14lA, A.V.S. Rama Rao^{Street, Mogalarajapuram, Viiayawada.}

¶109

The Oriental lnsurance Company^{LTd., Rep. by its Manager, T P Claims,} Snehalatha Bulidings, Greenlands,^{Begumpet,Hyderabad.} (Policy No.43340131t3112O09/1623^{issuedby CBO-4, Vijyawad) Valid from} 27 -O1 -2oog to 26-01^{-201 0.}

¶110

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶111

Appeal Under section 173^{of MotorVehicles Act against the order anddecree} in o.P.No.207 0f 2010 dated 31.12.2012^{0n the file of the court of the chairman} Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-V^{AdditionalMetropolitansessions Judge} (Mahila court)+um-XlX Additional chief Judge,^{city criminalcourt Hyderabad.}

¶112

ORDER: This appeal^{comingon for hearingand upon perusingthe groundsof} appeal,theJudgmentandDecreeoftheLowerCourtandthematerialpapersinthe case and upon hearing^{the arguments of Sri' V' AtchutaRam' Advocatefor the} Appellants and^{of M/s' K. Krishna Kumari, Advocatefor the RespondentNo'2 and} of for the Respondent^{No.1 not appeared either in person or by Advocate'} This Court doth^{Order and Decree as follows:}

¶113

l.ThattheM.A.C'M.A.No'34gof2ol4beandherebyisallowedandthe compensation^{amount awardedby the Tribunal is enhancedfrom Rs'} 8,30,o00/- to Rs.^{20,87,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh andeight seventhousand}

¶114

¶115

fi
dd f;
li.t,
iiff
i;
a!
i,* t
I
iT

¶116

only) with interest @ 7.5^o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶117

That the Respondents No. 1 and 2 be and hereby directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within two monthsifrom the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶118

That on such deposit, the petitioners be and hereby are permifted to withdraw the same in accordance with the manner and proportion as determined by the Tribunal subject to payment of deficit Court fee within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶119

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands

¶120

confirmed in all other respects; and

¶121

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶122

I I |, 1 t, It[, {i l '. I !i I I F ,.J *':I t I T I I ,,t I { i I t II l

¶123

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL. ASsrsrANrlHro

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)+um-XlX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad.

¶128