Allowed

B. Shoba Rani, v. the Apsrtc and Another

Telangana HC16 Aug 2023MACMA/3574/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded to the dependants of a deceased housewife. The Court revised the assessed income, added future prospects, and awarded enhanced compensation under conventional heads for funeral and loss of estate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,97,000/- to Rs. 4,29,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition.

B. Shoba Rani, Vs the Apsrtc and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 3574 OF 2012

¶7

Appeal filed under 173 of M.V. Act aggrieved by the order and decree dated 23.01 .2012 passed in OP No. 1639 of 201 0 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

B. Shoba Rani Wo B. Ramulu, Aged 32 years, Occ House Wife, Wo. B Ramulu, R/o. H.No. 12-2-114, Ambedkar Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶13

The APSRTC, rep. by its Depot Manager, Ranigunj -^'l Depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPDTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: THOOM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶17

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No. 3574 0F 20L2

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 23.01.2012 passed in O.P.No.1639 of 2010 by the XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Court below").

¶22

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

¶23

Rrief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a ciaim petitiorr claiming compensation of Rs.3,OO,0OOI_ on account of the death of K. yadamma (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") in a motor vehicle acciclent.

¶24

3(1) It is stated that on O2.O7.2OlO at about 11.00 ?.ffi., near Gurudrvara, Secunderabad, the cleceased lvas travelling in the APSRTC Bus route No.10_K from Moosapet towards Bollaram side and 9oL dowu at Railway Staf.ion, Secunderabacl, and r.r,'as proceecJing towards 31 bus stop on

¶25

¶26

RRN ] I\I CMA^{No:157r oi l0l} l

¶27

foot, and when she reached near Gurudwara, Secunderabad, at that time one APSRTC bus^{bearing No. AP-1O2-996, driven} by its driver at high speed ald in^{a rash and negligent manner} and was proceeding from the^{Secunderabad side towardsthe} clock tower side and dashed the^{deceased. Due to that, she} succumbed to injuries on the same^{day while undergoing} treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.^{The P'S.} Gopalapuram of Hyderabad had^{registered the case in Crime} No.251 of 2010 under Section^{337 IPC and later altered it into} Section 304-A IPC after the^{death of the deceasedagainstthe} driver ofAPSRTC bus bearing^{No. AP-102-996}

¶28

Before the Tribunal, respondents^{filed a counter by} denying all the petition^allegations.

¶29

To prove her case, the^{petitioner examinedPWs'1} and. 2 and got marked Exs.Al to^{A7.On behalf of the} respondents, no evidence^{was adduced.}

¶30

On appreciation of the evidence^{on record, the} Tribunal awarded Rs.i,97,0OO/-^{with interesl@60/o p'a from} the date of the petition till its^deposit.

¶31

7 . Learned counsel appearing^{for the petitioner inter-} alia contended that^{though the deceased was earning}

¶32

¶33

RRN.I MACMA No.ri74 ol20Il

¶34

¶35

Rs.7,500/- per month by doing labour work and as a maid servant, the Court below assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side at Rs.3,000/_ ignoring the fact that even the Honble Apex Court held that in the absence of income proof, the income of the housewife is to be considered at least Rs.S,OOO/- per month. He further argued that the amount awarded towards cremation charges is also on the lower side, and no amount was awarded under conventional heads. He relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme court in Rajendra Singh and, others ys. Natlonat Insurance Compang Ltd,., and othersl r,r,herein it was held as under:

¶36

I l. The notional income of the first deceased is there/bre held to be Rs.5000/ per month at the time of death. The compensation on that basis with a deduction of I/4th i.e. Rs.15,000/ towards personal expenses wirh a iuttiplier of l7 is assessed ot Rs.7,65,000/. If the deceasld had s.urvive.d,..in vieu'of observarions in Lara Wadhwa (supra), her skills as a matured and skilled horrr*y, in contributing to the welfare and care of the famity ind in tne. upbringing of the children would haue oily been enhanced by time and for which reason we hold iho, ,h" appellants shall be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40% in addition to the lois of consoirium ini yr,rr" expenses already granled. Ilte therefore assess thi total compensation payable lo the appellants.in the first appeal at Rs. I 1,96,000/.

¶37

Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

' 1zozo;^z scc 2so

'-'t'^- ":

RRN.J MAC No t57J olt0 il

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

¶43

respondents contended that the Court below rightly awarded the compensation, and as such no interference of this Court is required. Thus, prayed to dismiss the appeai.

¶44

9 Heard both sides. Perused the record

¶45

There is no dispute with regard to the involvement of the crime bus and the manner of the accident. The conclusion of the Court below as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP-102-996 and the same is not challenged, thus attaining finality

¶46

AS With regard to the quantum of compensation, per the petitioner, the deceased was aged about 56 years and she was earning Rs.7,500/- per month as a maid servant and by doing labour work, but the Court below assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, it is a very meagre. In Antn Kumar Agarutal Vs. National Insurqnce Co. Ltd.2; Kirti as, Oriental Insurance Compang Ltd.3 and RaJend.ra Singh os, Natlonal Insurance Compang Ltd.+ wherein the question involved was related to the hxation of income of housewife in the cases of motor accidents for the

¶47

, 2010 (9) SCC 218

¶48

3 (2021) 2 SCC 166 I l2O2O) 7 SCC 256

¶49

¶50

RRN.] MACM No.1571oit0tl

¶51

¶52

purpose of compensation and the Honble Court found it appropriate to fix the same at Rs.5,000/-p.m. Hence, this Court assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶53

The annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12). To this, future prospects of lOo/o, i.e. Rs.6,000/- is to be added as per the decision of the Hon'ble Strpreme Court in Natlonq.l Insurance Compang Ltd.

¶54

Vs. Pranag Sethls as the deceased was aged 56 years. Since there is sole dependant, a deduction of 1/3.a of the deceased,s income towards personal expenses which the deceased might have spent for herself, is proper. The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Scrrlc Vertnq. Vs. Delhi Tl.rorrrsport Corporationo is "9". Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,96,O00/- (Rs.60,000 /- * 4oo/o Minus 1/3.a x 9).

¶55

The Tribunal awarded Rs.S,OOO/_ towards funeral expenses which is very meagre. However, the petitioner is entitled to compensation under conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in pranag Sethl (supra) and Magma Insurantce Compang Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram @,

¶56

51zo tzy ro scc 680 u (zoos) o scc rz t.

¶57

IRN^] \1,\C,tA No^rjr{ol tt,^.,

¶58

¶59

¶60

Chuhru Ramz. Petitioner^{isentitled toRs.16'50O/-} (Rs. 15,000/ -⁺ lOo/ol towards^{funeralexpenses and} Rs.16,5OO/-^{(Rs.15,000/-+ 10%) towardsloss of estate'} Since the petitioner^{is a major, no amor-rntis awarded under}

¶61

the parental consortium.

¶62

	Head	Amount arrived at^bY theTribunal	Amount arrived^atbY thisCourt
	For lossofdependency	Rs.1,92000/-	Rs.3,96,0()0/-
	Funeralexpenses	Rs.5,000/	Rs.16,5ooi^-
	l,oss ofcstate	Nil	Rs.16'500/-
t4.	Total Withregar	Rs.1,97,000/- dtointerest^the	4 29,OOOl- Rs ^{Court belowawarded}

¶63

interest @ 6oh^p.a., but^{this Court awards interest at 7 'Soh p'a'} on the enhanced^arnount.

¶64

In all, the petitioner^{is entitled to Rs'4,29'OOO/-} (Rs.3,96,000 + 16,500^{+16,500) towards compensation'} Though the claimed^{amountis Rs.3,00,000/-, invokingthe} principle of^just compensation,^{and in view of the law laid} down by the Hon'ble^{Supreme Court inRaiesh as' Raiblr} Singha, and in a^{catenaof decisions,this Court is empowered} to grant compensation^{beyondthe claimedamount'However'} the petitioners shall^{pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced} compensation.

¶65

720l8 Law Suit (SC)^goa

¶66

'^{MAN u/sc/0480/20l l}

¶67

¶68

RRN,,I MACMA No 1571o,l0tl

¶69

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Court below is enhanced from Rs. l,97,OOO/_ to Rs.4,29,OOO/_ (Rupees Four lakh and twenty nine thousand only) with interes t @ 7 .So/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents 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 petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same subject to payment of the deficit Court fee within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶71

closed.

¶72

Sd/- B. S. CHIRANJE JOINT REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

' *""rlll',R'"XTional^{chier Judse (Frc), citv civil court,Hvderabad(with} ?. 9n"^{cc to sRt. JAGATHPAL.} REDDY KAS| REDDY, Advocate lopucl i: ?m ffi 3;[:^{rHooMs nin vas tsc i6 n iSHiir'ii",l15t5j5EUbr}

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610812023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3574 of 2012

¶81

S TA T€
16E
(
v
1 B J[ll ?$2[ .-bc)
o
I
i CESP A'f c

ALLOWING THE APPEAL

NO COSTS

L
@ai1*
0
(e(l.-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶86

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶87

PRESENT

¶88

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶89

MOTO R ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3574 OF 2012

¶90

Between:

¶91

B. Shoba Rani Wo B. Ramulu, Aged 32^years, Occ House Wife, Wo.^B. Ramulu, R/o. H.No. 12-2-114, Ambedkar Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad.

¶92

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶93

AND

¶94

The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC^X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶95

The APSRTC, rep. by its Depot Manager, Ranigunj^{- 1} Depot,^Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶96

...RESPONDENTS/RESPDTS

¶97

Appeal filed under 173 of M.V. Act aggrieved by the^{order and decree} dated 23.01.2012^passed in OP No. 1639 of 20'10 on the^{file of the Xlll Additional} Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶98

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^{perusing the groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the^Lower Court^{and the material papers in} the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. JAGATHPAL^REDDYKASI REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant, SRl.^{THOOM SRINIVAS, for the} Respondents

¶99

This Court doth Order and Decree as^follows:

¶100

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal be and hereby is allowed} enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,97,000/-^{to Rs. 4,29,0001(Rupees} Four Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand only) with interest^{al7.5.o/o perannum on} the enhanced amount from the date of^petition till the date^{of realization;}

¶101

That the respondents 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;

¶102

That on such deposit the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same subject to payment of deficit Court fee within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and

¶103