Allowed

Dev Narayan and Another, v. M/S. Rajneesh Transport Pvt. Ltd., and Another

Telangana HC10 Aug 2023MACMA/3656/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident where a minor son of appellants died. The court enhanced compensation from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 5,00,000, directing the insurer to pay with interest.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the lower court was enhanced from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of the petition.

Dev Narayan and Another, Vs M/S. Rajneesh Transport… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^330/r I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.JESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR CIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO U S APPEAL NO: 365 oF 2011

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.743 of 2001 dated 06.08.2004, on the fite of thb Court of the llt Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast rrack court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Dev Narayan, S/o. Nankan, Occ: BrLsiness, Rl/o. H.No. 1-67, Gulshan Nagar X Roads, Gachi Bowli, Near Maharal Caf6, R. R. District.

¶10

2 Geetha,. W/o. Dev Narayana, Occ: Household, Rl/o. H.No. 1-67, Gulshan Nagar X Roads, Gachi Bowli, Near Maharaj Care,

¶11

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 M/s. Rajneesh Transport PVT. Lrd., Rep. by its Mr. K.C. Jain, Ri/o. 4-7-197, 1st Floor, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants

¶17

:SRl. T. VISWARUPA CHARY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents

¶19

:SRI SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.NO.3656 0F 201 1

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This MACMA is hled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 06.08.2OO4, passed in O.P.No.743 of 2OOl by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (for short "the Court below").

¶25

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

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that on 10.O6.2OO1 around 5.30 p.m., the petitioners' minor son Santosh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") started from Tolichowki in an auto bearing No.AP-12-T 8083 to go to Gachiborvli. On the way, when the said auto rcached near Saibabzr Function Hall, a lorry bearing No.AP-9U-.1440 driven bv its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manncr, czrme in the opposite direction and dashed against the ar-rto s'here the deceased was travelling. As a rcsult, the deceased sustained severe injuries and fracturcs ancl clied on thc spot. Apart

¶27

RRN,J MACMA 3656^201I

¶28

¶29

I I

¶30

from the^{deceased,two other auto passengers werealso} sustained^{severely injured.Immediatelyafter the accident'} thedeceasedwasshiftedtoosmaniaGeneralHospital,where. a Postmortem^{was conductedover his body'The Police'} Raidurgam,^{also registereda case in crime No'37of 2001} under Section^{304-A IPC againstthe lorry driver belonging to} the l"t respondent,^{and later he was charge sheeted'}

¶31

4 Before the^{Tribunal,respondentNo'1 remainedex} No.2 filed a^{counter denying all the} pa-rte. ResPondent petition allegations.

¶32

To prove their^case ,^{the petitioners examinedPW' I} and 2 and^{got marked Exs Al to A5, and adduced no oral} evidence^{on behalf of respondentNo 2' but Ex'B1was marked} with consent

¶33

6 On appreciation^{of the cvidenceonrecord,the} Tribunal allou'ed^{the O.P. in part b-r' arvarding compensation} 9'\t p.a. from the^{date of} of Rs.60,0O0/^{u rth intercst (rt} Charllenging the^same,the petition till the^{datc o[ realisalion} present appeal^{is filcd b1'the pctittoners}

¶34

RITN.J MACMA 1656 l0l^I

¶35

¶36

7 Heard both sides^{and perusedthe material availableon} record.

¶37

L,earned counsel^{appearing for the petitionersinter-alia} contended that^{the Court below awarded a very meagre} amount, which^{needs to be interfered' He prayed this Court} to award Rs.5,OO,0OO/-^{with interest} @)^{7o/o p'a tothe} petitioners in view of the law^{laid down by the Hon'ble} Supreme Court in Meena^{Devi Vs. Nunu Chdnd Mahto(D} Nemchand Mahtot wherein^{the Hon'bleApexCourt heldas}

¶38

under:

¶39

Recentlg in the case of^{KuruanAnsari (a Kuruort Ali} & onotler vs. Shgam^{Kishore Munnuand another} (2022) 1 SCC 317, tuherein a child^{aged about7} 11ears died in a road accident^{took place on 6.9 2OO4. this} Court taking notional^{incomeas Rs 25,OOO/ , upltlyitg} the multi$lier of 15, calcttlated^{the /oss of depetrclency} in as Rs. 3,75,0OO/ - and adding^{R.s. 55,OOO/ '} conuentional heads, autarded^{Rs. 4,7O,00O/.}

¶40

In uieut of the foregoing decisions,^{it is apporetll that} in the cases of child death,^{the notiortal ittcome of Rs-} l5,0OO/- as specifted in the^{IInd Scheriule of M-V.Act} has been enhanced on account of deualuation^{of rnoney} and ualue of rupee coming doun from^{the date orr ruhich} the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act Luas^{ittroducedarul tlte}

¶41

I l0ll t r\ el.a\Y(SC) 84 I

¶42

¶43

I{RN.J MACMA ]656 20I I

¶44

said notional income uas treated as Rs. 3O,OOO/^- in tLe case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,0O0/- in Kuruan Ansari (supra) in age group of 1O and 7 years respectiuely.

¶45

At this stage, it is necessary to claifg that as^per the decision of a ThreeJudge Bench of this Court in Nagappa us. Gurdogal Singh and others (2O03) 2 SCC 274, it uLas obserued that under the MV Ac4 tlrcre is no restiction that the Court below/ Courl cannot anudrd compensation exceeditg the amount so claimed. The Court belou-t/ Court ought to auard^'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon^tlrc euidence produced on record. Therefore, less ualuation, if ang, made in the Cla n Petition uouLd not^be impediment to award^just cornpensation exceeding the claimed anlount.

¶46

Accordinglg, this appeal is alloLued. The amount of compensation, os auarded bg the High Court is enhnnced bg Rs. 3,OO,OOO/^-, in additiort. The total dmount of compensatiotr tuould be Rs. 5,OO,OOO/^{-. 'fhe} enhanced amount slnll cany it .erest^{tu 7"o} P.a. from the date of Claim Petitiort till realizatiort. Tlrc clue amount be paid by the responclert No. 4 - Urited hrdict lrtsurance Company uithin a period ctf Jbur urceks .frorrt todaa.

¶47

Accordingly, pra)'ed to au-ard compensation of

¶48

Rs.5,O0,O0O/- with intere^sL ru 7"/,' p.a. to thc petitioners.^The Iearned counsel for respondent No.2 has also conceded the law laid in the above^juclgment

¶49

I{RN.J MACMA -1656 20r r

¶50

¶51

i I I I

¶52

Since there is no conflict as^regards the^principle laid down by^{the Hon'ble Supreme Court inMeenaDevi} (Supra), this Court^is inclined to^{allow the appeal by awarding} Rs.5,OO,0O0/-^{(Rs. Five lakh only)with interest} @^{7o/o p.a. on} the enhanced^{amount from the date of petitiontill realization}

¶53

1 \

¶54

10 As seen from the cause title, the case against respondent No. 1 was dismissed as the^{appellant/ petitioner} failed to comply with the conditional order dt.22.Ol .2010. However, the dismissal against respondent No.1/owner is of no consequence for determination of^just, fair and reasonable qLlantum of compensation against the Insurance Company in viert, of the^judgment of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao Vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma.2

¶55

ll Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allou'ed, and the compensation amount awarded by the Court belos' is enhanced from Rs.6O,O0O/- to Rs.5,OO,OOO/- (Rs. Five lakh onlyf rvith costs and interest @7o/o p.a. on the enhanced amoLlnt, from the date of petition till the date o[ realisation Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting the amount, iI anr', alread-v l00t(I).\l.l{95 l)ll

¶56

¶57

RRN.J MACMA 3656 201I

¶58

¶59

¶60

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 subject to payment of dehcit Court fee within two months from the date of^{receipt of a copy} of this^judgment. There shall be no order^{as to costs}

¶61

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall^stand

¶62

closed.

¶63

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

¶68

One CC to SRl. T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

One CC to SRl. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OpUC]

¶70

Two CD Copies

TYH/DL

t\z(

b ItT ii I 1 ;

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/08/2023

JUDGIVIENT

MACMA.No.3656 ot 2011

¶79

1 1rE sTArG
k
t>
J
:J 0 2 tEB zut
f

D
r.:S PATC tr\c$

APPEAL IS ALLOWED

v*
\t \x'v-

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYOERABAD

¶84

THURSOAY,^{THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^AND TWENW^THREE

¶85

PRESENT

¶86

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NA'IIIAVARAPURA'ESHWARRAO}

¶87

TOR IDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO APPEAL N 6 0F 201

¶88

Between:

¶89

Dev Narayan,^{S/o. Nankan, Occ: Business,} Vo.!-1,\o^{1-67, Gulshan Nagar X} Roads, Glchi Bowli,^{Near Maharaj Caf6, R. R. Dstrict-}

¶90

Geetha, Wo. Dev Narayana,^{Occ:Household' R/o. H.No. 1-67,Gulshan} Nagar X Roads, Gachi^{Bowli, Near MaharaiCare,}

¶91

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶92

AND

¶93

1 . M/s. Rajneesh Transport^{PVT.Ltd-, Rep-by its Mr- K.C. Jain, R/o.4'7-197} ' 1st Floor, Esamia^{Bazar, Hyderabad.}

¶94

The United lndia^{lnsurance Company Limited,, Rep. by its Divisional} Manager, Malakpet,^HYderabad.

¶95

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶96

Appeal Under Section^{173 of lvlotorVehicles Act againstthe order and decree} in O.P.No.743 of^{2001 dated06.08.2004,on the file of the Court of the lll} Additional District^{and sessions Judge (FastTrack court),Ranga Reddy Districtat} L.B. Nagar.

¶97

ORDER:^{This appeal comingon for hearrng 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 argumentsof SRl.T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocatefor} the Appellants^{and of SRI SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocatefor the} Respondents.

¶98

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

¶99

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶100

That the compensation amount warded by the Court below is enhanced from Rs. 60,0001 to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh Only) with costs and interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. 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, on such deposit, the petitioners are 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

¶102

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶103

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶104

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

¶109

Two CD Copies

¶110

TYH/DL

¶111

t\ot-

¶112

HIGH COURT DATED: 1 0/08/2023

¶113

DECREE

¶114

MACMA.No.3656 of 2011

¶115

APPEAL IS ALLOWED

¶116

i')-<br>% \sr

Dev Narayan and Another, v. M/S. Rajneesh Transport Pvt. Ltd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Narayan and Another, v. M/S. Rajneesh Transport Pvt. Ltd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kuchoor Ramulamma Vs Sri Kishan Kumar Prajapat and Another

Smt.Kuchoor Ramulamma and Another Vs Kishan Kumar Prajapat and Another

G.Subhan Vs Sheshinder Singh

A.Chandramma Vs The State of Telangana

M. Sekhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M.Shoba Vs The State of Telangana