Partly allowed

Mohd. Younus, Hyd. and 3 Others v. C. Chaitnya, Hyd. and Another

Telangana HC29 Aug 2023MACMA/3662/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal against Tribunal order denying full compensation. High Court enhanced monthly income from Rs.1500 to Rs.4500, adjusted multiplier to 18 based on deceased's age, and granted total compensation of Rs.7,93,400 including future prospects and conventional heads.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,73,000 to Rs.7,93,400 with interest at 7.5% per annum directed to be deposited within 2 months.

Mohd. Younus, Hyd. and 3 Others Vs C. Chaitnya, Hyd… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3662 OF 2011

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 576 of 2007 dated 14-07-200!-t on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- XXll Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohd. Younus, S/o. Late Mohd. Yousuf, Occ- Electrician, R/o H.o. 9-457 lD I 1 1 I 1 2, Hakeempet Kunta, Tolichowki Hyderabad

¶9

Smt. Shareefa Begum, Wo Mohd. Younus, Occ- Housewife, R/o H.o. 9457 lDl 1 1 I 12, Hakeempet Kunta, Tolichowki Hyderabad

¶10

Ms. Anjum Begum, D/o [t/ohd. Younus, Occ- Housewife, R/o H.o. 9-457 lDll 1 112, Hakeempet Kunta, Tolichowki Hyderabad

¶11

Ms. Asma Begum, D/o lr4ohd. Younus, Occ- Nil, R/o H.o 9-4-57|Dl11112, Hakeempet Kunta, Tolichowki Hyderabad

¶12

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

C. Chaitnya, S/o C. Narasimha Rao, Age- IVlajor, Occ- Business, R/o H.No. 1-7-139133, S.R.K. Nagar , Golconda Cross Roads, Hyderabad

¶15

The National lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional, Manager, DO ll, Swapnalok Complex, lV Floor, S.D. Road, Secunderabad ... Respondents/Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. K. JAGATPAL REDDY, Advocate

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. P. SATYA MANJULA

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶20

M.A.C.M.A No.3662 OF 2011

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appr:al is filed under Section 173 of the ivlotor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.07.2OO9 in O.P.No.576 of 2OO7 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chainnan, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Courts, Hvderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

¶23

For convenience, the parties are hr:reinafter rel'erred to as they are arraved before the Tribunal.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos. i and 2 are the parents, and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are unmarried sisters of the deceased, Mohd.Rasheed (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased'). The deceased was a bachelor and on O4.O2.2OO7 at about 7.00 a.m, while the deceased was pushing the Scooter after filling the petrol near IBP Petrol Pump, Shrrikpet Nala, slowly on the extreme left side of the road, when he reached opposite to International School, Shaikpet Nala, one Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-25U-4464, which its driver in a rash and

¶25

¶26

RRN,] MACMA No.3662 of 2011

¶27

negligent manner at high speed, dashed the Scooter. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to the injuries on O8.O2.2O07 while undergoing treatment. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 2O years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month by u,orking in a Chicken Centre and used to contribute the same for his family. Therefore, they liled the claim petition against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation under different heads.

¶28

Before the Tribunal, whiie the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.1 remained ex parte, respondent No.2Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of Tata Sumo, and the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶29

Considering the claim of the petitioners, counter filed by the Insurance Company and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part, awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- with interest

¶30

RRN,I MACMA No.1662 of 2011

¶31

¶32

(A 7o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and rvith proportionate costs, to be deposited by respondent Nos. i & 2, jointly and severally, within one month from the date of Judgment. Dissatisfied with the qrrantum of compensation au,arded in the said judgment and decree by the Tribunal, the appellants/ petitioners preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶33

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶34

Learned counsel lor the petitioners had contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased AS Rs. 1,500/ per month as against Rs.3,OOO/- per month, holding that after his marriage, the deceased rvould have contributed lts.i,5OO/- for up keeping of his family. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased was worked in Chicken. Centre and within short span of time, his earnings would have gone up. As such, at least a sum ol Rs.S,OOO/- per month may be considered as income of the deceased by considering his future prospects.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier as '14'. The Tribunal has taken the age ol the deceased mother as about 40

¶36

¶37

RRN,I MACMA No.3662 of 2011

¶38

years afld taken multiplier "14" as per the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, the Tribunal ".."d i.,^considering the age of the^{deceasedand contended that the multiplier shallbe} applicabie to the^{case of the petitionersis '18'for the purpose} of assessing the^{compensation.The age of the deceasedhas to} be taken for fixing^{the multiplieras per the present scenario} and the^{Tribunal did not grant any amount towards funeral} expenses,^{loss of estate and futureprospects ald accordingly,} prayed to^{allow the aPPeal-}

¶39

On the other hand,^{the learned counsel appearing} for^the respondents^{had contendedthat the Tribunalwas justified in} passing the^{impugnedJudgment and Decreeand, accordingly,} prayed to dismiss^{the aPPeal.}

¶40

lO. The^{involvement of the oflending vehicle and the manner} of the accident^{is not under challenge. Thus, the findingof the} Tribunal with^{respect to the respondentsliability to pay} compensation^{to the petitioners attains finality.}

¶41

1 1. Insofar as the^quantum of compensation is^concerned, the petitioners, in order to^{prove the deceased} income^no documentary evidence is adduced.^However, since^the

¶42

5 RRN,J MAaMA No.3562 of 2O11

¶43

deceased was aged about 20 years, able bodied, he r:an easily earn Rs.4,5OOl- per month b-v working in a Chicken Centre Hence, this Court is inclined to grant the monthly income of the deceased ns Rs.4,500/ - per month. To this 4Ool' of future prospects to be added as per the decision in National Insurq.nce Compang Ltd. Vs. Pranag Sethil. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the age of the mother of the deceased but the age of the deceased should be taken for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency. The appropriate multiplier as per Sorla Verrna I/s. Delhi Transport Corporationz is 'iB', considering the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 2O years. Thr: deduction towards the personal expenses ol the deceased at 5O7o is justified as per the decision ol Sarla Vertna (supra). The assessment of the loss of dependency would t-hus be as

¶44

follor,r,s:

¶45

Sl.No.	Description	Calcul;rtion
I	_ Incomeofthedeceased	Rs.4,5OO/- permonth
,2	FutureProspects	Rs.1,80O/-r@4Oo1oon montl-rl rncome
	Annualincome +future p!es!9qs	Rs.75,{r00/- (Rs.4,500+1,800x12)
4	Annualincome ofdeceased ft.ra9dl4tiSrlS!!9M4"l a	Rs.37,800/- (Rs.75,60t)X5O%)

¶46

'1u^{orzlto sccsao}

¶47

' 1zoos1^{6 scc rzr.}

¶48

¶49

RRN,] MACMA No.3662 of 2011

¶50

	expcnses
5	Multiplier	t8
b	Lossof dependency	Rs.6,8O,4OOl-
	I	(Rs.37,800x1B)

¶51

L2- Learned Counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are entitled to compensation under conventional heads and the same is^justified. The petitioners are entitled a-rl amount of Rs. 16,500/- (15,000+10%) towards loss of estate and Rs. 16,500/- (15,000+10%) towards funeral expenses as per Pranag Sethi's case (supra). The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are entitled Rs.B0,OOO (4O,000x2) towards loss of filial consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magrna Insurance Compang Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @t. Chuhru Ram3.

¶52

In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.7,93,4OO/towards compensation. Initially, the petitioners claimed only Rs.5,0O,OOO/-. Thereafter, they have filed I.A.No.7 of 2OI9 seeking amendment of claim from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs. 1O,OO,00O/- under various heads and the same was allowed vide orders of this Court in I.A.No. 1 ol 2019, dated O7.O8.2O23 subject to payment of Court Fee before the Tribunal on the enhanced claim amount.

¶53

320 i8 Law Suit (SC) 904

¶54

7 RRN,I MACMA No.3662 of 2011

¶55

AccordinglJ,, the M.A. C. M.A is partly allou.ed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,73,OOO/- to Rs.7,93,4OO/- (Rupees Seven Lal:hs Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred orrly). The enhancrd amount will carry interest at 7.Soh p.a. from the date of petition till the date of rea-lisation. The respondents are directed to rleposit the compensation along with intcrest and costs, after deducting the amount if an-v already deposited, r;r,ithin (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgmr:nt. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners as per the apportionment and ratio determined by the Tribunal. The petitioners are directed to deposit the deficit Court Fee before the Tribunal on the enhanced corrpensation within two monlhs from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as per order of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 12019 dated 07.O8.2O23. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shail stand

¶57

AR^RAO clo sed. sd/-^{N. CHAND} RA ANT^SEKHREG ISTRAR ASSIST

¶58

,ITRUE^COPY'/ sEcrror'rLorrrcen

¶59

To'

¶60

^.^{,-^ T.ih.n,l-Cum-XXllAdditional} ,, l1?f^{!S;SI tWBl A:""if *,:"'3'I tl [ : HtH t''s^ *"*a )} -EDDY^{KAsr REDDY' Advocate toPucl} 2.^{one cc to SRr' t^;;;;;;'} MANJULA'^{Advocate IOPUCI} 3.^{One CC to SRI} " 'O'"O 4.^{Two CD CoPies} rrcQ

HIGH COURT

RRN,J

DATED:2910812023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3662 of 2011

¶66

1d E ST/,iT€
o
q
O ? 3 [ii; ?t?1

¶67

PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.

¶68

@ Corgt'X {r{e

¶69

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶70

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OI AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶71

:PRESENT:

¶72

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶73

MOTOR AccIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3662 OF 201'l

¶74

Between:

¶75

Mohd. Younus, S/o. Late Mohd. Yousuf, Occ- Electrician, R/o H o 9-457 lDll 1 112, Hakeempet Kunta, Tolichowki Hyderabad

¶76

Smt. Shareefa Begum, Wo lt/lohd. Younus, Occ- Housewife, R/o H.o, 9-457 lDll 1 112, Hakeempet Kunta, Tolichowki Hyderabad

¶77

Ms. Anjum Begum, D/o Mohd. Younus, Occ- Housewife, Rio H.o. 9-457 lDl11l12, Hakeempet Kunta, Tolichowki Hyderabad

¶78

Ms. Asma Begum, D/o Mohd. Younus, Occ- Nil, R/o H.o 9-4-571D111112, Hakeempet Kunta, Tolichowki Hyderabad

¶79

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶80

AND

¶81

C. Chaitnya, S/o C. Narasimha Rao, Age- Major, Occ- Business, R/o H.No. 1-7-139133, S.R.K. Nagar, Golconda Cross Roads, Hyderabad

¶82

The National lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional. lVanager, DO ll, Swapnalok Complex, lV Floor,. S.D. Road, Secunderabad

¶83

... Respondents/Respondents

¶84

Appeal Under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 576 ot 2007 dated 14-07-2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- XXll Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.

¶85

ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the 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. K.JAGATPAL REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of SMT. P. SATYA MANJULA, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.,

¶86

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶87

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,73,0001 to Rs.7,93,4001 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety three thousand and four hundred only);

¶88

That the enhanced amount be and hereby shall carry interest at 7 .5o/o per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶89

That the respondents be and hereby are directed ot deposit the

¶90

compensation along with interest and costs, after deducting the amount if any already deposited , within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶91

That the compensation amount be and hereby shall be apportioned among the petitioners, as per the apportionment and ratio determined by the Tdbunal,

¶92

That the Petitioners be and hereby are directed to deposit the deficit court fee before the Tribunal on the enhanced compensation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶93