Allowed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Balmuri Padma and 3 Others

Telangana HC3 Nov 2023MACMA/3796/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by claimants and an insurance company respectively challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10,71,000 to Rs. 25,28,829 applying revised multiplier rates and full agricultural income, and rejected the insurer's appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 25,28,829; appeal of Insurance Company rejected.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Balmuri… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^337e ]

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶8

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS AP^{PEAL NO: 2694 OF 2009AND} 3796 0F 2012

¶9

Appeals under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and against^{the orderand} decree in O.P.No.123 of 2005 dated 20.11.2008 on the^file of the Court^{of the} Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial.

¶10

M.A-C.M.A.NO: 2694 OF 2009

¶11

Between:

¶12

'1. Balmuri Padma Rao W/o late Baknuri Madan Mohan Rao, aged 42 yearc, Occ: House Hold

¶13

Ealamuri Rahul, S/o late Ealmuri Madan Mohan Rao aged 23 years, Occ: Student

¶14

B. Venkat Narsinga Rao, S/o late Balmuri Madan Mohan Rao, aged 17 years.

¶15

Appellant No.3 being minor represented by his natural mother and next friend Balmuri Padma Rao i.e., Appellant No.1)

¶16

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

Md.Yakoob, S/o.Nazeer Hl"."qil, 4Sgg 67 years, Occ: Owner of Lorry Bearing No. Ap 9 V 5929 Fyo.H.No:20-4-360, Cinot iirigar, codavaiikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶19

l!'lls.United lndia lnsurance Co^Ltd., rep by its Branch Manager O/o Branch gjlr_f;.,.i1i;;5Jffi ll5t ,3efilis;;,-i#;;;ii".r;mtrp;rii-ii'

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/RESPODENTS

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.NO:3 7g6 0F 2012

¶22

Between:

¶23

United lndia Insurance Company Limited, Branch Jyothinagar, through its Regional'Offrce,-Aa"neeib"^{Manager,Branch Office.} gh, Hyderabad rep. by its manager

¶24

...APPELLANT/R.2

¶25

AND

¶26

Balmuri Padma, W/o LAte Madan Mohan Rao, aged about 3g years, Occ Household

¶27

2 Balmuri Rahul, S/o. Late Madan Mohan Rao, aged about 19 years, Occ student

¶28

3 Balmuri Venkat Narasing Rao, S/o. Late Madan Mohan Rao, aged about 13 years

¶29

!-! fere^{in being Minorrepby his Mother,the natural guardian,}

¶30

R-1 here in

¶31

R-1 to R3 here in are R/o Manala Village; Mallial Mandal., Karimanagar District A.P.

¶32

4 Md. Yakoob, S/o. Nazeer Hussain, aged about 67 years; Ownerof Lorry No AP-9-V-5929, R/o H.No. 20-4-398 Gandhinagar, Godavarikhani karimnagar District., A.P.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

MACMAMP. NO: 3997 OF 2009 in MACMA.N o-3796 ol2O12

¶35

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased grant} stay of execution of^judgment and^{decree passed in OP No.123l2005dated} 20.11.2008 by MACT-cum-ll^{Additional District Judge, Jagtial.}

¶36

Counsel for the Appellants^{in MACMA.No.2694 of 2009} and Respondents¹ to³ in^{MACMA.No.3796 ol 2012 : SRI' M MADHAVA} REDDY

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 in MACMANo.2694 of 2009} And appellant in MACMA.No.3796^{ot 2O12} : SRI AV'K'S PRASAD

¶38

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1in MACMANo.2694 of 2009} And Respondent^{No.4 in MACMA.No.3796 ot 2012:}

¶39

The Court^{rnadethe following:COMMONJUDGMENT}

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE P. SAM KOSITY AND

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI M.A.C.M.A.Nos,.2694 of 2OO9 & 3796 of 2Ot2

¶42

COMMON JUDGMENT: {per Hon'ble Srt JustiLe P.SALI KOSHY)

¶43

' Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 2O. 11.2OO8 in O.P.No. 123 of 20O5 on the frle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, Jagtial (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), the claimants have filed MACMA No.2694 of 2OO9 and the Insurance Company has filed MACMA No.3796 of 2012.

¶44

Since the challenge made in both the appeals is to the Award and decree dated 2O.LL.2OO8 passed by the Tribunal, both the appeals are being decided by way of this common judgment.

¶45

Heard Mr. A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and Mr. M. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and perused the entire material on record.

¶46

The claim petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.45,OO,OO0/- on account of death of the deceased by name Balmuri Madan Mohal Rao in a motor

¶47

¶48

PSK,J & LNA,J MACMA.NoS 2694 of2009 &37 ot2012

¶49

vehicle accident and the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.12,02,000/- as compensalion with an interest @ 8.5o/o per annum from the date of application till the date of deposit of the amount. That as per the said Award, an amount of Rs. 10,71,O0O/- was awarded towards pecuniar5r and nonpecuniary damages amongst all the claimants and an amount of R. 1,31,OOO/- was awarded towards damage to the vehicle involved in the accident in favour of claimant No. 1. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company frled an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, so also the claimants have hled an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation and prayed for tJ:e enhancement of tJ:e compensation.

¶50

The appeal of the Insurance Company is primarily on the ground that the income of the deceased had been assessed by the Tribunal on the higher side. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, since substantial income was from the agriculture land which t1:e deceased had and which remains with the family, there would had been no substantial loss of income of the family from the agriculture income and this aspect had not been considered by the Tribunal-. 'The learned couns{ therefore submits that

¶51

¶52

PSK,J & LNAJ MACMA.NoS.2694 of2009 & 3796 ot2012

¶53

compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be re-quantified accordingly. Learned counsel has also contended that the compensation damages awarded to the vehicle involved in the accident is also erroneous as there was no sufficient proof of the same adduced by the claimants. However, when we look into the pleadings, undoubtedly, there was a vehicle belonging to the deceased i.e., Tata Sumo, which was involved in the accident and which must have definitely received some expenses and if the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,3l,OO0/-, the same does not seem to be either arbitrary or on the higher side.

¶54

On the ottrer hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended. that the Tribunal has erroneously deducted SO% from the agricultural income of the deceased of Rs.2,05,OO0/and had recalculated the compensation at Rs. l,30,OOO/-. According to learned counsel, since the deceased was the person who was cultivating tJle land and on his death, t.l..e family would not be in a position to cultivate the land and there should had been a total loss of income from the agriculture side. Therefore, the Tribunal should had taken the entire zrmount of Rs.2,05,0O0/- for the purpose of quantifrcation of the compensation. So also the income of the deceased according to the claimants was on the steada rise so far as the business of

¶55

¶56

MACMa i.ros ,u, "rroorlttif.f)fii

¶57

construction material that hc was having ard that .would be evident frorn the previous two income tax ret.urns that was submitted and the income from the last income tax return should had been the basis. Rather, the Tribunal has gone in for an average of the income from the last two years of income tax return that the claimants had submitted.

¶58

As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the clajmants so far as the reduction in the agricultural income by 50%, we do not find any force on the argument of the counsel in this regard as the basis for the same was the decisio, of tle Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Diuisionrr I Manager, United. Indla Inslllrance Co. Ltd, Vs. Narala Venkata Subbammd and. otherst. Therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal in taking SO% of the agricultural income as the loss of income seems to be lair and reasonable. So also so far as the business front is concemed, the Tribunal had taken into coniideration the income tax return of the deceascd for the years 2OO3-O4 and 2OO4-OS and had taken the average of the income of two years i.e., Rs.75,0OOl_ per annurn which also in the opinion of this Bench is quite fair and reasonable. However, J'rom the perusal of the record, it appears that the quantifrcation

¶59

r 20Lr8 ACJ 551

¶60

¶61

PSKJ & LNI..J MACMA.NoS 2694 of2009 & 1796 of 2012

¶62

( \

¶63

-7

¶64

has been done not in accordance with the judgment that has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Venna and Others Vs. Delhi Tlansport Corporation dnd another2, as also in the case of Nqtionq.l Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranag Setht & Ors.3, and to that extent the quantilication of the compensation deserves to be re-quantified. In the light of the aforesaid two judgments, we are of the opinion that loss of future prospects also needs to be recalculated.

¶65

Accepting the income of the deceased that has been assessed by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.2,O5,OO0/- as the basis and adding 257o towards future prospects considering the age of the deceased to be 50, there would be further increase of Rs.51,25O/- to the annual income which would bring the annual income to Rs.2,56,25O/-. From the said amount, if 1/3ra is deducted towards personal expenses, the amount would come to Rs. 1,70,833/-. In the light of the decision rendered in the preceding paragraphs, considering the age of the deceased to be 50, the multiplier to be applied would be 13 which if multiplied by Rs.1,7O,833/-, the amount would come to Rs.22,2O,a29 /-. In addition to this, the claimants would also be entitled for loss of consortium of Rs.44,0O0/- each i.e.,

¶66

2 l2OO9) 6 SCC 12 1 3 lzorz; ro scc oeo

¶67

¶68

PSK,J & LNA.J {{CNl{ \i.,- lo9{ of:OO, & l79o alt0t2

¶69

¶70

Rs.44,O0O/-X3 = Rs. t,32,OOO/_ and in addition, they would aJso be entitled for a compensation towards funera_l expenses and loss of estate of Rs. 15,0O0/_ each i.e., Rs. tS,0OO/X3 = Rs.45,OO0/-. Thus, the total compensation would become a, amount of Rs.23,97,829/ instead of Rs. 10,71,0OO/_.

¶71

In addition, the award of compensation towards damages of the vehicle of Rs. l,31,OOO/_ remains intact which will thus bring the total compensation to Rs.2S,2g,g29 / _. Tine remaining part of the Award so far as interest rate is concerned would also remarn rntact.

¶72

lO. In view thereof, the MACMA No.2694 of 2OO9 filed by the claimants stands allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to an arnount of Rs.25,28,829/- and the MACMA.No.3796 of 2OI2 fited. by the Insurance Company stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶73

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶74

closed.

¶75

Sd/- P NAGAB ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY//

¶76

SECT N OFFICER

¶77

to,r.

¶78

,nu ctraiman,^{MACT_cum_, Additionar District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtiar} (With records if any) 2. &;ic id"sCi. M't(lRonevn^{REDDY,Advoca-te [o. P.ucl} 3. il; ca io sni.^{A.v.x.sPRASAD,Advocate [oPUCl} 4. Two CD CoPies

As/pr

('., )

.1,:+

.).

HIGH COURT DATED: 0311112023

¶88

COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2694 of 2009 AND 3796 0F 2012

¶89

'.; rA rA
oo 01 unn zozq Lr I l
)'L
* O5 .7
-:i'"/'

¶90

ALLOWING THE MACMA.NO.z@4 OF 2OO9 AND

¶91

REJECTING THE MACMA NO.3796 OF 2012 WITHOUT COSTS

¶92

L&ag1,-^e<'!

¶93

rN rHE^{H|GHcouRIfSIDrJkEABrl[EoF TELANGANA}

¶94

FRIDAY,^{rHE rHrRD DAYriE,l.lr?"tR?t} TWO^THOUSANDAI

¶95

PRESENT

¶96

THE HONOURABLE^{SRINJUSTICEP'SAM KOSHY} rHE^{HoNouRAeLr sRi J-usrrcEN'TUKARAMJI}

¶97

4 OF^{2009AND3796OF2012} M .Ac.^M.A.NO:2

¶98

M.A.c.M.^{ANO:2694 0F2off)}

¶99

Between:

¶100

Balmuri^{PadmaRao Wolate Balmuri Madan MohanRao' aged 42 years'} Occ: House House^Hold

¶101

Occ: House House^Hold

¶102

1. Balamuri^{Rahul, S/o lateBalrnuri Madan MohanRao aged 23 years' Occ:} StudentB.

¶103

StudentB.^{Venkat NarsingaRao' S/o late Balmuri Madan Mohan Rao' aged 17 years'} Aooellant No.3^{beingminor represented. by his naturalmcrther and next friend} ASifilf i;;;;-,^{R,o"i e, APPeirantNo'1)}

¶104

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶105

AND

¶106

1 H;Ifl [fr 3:if^{]01",'iI'J:1['^flY#-liU8'"&Sil"3#lL?lol""#*'"''} Karimnagar^District.

¶107

'^{Xf":"]!:gA?ll".,lrii,l3l",ftr?%ilirlif,'ll,i!1,',iiH'"Y61"&"J,fli("JS[""i} V"rialroh 24-i2-2oo4^{to 23-12-2N5)}

¶108

...RESPONDENTS/RESPODENTS

¶109

M.AC.M.A.NO:37^60F 12

¶110

Between:

¶111

United lndia lnsurance^{CornpanyLimited, Branch Manager' Branch Office'} iviiiii"rg;i, th;;rdh^{ita R"gi6*l'office,Basheerbash' Hvderabadrep bv its} mana9er

¶112

...APPELLANT/R.2

¶113

AND

¶114

Balmuri padma, Wo LAk Household ..: Madan Mohan Rao, aged about 38 years, Occ:

¶115

Balmuri Rahul, S/o. Late I student Vladan Mohan Rao, aged about 19 years, Occ:

¶116

Balmuri Venkat Narasing Rao, Sio. Late Madan Mohan Rao, aged about 13

¶117

[? fEiE;l 0",^n Minor rep by his Mother, the naturat suardian,

¶118

B,.r,rll,X1|"r",^^{are R/o Manata Viilase;Mailiat Mandat., Karimanagar}

¶119

Md. Yakoob, S/o. Nazeer llup111, ^aOed_ about 67 years; Owner of Lorrv No. Aft l;Y:rf ?iR/oH.No.zo_+_oso'Ga-n-a-ninffi^{i'oli'r,",,ir,r,"nikarimn6sar}

¶120

...RESPONDENTS

¶121

Appears under section 173 0f Motor Vehicres Act and against the order and decree in o.p.No.123 0f 2005 dated 20.11.2008 0n the fire of the court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial.

¶122

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sRl. M MADHAVA REDDY, Advocate for the for the Appellants in MACMA.No.2694 of 2009 and Respondents 1 to 3 in MACMA.No.3796 of 2012 and SRI A.V.K.S PRASAD, for the Respondent No.2 in MACMA No. 2694 of 2009 and appellant in MACMA.No.3796 of 2012 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.1 in lr,lACMA.to.2694 of 2OO9 and Respondent No.4 in MACMA.No.3796 of 2012

¶123

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶124