Allowed

A Yadhamma v. Ch Nagesh and Another

Telangana HC19 Aug 2023MACMA/3952/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 7.58 lakhs, applying Supreme Court principles for coolie income, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, and ordered deposit within two months.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 7,58,400/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. Respondents directed to deposit the amount within two months.

A Yadhamma Vs Ch Nagesh and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

SATURDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3952 OF 2014

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.2919 ot 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 09.07.2014.

¶7

Between:

¶8

A YADHAMMA, Wo. Late A.Narayana, Aged 47 years, Occ House-wife, R:/o H.No.1-2-439, Mirzalguda, Sithaphalmandi, Secunderabad.

¶9

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . CH NAGESH AND ANOTHER, S/o Ch.Sanjeeva, Aged Major, Occ Student. Rlio H.No.2-60, Chaitanya Colony, Venkirla village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶12

National lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Regional Manager, Off lFloor, Jubilee Building, Nampally Station Road, Near Collectorate Office, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

l.A No: 1OF 2014^(MACMAMP. NO:5642 OF 20141

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to amend the claim application vide OP No.2919/2011 on the file of Chief^judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad claiming the amount under the various heads, shown in the affidavit afresh, thereby amending the total claim amount from Rs. 3 Lakhs to Rs.S Lakhs and carried out in MACMA grounds of appeal.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant):SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶18

The Court made the following JUDGEMENT :

¶19

¶20

¶21

TTIE HON'BLE SRI JIUSTICE i'IAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.NO,3952 0F 2014

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by IN the order and decree dated 09 .O7 .2O 14 , passed O.P.No.29 19 ol' 2OL1 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

¶25

For converrience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed beforc the Tribunal.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 1€16 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,O0,0OO/- on account of the death of Murthy (hereinaiter referred to as "deceased") stating that on 17.I2.2O11 about 11.O0 hours, the deceased Murthy was proceeding as a pillion rider on a CBZ Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-24A 9788 from Uppal towards Boduppal and reached Nallachenm Katta of Uppal, the rider of the CBZ Motor Cycle Bearing No.AP-24A 97gg drove at a

¶27

¶28

RRN.J Urcltrrl No 1952 oll0lr

¶29

high speed in a rash and negligent :nanner and dashed to the divider of the road, due ,--o whicr,r the- deceased fell down on the road and sustained a head injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital by 108 Ambulance, and the doctors found him dead. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of tlrre CBZ Motorcycle bearing No. No.AP-24A928a. On a report, the Station House Ofhcer, Uppal'police Station, had registered a case in crime number 640 of 2011 under Sections 3O4-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the rider of the said CBZ Motorcycle.

¶30

Even after giving several opportunities for the respondents appearance, r.espondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

¶31

Based on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trail.

¶32

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anA compensatiort imd, if so, at what quantum and. what ls thB liabilitg of tle respondents?

¶33

2 To .what relieJ?

¶34

¶35

RRN-,I IUACMA No^1g5l oll0l.l

¶36

In support of the claim, the^{petitioner herselfwas} examined as PW. 1 and got marked Exs.Al^{to A6. Since the} respondents remained ex-parte, there is^{no dispute with} regard to the nranner in which the accident^{took place.}

¶37

On apprtlciatioi.: of the evidence on record, the^Tribunal allowed the O.P. by arvarding ccrmpensatjon of^Rs.3,OO,OOO /^- with interest @7.5 p.a. from ttre date of^petition till the^date of realiSation, though it assesseC that the^{petitioner was} entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,59,000/-.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that I.A.No.2 of 2Ol4^(M.A.C.M.A. M.P.No.5642 of 2Ol4l is^filed to permit the petitioner to amend the clairi-r application vide O.P.No.29i9 of 2011 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderat aC ciaiming^+.he arrrount under the various heads, shou,n in the affidavit fresh, thereby amending the total claim ar:nourrt from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs^and carried out in M.A.C.M.A. gi'ounds of^{appeal and the same} was ordered on 19.08.2023.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter-alia contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the

¶40

J-e:.*
. .{*5
,\ - . ,_r,

¶41

riR\t.., i\l;( ilA ilc 191:t ctt(/t{ lncome of tl-,e deceased ai- Es.5,0OC/- per monr.h, since he was working as a cleiiner I{o'.rzevci- it misconstrued itself and considered the monthly inco:ne of the deceased at Rs.3,OOO based on Cie ^[,etc Vq.dhvaacser, reported in the year 1999 as aiso that of the. peshoda mnta crrse reported rn 2C05.

¶42

i'earned coulrsei s.pFeai-r-r1g {or ihe petitio'er conteaded that the deceased u,as egtci ?ti 5,r-,ars arrC working AS clearler, earning Rs.S.OCtl i:ri:r. ztro:rti;. B,.rt, the pctitioncr did not pi'odLrce ari-y evideirr:e t., fhai eff€ct. As such, the Court belr;w fixerl th'-. nror,'ili,1- rln<:l,:n(: of the deceased at Rs.3,OO0/- oply.

¶43

1 1. This Court liavir.rg cci_:sidrrr:d. rh+: contention of the parties and on per,.rsa-! of the rnaterial on record, is inclined to hx monthly income of the,deceased at Rs.4,5OO/_ as per decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa us Manoger, Rogal Sund.arq.m Alliq.nee Insurance !o.^{Lttt.l !?irerein} it was observed that it is hard for a cooiie or h is {bmily. members to prove I dwsi sC)_2u0 i -8JJ ,(2ott I B scc j3c

¶44

RRN I MACIIA No 1952 ofz0l4

¶45

)

¶46

the incorne of the forrne. ^.t.i i" such^{absenceof evidence,} the notional income of a cooli'e is hxed at^{Rs.4,5OO/-per} month. To this, 4Ooh of future prospects are added as the deceased was aged 2O years as per the decision in Natlonal Insz.trance Compang Limlted vs Prand.g Sethi and otherss. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.4,SOO/-⁺ 4oyo = Rs.6,30C/- and annually, it comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,3007/^- x 12,).

¶47

L2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was a bachelor and the Tribtnal rightly deducted the income of the deceascd towards his personal expenditure @sAyo of the income as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhl T?:ansport Corporatlona. Same is to be deducted from the annual income and it comes to Rs.37,BOO/-(Rs.75,6O0 - SOVI).

¶48

He further submitted that the Tribunal rightly took the appropriate multipliel as:per the decision of the Apex Court in Soirla Venna (supra) as 18. Hcnce, the incorne of the deceased i.e. Rs.37,8OO/- is to be multiplied with '18'.

¶49

tlzotzl to scc 680. n 1:ool.1 o scc tzr

¶50

¶51

Rt{N I MAaldA No^r95-l ol" Z0l{

¶52

Thus, the total^{ioss o1' dependency would come to}

¶53

Rs.6,8O,4OOi-^{(Rs.37'.BOO/ x 18).}

¶54

The Tribunal^rlid irot^{gr?ri-rt arir arllountunder the head} loss of 'filial^{consortir-rrn'. l{orvever. the petitioner is entitled} to compensation unclet^{filial consortitrm'as per the decision} of the Hon'ble Apex^{Court in Ma.gmaInsurance Compang} Ltd. Vs. Nanu Rant @^{CflrulrrntRcnrs towards loss of 'filial} consortium' and^{isarvanderfRs.4O,OO071. The Tribunal} awarded compensation^{under the tread'Loss of estate'at} Rs.S,OOO/-. It is a^{very meagre amount' As per Pranag} Settti^(supra), it has^{to increaseto Rs.16,500/-(Rs. 15,000/-} + IOV,) and the Tribunal was a.rl'arded^{Rs.25,OOO/- towards} firneral expenses', but as^{per the PranagSetht(supra)} ,^il has to be reduced^{to Rs.16,5OOi-The Tribunal awarded} no Rs.5,000/- towards transport,^{it isrightly granted,} interference^is required^{by this Court-}

¶55

Therefore, this Court is^{inciined toenhancethe} quantum of comPensation^as under:

¶56

s2O 18 Law Suit (SC) 9O4

¶57

1 I

¶58

-7

¶59

RRNJ IIACMA No l95l ot- 2014

)

)

0 I

-7

Head	Amount arrived atbythe Tribunal	Amount arrivedat bythis Court
Lossof	Rs.3,24,000/-	Rs.6,80,400I-
dependency
Loss ofhlial consortium	nil	Rs.4O,OOO/-
Loss of estate	s,0oo/-	Rs.16,500/-
Funeral expenses	2s,ooo/-	Rs.16,5OO/-
Transportation	s,0oo/-	Rs.5,OOO/-
Total	Rs.3,59,O00/-	Rs.7,58,4OO/-

¶65

However, the tribunal has rightly awarded interest at

¶66

7.5o/o p.a. and the same is justified.

¶67

i6. Though the claimed amount is Rs.3,OO,OOO/- in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJesh us. Ralbir Singha, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the appellant/petitioner shall pay the dehcit Court fees on the enhanced compensation.

¶68

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

¶69

u ueNuTscTo+ao /2or3

¶70

RRN-J MACMA^No..1952 or20l4

¶71

¶72

from Rs.3,OO,OOO/-^{to Rs.7,58,4OOl-(Rupees Seven Lakh} and Fifty Eight Thousand^{and Four Hundred only) with} interest @7.5 % p.a.^{fromthe date of petition till the date of} realization. Respondents^{No.1 and 2 are ditected 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 deficit Court fee within two months} receipt of a copy of^{this judgment.Thereshallbe no order} as to costs.

¶73

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany pending,shall stand}

¶74

closed.

¶75

Sd/. A"V.S.^PRASAD ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/'

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Motor^{Accidents ClaimsTribunal -cum-ChiefJudge' CityCivil} Court, HYderabad

¶80

One CC to^{SRl. JAGATHPALREDDY KASIREDDYAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶81

One CC^{to SRI- A. RAMAKRISHNAREDDY} '^{Advocate(OUT)}

¶82

Two CD^CoPies

$-P.

HlGH GOURT

DATED:1910812023

JUDGEMENT

MACMA.No.3952 of 2014

¶88

I 6e STATE o!c
(
()
o [? 0Et 2[21
t i '- !-'^,i' .-,,t'. ^tn-,.a
-2,;;::;-tr

ALLOWING THE MACMA

WITHOUT COSTS

\1>
1${d

It{ THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶93

SATURDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶94

PRESENT

¶95

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.JESHWAR^RAO

¶96

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 3952 0F 2014}

¶97

Between:

¶98

A YADHAMMA, Wo. Late A.Narayana, Aged 47^years, Occ^House-wife, Rl/o H.No. 1-2-4ii9, Mirzalguda, Sithaphalmandi, Secunderabad.

¶99

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶100

AND

¶101

CH NAGESH AND ANOTHER, S/o^{Ch.Sanjeeva,AgedMajor,Occ Student.} Rl/o H.No.2-60, Chaitanya Colony, Venkirla village,^{BibinagarMandal,} Nalgonda District.

¶102

National lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Regional^{Manager, Off I Floor, Jubilee} Building, Nampally Station Road, Near^{Collectorate Office,Hyderabad.}

¶103

...RESPONDENTS

¶104

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles^{Act against the orderand decree} in M.V.O.P.No.2919 of 2011 on the file of the^{Motor AccidentsClaimsTribunal} - cum- Chief Jndge, City^Civil Court, Hyderabad^{dated 09.07 .2014.}

¶105

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing^{and upon perusingthe grounds} of appeal, the Judgement and Decree^{of the Lower Court and the material} papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the argument of M/s Karireddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and of^{Sri A. Ramakrishna} Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent^{No-2.andof the Respondent No.1 not} appeared either in^person or by Advocate.

¶106

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶107

, l,Llj:: Motor Accident Civit Misceilaneous Appear be and hereby is

¶108

2' That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunar is enhanced from Rs 3,00,0001- ( Rupees. Thre; ;d;.t; 1". Rs. 7, 58,400t (Rupees

¶109

Seven Lakhs and Fiftv eignt ihors;n;;;'i;""r, Hundred onry) wirh interesr @ I so/o p a. rrom'ihe d;o,;;;;til; ,,r',n" ,",u of reatization. Respondent No.l and z ".u al[.tuji;;;;;, rhe said amount with costs and interest afterdeoucting the ar;"rri;,;rr, atready deposited within two monrhs from the out. & r"".Jipioi a'copy or tnis Judgement.

¶110