Allowed

Kuruva Mallamma and Anr. v. Chandra Kanth and Anr.

Telangana HC23 Aug 2023MACMA/4043/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed special motor accident claim miscellaneous appeal enhancing compensation from Rs. 89,000 to Rs. 4,33,400 based on applicable law doctrines, with interest at 7.5% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 89,000 to Rs. 4,33,400 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of petition till realization.

Kuruva Mallamma and Anr. Vs Chandra Kanth and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TI-IREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.JESHWAR RAO

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:4043 OF 2012

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehichs Act against the Order and Decree made in M-V.O.P.No.1503 of 2002 dated 16-1 1-2004 on the file of the Court of the Chaifman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kuruva Mallamma, Wo. late Shamappa Nil R:/o. Huts, Jyothinagar, Langerhouse, Hyderabad.

¶9

Kuruva Yellappa, S/o. late Shamappa Nil Rl/o. Huts, Jyothinagar, Langerhouse, Hyderabad.

¶10

,..APPELLANT/PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

Chandra Kanth, S/o. Lal Singh, Business Ri/o.Plot No.1OB, A - Block, Vijaya Poony Apartments, Sainathpuram, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶13

The Oriental lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager CBO-Vll, 107, Jain Estate, Parklane, Secunderabad. (R-1 Dismissed for default vide C.O. dt. 1011012011)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. T. VTSWARUPA CHARY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. BATHULA RAJ KIRAN

¶17

The Gourt made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA^'ESHIVAR RAO

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.NO.4043 0F 20L2

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This M.A.C.M.A. is frled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 16.1I.2OO4, passed in O.P.No.15O3 of 2OO2 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims TribunalCum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

¶23

For convenience, the parties will be hereina-fter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners hled a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the death of Shamappa (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") stating that on 16.03.2002 at about 2.30 p.m. the deceased along with his son namely K.Yellappa, who is petitioner No.2 herein, had a tea at Citizen Hotel, Ring Road and after having the tea, the deceased was started from the Hotel to go to his house, Jyothinagar and crossing the road. Then sr-rddenly, on a white TATA Sumo bearing No.KA 32M 2655 came from

¶25

¶26

RRN,J MACMA No4r)43 of20l2

¶27

Laxminagar and^{went towardsAttapur at high speed, rashly} and negligenfly^{dashedthe deceased' Consequently,the} deceased fell on^{the road and received bleeding injuries on his} head and right hand.^{Immediately after the accident,while the} dbceased was^{shifting to Osmania General Hospital in an Auto,} he was succumbed^{to injuries. The police Langerhousehad} registered a case^{in Cr.No.69 of 2OO2underSection 3O4-A IPC} against the driver^{of the above said TATA Sumo' Hence, the} claim petition^{is seeking compensation of Rs' 1,50,000/-'}

¶28

Respondent^{No. 1 remainedex parte'Respondent No'2 frled} a counter-denying^{the allegations made in the petition'They} mainly contended^{that the said TATA Sumo was not insured} with them and the^{driver of said TATASumo had no driving} licence. As such,^{they are not liable to pay compensation'}

¶29

To prove their^{case, the petitionersexaminedPW'l and 2} and got marked^{Ex.A1 to A4. No evidencewas adducedon} behalf of respondent^{No.2, but Ex.B1 policy was marked'}

¶30

On appreciation^{of the evidenceon record, the Tribunal} allowed O.P. in^{part by awardingcompensationof Rs'89,O00/-} with interest @9o/o^{p.a. from the date of petition till the date of} realisation.

¶31

¶32

RRN.J Nr^cr,r A No 40rt of20l2

¶33

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ex.A3, a certihed copy of the Postmortem examination report, the approximate age of the deceased mentioned as 6O years. The Tribunal was wrongly taken multiplier as five (5) instead of 9. As per t}le No:tional Insurance Compang Limited as. Pranag Sethi and othersl this Court is inclined to take the multiplier as'9'

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation against petitioner, this Court requires no interference. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal

¶36

karned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,200/-p.m. As per the petitioners, version of the deceased was 60 years old and working as a labourer, earning Rs.3,OOO/- per month. But, the petitioners did not produce any evidence to that effect. As such, the Court below fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/p.m only; it is very meagre, and this Court is inclined to grant

¶37

'1zotz1^{to scc 680}

¶38

¶39

RRN.J MACit{A No.a043 of20l2

¶40

monthly the income of the deceased at Rs.4,SOO/- as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa as Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alllance Insurance Co. Ltd.z observed that it is hard for a coolie or his family members to prove the income of the former, and in such absence of evidence, the notional income of a coolie is hxed at Rs.4,500/-per month. To this, TOVo of future prospects are added as the deceased was aged 60 years, as per the decision ln Pranag Sethi (supra). Thus, the monthly income of the + deceased is Rs.4,500 1O% =Rs.4,950/- and annually it comes to Rs.59,4OOl- (Rs.a,950/ - x l2l.

¶41

1 1 . Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the deceased was a labourer and the Tribunal rightly deducted income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure l/3 of the income as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Vertna Vs. Delhi Ttansport Cotpoltions Same is to be deducted from the annual income, i.e. (Rs.59,400 ( - ) Rs. 19,800) = Rs.39,6OO/-. As rightly contended by the leained counsel for the petitioner, the multiplier is 9'for the age group 56 to 6O years. Hence,

¶42

2(20tt | 13 SCC 236 I lzooe; e scc rz t.

¶43

¶44

RRN L{ACMA No.urorl of2012'

¶45

income of the deceased, i.e.,^{Rs.39,600/-, is tobe} multiplied with '9', i.e. Rs.3,56,40Ol-^{(Rs.39,600/- x91.} Thus, the total loss of dependency^{would cometo} Rs.3,56,400/-.

¶46

The Tribunal granted Rs.15,O0O/-^{loss of consortium.} However, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex^{Court in} Pranag Sethi (supra) towards loss of consortium to^petitioner No. 1 (wife) Rs.44,000/-(Rs40,000+10%ol and^{the Tribunaldid} not award any compensation under^{the head of 'I-oss of estate'.} As per the Pranag Sethi^(supra), ttris Court^{is inclined to} gralt Rs. 16,500/-(Rs. 15,OOO+10%) towards loss of^estate' and the Tribunal was awarded Rs.2,OOO/- towards^'funeral expenses', but as per the Pranag Setht^(supra) , it has to^be increased to Rs. 16,500/-(Rs. 15,OOO+10%) towards^'funeral expenses'.

¶47

Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the^quantum

¶48

of compensation as follows:

¶49

Head	Amount arrived at by the Trlbunal	A.rnountarrived at by thlsCourt
Loss of dependency	Rs.72,OOO/-	Rs.3,56,4(X)/-
lrssofconsortium	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.44,OOO/-
Lossofestate	nil	Rs.16,5OO/-
Funeralexpenses	Rs.2,OOO/-	Rs.16,5OO/-
Total	Rs.89,OOO/-	Rs.4,33,4OO/-

¶50

¶51

RRN-J MACMA No 1041of20l2

¶52

The Tribunal granted interest @ 9o/o p.a. as interest was prevailing at that time. This Court awards interest at 7 .Sc/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Though the claimed amount is Rs.1,5O,OOO/-, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh as. Rajbir Singh+, in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the appellant/petitioner shall pay the deficit Court fees on the enhanced compensation.

¶53

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.89,OOO/- to Rs.4,33,4OOl- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Three Thousald and Four Hundred only) with costs and interest @7.5^o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos. I and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount w'ith costs ald interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited within two months from the date of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same in

¶54

a unm;7sc7o+ao/2013.

¶55

¶56

RRN.J NIACMA No.404l ol20l2

¶57

i I I

¶58

accordance with the manner and^{proportionas determinedby} the Tribuna,l, subject to^{paymentof defrcit Court fee withintwo} months of a copy of this^{judgment. There shall be no order} as to costs.

¶59

Miscellaneous petitions, if any^{pending,shall stand}

¶60

closed.

¶61

SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶62

¶63

Note: That the date of order read '23.06.2023" At preamble portion and docket sheet of the Order dated 23.oa.2023 in MACMA.No.4043/2012 ls corrected and substitutes as "2310812023". Suo Motu.

¶64

This amended order shall substitute the earlier Order which has already been dispatched on^27.02.2024.

¶65

SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,