Allowed

Smt R. Andalu, v. S. Narsa Reddy

Telangana HC30 Jun 2023MACMA/4260/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed by the deceased's legal heirs against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 4,83,000 to Rs. 10,67,056, applying a higher multiplier and future prospects as per Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 4,83,000 to Rs. 10,67,056 with interest at 7.5% p.a. Respondents directed to deposit within two months. Claimants to pay deficit court fee.

Smt R. Andalu, Vs S. Narsa Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^ss04 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 4260 OF 2014

¶7

Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in MVoP No. 1 738 of 201 1 dated 3ol 1ot2o13on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum- il Additionar chief Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1. Smt R. Andalu, Wo late R. Sailoo Aged 42years, occ Housewife ? Mr &^{L_avanya,D/o tate R. SaitooAled17} v"iri, o." Student 3. t\ils. R..Rajita, D/o late R. Saitoo ege"d f O V"'rir, "ti Student (_Apperrant 2 and 3 being m_inors rep by- thelr Natural Guardian and mother

¶10

_^{Smt R.Andalu AppellantNo.1)}

¶11

1. Smt Laxmi (died),

¶12

All permanent Rio Jadspally ^Village, Toopran-Mandal Medak District, temporarily Rl/o H.No. 16-5-211-, Saida6ad, Hyd'eribad ...APPELLANTS/ PETITIoNERS

¶13

¶14

'1 . S. Narsa !e_ddy, S/o S C.hi[." Red-dy Aged major, occ student Fl/o lNA, ^^{Kurtivada (vill), Pannapet (Mandal)tr/eOakOiitrici-}

¶15

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Regional Manager Off United tndia tnsurance Buitdins^{-sasrreertiagf$ijff:i+r,}

¶16

_=r;;;r.

¶17

For the Appellants : SRI KASI REDDY JAGATHPAL REDDY, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent No.2 : MS. P.SATYA MANJULA, Advocate

¶19

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶21

I\I.A.C.M.A^{.No.426Oof 2OL4}

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

Being not s;atisfied^{with the quantum of compensation} awarded in the^{a*vardand decree,dated 30.10'2013 passed in} M.V.O.P.No.1736 of^{20 11 on the f,rle of the MotorAccident} Claims Tribunal-cum iI^{Additionai Chief Judge, City Civil} Cpurt, Hyderarad^{(for short "theTribunal"),the} appcllants / petitioners^{preferredthe present appeal seeking} enhancement of the^{compensslion.}

¶24

I,'or the siake of convcntence,^{the parties willbe} hereinafter refer:-ed^{to as they are alrayedbefore the Tribunal}

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that^{on 02 O4.2O1 1 at about} 7.30 p.m., whil: ot-re Sri R.Sailoo^{(hereinafterreferred to as} 'deceased'),^{a1o :rg with his wife was proceedingonhis} motorcycle bearing No.AP-28 AII-1259^{from Jadepally Village} t.orvards Muppir edciypalh- \lillage and r'vhen thel'^{reached the} outskirts of Muppireddypalll' Village, near Radiant Cables, a Tractor-Trailer bearing Reqistration Nos.AP 23 U 9356 and

¶26

¶27

RRN, J Macma_4260 2014

¶28

9357, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.2, was driven by its driver in a r.ash and negligent manner at high speed ald dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on O4.O4.20I1 while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital. According to the petitioners, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs. 1O,OO0/_ per month and Rs.20O/- per day towards batta, as he was working as a lorry driver under M/s. Rajamouli Transport Compaly. Hence, the petitioners laid the claim against respondent Nos.1 and 2 claiming compensation.

¶29

Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 remain ed, ex parte and respondent No.2 filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim-petition including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶30

RRN, J Macma 4260 2014

¶31

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶32

Whether the accident took place due to the rash arid negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Nos. AP 23 U 9356 and 9357 causing the deat.-r of R.Sailoo?

¶33

Whether the petitioners are entitled to compens;ation? If so. to what extent and from whom?

¶34

To what relieL)

¶35

Before the^'lribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.Al to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither ora-1 nor doiumentary evidence was produced.

¶36

After consiCering the oral and documentary evidence available on rec:ord, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor Trailer i:,nd accordingly awarded an amollnt of Rs.4,83,00O/- u,ith interest.e 7.So/o per annum liom the date of petition till t he d ate of realization to be paid by the

¶37

¶38

RRN, J Macma 4260 2014

¶39

respondents 7 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of contpensation.

¶40

B Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶41

9 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly earnings of the deceased @ Rs. 10,000/_ per month besides Rs.200/- per day as batta instead of Rs.4,5OO/- per month. The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under other heads and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable. As per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Compang Limited. Vs, Pranag Sethi and othersr, the petitioners are also entitled to the future prospects ald also Rs.77,OO0/_ under

¶42

conventional heads. It is further submitted that as per the principles of iaw laid down by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurq.nce Compang Limited. a. Nanu Ram @

¶43

1 zo17 AcJ zToo

¶44

RRN, J Macna 4260 2014

¶45

¶46

¶47

Chuhnt Ram an.d othersz, claimant^{Nos.2 ancl 3, who are} the minor daup;hters of the deceased, are^entitledto Rs.40,000/- each ton,ards parental consortium.^{In support of} his contentions, learned counsel for the^{petitionersrelied} upon the decisiorrs of the Hon'ble Apex Court^{in PARMINDER} SINGII Vs. JVEU/ Il\fDIA ASSURANCE^{COMPANYLIMITED} AND OTHE.RSs, JANABAI W D/O DINI{AR^{RAO GHORPADE} Vs. ICICI LAMBCTARD IMURANCE COMPANY^LIMITEDaar-d KALA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. BIIAGWAN DAS CHAUHAN A.I\ID OTITERSs,

¶48

LO. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent lvould submit that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence^availableon record, has righ111, awarded^just compensation, which^needs no interference by this Court

¶49

A perusal cf the impr.rgned award would go to show that the Tribunal hirs framed Issue No.l as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

¶50

'izo^{ra;rs scc} r:o '110191 7 Supreme Coult lases ll7

¶51

" 12022) l0 Supreme Co rr ( ascs 512

¶52

(2015) 2 Supreme Corrn lase\ 717

¶53

¶54

RRN, J Macma 4260 2014

¶55

Tractor-Trailer by its driver and after considering the evidence of P.W. 1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negrigent driving of the driver of the Tractor_ Trailer and has answered in favour of the petitioners ancl against the respondents. Therefore, this Court has no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negiigent drivir-rg of the driver of the Tractor-Trai1er.

¶56

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was working as a lorry driver and earning Rs. 10,000/_ per month towards salary and Rs.2oo/- per day towards batta, the Tribuna_r has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,50 O/_ per month as the petitioners did not produce any document to prove the income of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased and the year of accident, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceaserl at Rs.6,5OO/_ per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Pranag Sethi,s case (l supra), the petitioners are also

¶57

RRN, J Macma 4260 2014

¶58

entitled to an ac.dition of 25ok towards future prospects, as the deceased r,r'a s aged about 45 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.B,11l5l- (Rs.6,500/- + Rs.1,625l-). From this, 1/3ra is to be derlucted towards the personal expenses of the deceased following rhe decision of the Apex Court in Scrlc Verrnq. o. Delhi Transport Corporationa as the petitioners are 4 in number After deducting 1/3'a amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.5,417/-. Since the age of the deceased was 45 vears at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verrna a, Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), but not '13' as adopt,:d by the Tribunal Adopting multiplier^,14,, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,10,056/(Rs.5,a17/- x 12 x 14). The petitioners are also entitled to Rs.77,O0O/- uncer the conventional heads as per pranay Sethi's case (supra). Further, considering the fact that the claimant Nos.2 and 3, rvho are minor children of the

¶59

o 2oog ecJ t298 (sc)

¶60

.,:: .i*jii ";':

¶61

¶62

RRN, J Macma 4260 2014

¶63

deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to them under the head of the parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company (supra). Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,67,056/_.

¶64

Though the claimed amount is Rs.B,O0,0OO/_ invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Rajesh us, Rajbir singhT, and in a catena of decisions, this court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.

¶65

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.4,83,OOO/- to Rs. 1O,67,O56/_ (Rupees ten lakh, sixty seven thousand, Iifty six only). The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5%o p..a. from the date of petition till the date oi reaJization. The respondents a_re directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this j udgment. On such

¶66

'^{MANU/Sc/o+80/zo} l:

¶67

()

¶68

RRN, J Macma 4260 2014

¶69

,/.,

¶70

deposit, the petitioners are^{permittedto withdraw their} respective share amounts.^{The enhanced amount shall be} apportioned in ihe^{marneras orderedby the Tribuna'l.}

¶71

However, the^{pet-tionersare directed to pay a deficit court fee} on the enhalced amount.^{There shall be no order as to costs.}

¶72

Miscellanec us petitions, if any^{are pending shall stand}

¶73

clo sed.

¶74

s.li-P NAGABHUSHAMBA A-ssrsrnrylnEGlsrRAR //TRUE CoPY// ( )fr srcridrrr^oFFICER

¶75

to ,l. ,n" Chairman, l"4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional^Chief ?'d.Ti{ii$ik:u;:';xs,x':xaff*:',si^{joca'1eroPUCr} 3. One^{CC to Ms l) Sa}

¶76

Two^{CD CoPies}

b,6

/l I

HIGH COURT

DATED:30/06/2023

S.i ATE o
(,
i
,)c') 1:r tttND
I

¶83

JUDGMENT

¶84

MACMA.No.4260 of^2C 14

ALLOWED. @{d

[³³⁰⁴¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶89

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶90

PRESENT

¶91

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶92

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 4260 OF 2014

¶93

Between:

¶94

¶95

].^{SmlR.Andalu, Wo lateR. SailooAged42 years, occ} Housewife 2. Ms R Lavanya, D/o late R. Sailoo Aled 17 years, occ Student 3. Ms. R. Rajita, D/o late R. Sailoo Aged t6 ye-ars, occ Student eppellant^{2 and 3 being minorsrep by-their NaturarGuardian} and mother Smt R.Andalu Appellant No.1)

¶96

Smt Laxmi (died),

¶97

All permanent Rio Jad_epaily -Viilage, Toopran-Mandar Medak District, temporarily Rtio H.No. 16-5-211, Saida6ad, Hydbrabad

¶98

...APPELLANTS/ PETTTTONERS

¶99

¶100

1 . S. Narsa !e_d{V,_S/o S. Chilka Reddy Aged major, occ student Ryo tNA,

¶101

^{Kurtivada (vill), Pannapet (Mandal) Medak Disirict}

¶102

1. United lndia lnsurance Corirpany Limited, Rep bv its Reoional Manaoer Off United lnd ia I nsurance Build ing i3asheerbagh, tt-yOeraOa"O

¶103

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶104

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act against the order and decree in MVOP No.1738 of 2011 dated 3011012013 on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad.

¶105

oRDER: This appear 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 Sri Kasi Reddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Ms. P.satya Manjula, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶106

This Court doth Order and decree as follows :

¶107

That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed.

¶108

2- That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.4,83,000i- to Rs.'1 0,67,056t

¶109

That the enhanced amount^{shall carry interest} @^{7.5% per annumfrom the} date of petition till the date of^realization.

¶110

That the claimants shall^pay the^{deficit courtfee on the enhancedamount of} compensation.

¶111

That the respondonts be and^{hereby aredirected to depositthe amount within} a period of two m,tnths from the^{dateof receipt of a copy of this judgment'}

¶112