Allowed

Podili Saidulu v. Gopagani Chandrasekhar and Anr.

Telangana HC1 Mar 2023MACMA/4842/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal, quashing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's low award of Rs.78,000 and enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,39,800/-. The Court recalculated the deceased's age as 40 and income at Rs.2,100/month, granting amounts for loss of dependency, spousal consortium, funeral, and legal expenses, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.78,000 to Rs.4,39,800, carrying interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. The respondent corporation must deposit the amount within 8 weeks.

Podili Saidulu Vs Gopagani Chandrasekhar and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO 48420F 2008

¶8

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2006 made in O.P.No. 594 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda. Between:

¶9

Podili Said ulu, S/o. Lachaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ: Coolie R/o. Narlakantigudem, H/o. Peddadevulapally Village, Tripuraram lr/andal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Gopagani Chandrasekhar , S/o. Krishnaiah, Fl/o. Tripuraram Village & Mandal, Nalgonda District. (Owner of the Auto No.AP 24 U 4456 )

¶13

The United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its fi/anager, Branch Office:18-1 2116-4, Ashok Nagar, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. K. SRINIVAS

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None appeared

¶17

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

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KP NNE(;ANT

¶20

M.A.C.M.A.No.4842 of 2008

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This ap;,eal is preferred by the claimant aggrievetl L,y the award and decree da ed 29-06-2006 in O.P.No.594 ot 2005 or the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and llessions Judge, Nalgonrla at Miryalguda.

¶23

Heard le arned counsel for the appellant-claimant lvlr. K. Srinivas and learned Standing Counsel for respondent lrlo.2-lnsurance Company Smt l). Satya Manjula.

¶24

9 The brie'facts are lhat on 27-04-2005 at about 5..00 PIvl., while the deceased f)odili Veeramma was boarded an auto b,:aring No.AP24-U-4456 at Tripuraram village to go to Yerrabelli Village of Nidmanoor Marrdal, and when the auto crossed Tripurara m Village, the driver of auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed agirinst another auto bearing No.AP 2a-V-17ri3, wlrich was coming in opp )site direction, due to which, the auto in which the deceased was .ravelling turned turtle and she has receiverl inluries to her both thighs. lmmediately, she was shifted to the Governmt:nt Area Hospital, Miryalguda, where she succumbed to the injurie s while undergoing treatment on the same day at 7-00 PM. The cla mant being husband of ttre deceased filed OP, claiming comp€,ns.ttion of Rs.2,00,000/- fcr the death of the deceased in the accidert.

¶25

LK. J MA CMA.No.4842 of 2008

¶26

Respondent No.2-lnsurance Company has filed counter denying the manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the death of the deceased. lt is stated that the amount claimed is highly excessive.

¶27

The Tribunal on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence has granted compensation of Rs.78,0001 with interest at 7.5Yo per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellanlclaimant submits that though the deceased was working as agriculture coolie and earning a sum of Rs.70l per day, the Tribunal has taken only a sum of Rs.1500/-per month and granted meager amount. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 40 years as per post mortem report.

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-lnsurance Company submits that it is the case of head on collision and there was contributory negligence, but the Tribunal has negatived the contention of the lnsurance Company and held that the lnsurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

¶30

The case of the claimant is that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident and even as per the post mortem report also, her age is 40 years, but the Tribunal has taken her age as 60 years by seeing the photograph affixed in the claim petition. The said observation is without any basis. When there is no evidence with regard to the age, the Court^hf to take into consideration the age

¶31

LK, J [rlA c[/A.Nc.4842 0f 2008

¶32

-1

¶33

I 1l

¶34

mentioned in he post mortem report. Hence, this Cou t s inclined to take the age cf the deceased as 40^years at the time acciderrt. Then, coming to the income of the deceased, as it is statecl that she was earning a sun of Rs.70l per day, a sum of Rs.21001 can safely be taken as her nronthly income and if 40% future^pr,lspecls r.e., Rs.840/is added, it w<,uld come to Rs.2,940/- and if 1/3" amolrnl is deducted towards her :ersonal expenses i.e., Rs.9B0/-, it would come to Rs.l960/-^per month. As the multiplier applicatic,n is^'15, tf e loss of dependency v,ould come to Rs.1960x12x15 =3,52,8001. Arart from that, towards spousal consortium to claimant, an amounl oF Rs,.44,0001 is granted. F( r the loss of estate and funeral expenser; an amount of 'Rs.33,0001 is granted and Rs.10,000/- is granterl for k:gal expenses. Thus, in total, a sum of Rs.4,39,800/- is granted to the rlaimant for the death of the dt ceased in the accident.

¶35

ln the I ght of the above discussion, the appellrnt-cl;rimant is entitled for conlpensation under the following heads;

¶36

Loss of Jependency F1s.3.512,800L 2. Spousa Consortium to claimant Rs.44,000/3. Loss of:state and funeral expenses. -- Rs,. 33,000/4. Legal e::penses. lis. 10,0001 l1:;.4,3 9,8001

¶37

ln the n sult, the Appeal is allowed enhancirg the com5rensation awarded by tht: Tribunal from Rs.78,0001 to Rs.4,li9,B0Cl.

¶38

¶39

LK. J MA C[rA.No.4842 of 2008

¶40

(a) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5o/o pet

¶41

annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶42

(b) The claimant shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amount.

¶43

(c) The respondent Corporation shall deposit the compensation within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

On such deposit and on payment of Court fee, the claimant is permitted

¶45

to withdraw the entire compensation without furnishing any security.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand

closed.

)

Sd/. MOHD.ISMAIL ASSISTANT.REGISTRAR(D //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The Chairman'^{MotorAccidents Claims TribunalCumV Additional District &} ' i;;il;;'i;;ge' Natgonoa at Miryalaguda'

¶54

One^{CC to Mr. K. SRINIVAS'Advocate [OPUC]}

¶55

One CC^{to Smt. P' SATYA MANJULA' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶56

Two CD^CoPies

¶57

Njb

¶58

pr 6

HIGH COURT

LK,J

DATED:01 10311'-023

+4
t€
, -'iTA Or.
I
16"
o
tt\ NI
o 1 <br>1O
\9a .29
<br>-:

¶64

JUDGMENT^,

¶65

MACMA.No.4842 of 2008

ALLOWING THE MAC MA

c4@rid Sr-

\ 1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶71

WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF TVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶72

PRESENT

¶73

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶74

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4842 OF 2008

¶75

Between:

¶76

Podili Saidulu, S/o- Lachaiah, Aoed 50 years, Occ: Coolie Rl/o. Narlakantigudem, H/o. lPeddadevulipally Village, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶77

)

¶78

...APPE LLANT/PETITIONER

¶79

AND

¶80

Gopagani Chandrasekhar , S/o. Krishnaiah, Rl/o. Tripuraram Villag-e & Mandal, Nalgonda District. (Owner of the Auto No.AP 24 U 4456 )

¶81

The United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its l\ilanager, Branch Office:1 8-1 21 I 6-A, Ashok Nagar, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶82

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶83

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 2S.06.2006 made in O.P.No. 594 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda.

¶84

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. SRINIVAS, Advocate, for the Appellant and Smt. P.SATYA MANJULA, for the Respondent No.2.

¶85

This Court doth Judgmcnt and decree as follows :-

¶86

That the MA(;MA be and hereby is allowed;

¶87

fhal the coxpensation awarded by the Tribunal be arrd hereby is enhanced fror Rs.78,0001 to Rs. 4,39,800/-.

¶88

That the enlanced compensation shall be and hereby ca-ry interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till reali;:ation.

¶89

That the clairnant shall be and hereby pay the Court fr:e on the enhanced amount.

¶90

That the Rcspondent Corporation shall be and hereby deposit the compensatiorr within a period of 8 weeks from the date of re<:eipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶91

That, on sur:h deposit and on^payment of Court fee the claimant is ,^{permitted to withdraw the entire compensationwithoLrtfurnishing any} I security;

¶92

That save as aforesaid, the order of Lower Court shall s:anrl confirmed in all other resp )cts;

¶93

That there shall be no order as to costs in this apceal.

¶94

rid/- tvlOHD.lSMAlL hSSIS'ILNI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII (li

¶95

SiECTION OFFICER

¶96

To,

¶97

'1 . The Chairman, ltlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum V Aclditional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda.

¶98

Two CD Copies

Njb

HIGH COURT

LK,J

DATED:01 103111023

DECREE

MACMA.No.4842 of 2008

¶108

ALLOWING THE MAC\4A @44 &.o--.d{P

Podili Saidulu v. Gopagani Chandrasekhar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Podili Saidulu v. Gopagani Chandrasekhar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Shanthamma and 3 Others Vs Apsrtc, Hyd and Another

The M.D., Apsrtc., Hyderabad Vs Smt. Machkuri Kasturi Bai and 3 Others

N. Kondaiah Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Tangutoori Narender and Anr.

Mohd. Afsar Hussain Vs B. Dayananad and Another

Singari Ramesh Vs C.R. Laxminarayana and Another