Partly allowed

Yeshaboina Narsasmma and 5 Ors. v. M/S.Kanchan Marketing and Anr.

Telangana HC28 Aug 2023MACMA/60/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal decree. The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the survivors of a deceased mason from Rs. 4,95,800 to Rs. 15,47,400 by correcting the income assessment to Rs. 6,500 per month and recovering future prospects, while confirming the interest rate and apportionment.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 4,95,800 to Rs. 15,47,400 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of petition till realization.

Yeshaboina Narsasmma and 5 Ors. Vs M/S.Kanchan… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^33{'4 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TfiE STATE OF TELANGANA---' AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREL_--'

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA"'ESHWAR RAO

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENTC IVIL MrscELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 60 0F 2013

¶7

Appeal filed under Section. 173 of M.V.Act, against the decree and Judgment dated: 09.04.2012 passed i, o.p.rrro.'ioii7)010, on the fire of the court of Track Court), City the Motor Accidents Civil Court, craims Hyderabad.Tribunal "r, iv'xoo*itionar chief Judge, (Fast

¶8

Between:

¶9

YeshaboinaHousehold Narsasmma, Wo. late Shankaraiah, age 37 years, Occ

¶10

Yeshaboia Baghya, D/o.late Shankaraiah, age 20 years, Occ: Nil

¶11

Yeshaboia Rajitha, D/o.late Shankaraiah, age .17 years, Occ: Student

¶12

Yeshaboia Raju, S/o.late Shankaraiah, age 15 years, Occ: Student

¶13

Yeshaboia Mallaiah, S/o.pentaiah, age 62 years, Occ: Nil

¶14

'^;,?["ffJl,fi fi if,:fiX[,fr:i,iii#Slflil;8fl i,',,"J8fl^{,i,Bi,h],to*,o} [P3^{and 4} are minors 1-6p uv^{petitio].]-dl.} r.to".i,h;,#i'"'', ''

¶15

AND

¶16

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶17

The Manager, M/s.Kanctran tvlarketing.Shop No.7, Jamuna Arcade, Old Navarang Theatre Compte, trnUigh]Hyi;rjbij,

¶18

The Branch Manaoer. ^Blqlalli4X4 Generat tnsurance Co. Ltd., Gokut tor,vers, 3E rbor,6_a+oo7e/6, F;;i;g,;idiiyt8lrlro _ az

¶19

...RESPONOENTVRESPONDENTS

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. CHANDRAIAH SOMAVARAPU

¶21

counsel for the Responoent no.tfrantNATH REDoy soMA

¶22

counset for the Responaent lyto.ztrLvl SHANKAR JANoHvALA

¶23

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.No.60 OF 2013

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

This M.A.C.M.A. is hled under Section i73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners eggrieved by the order and decree dated 09.04.2012 passed in O.P.No.1O45 of 2010 by the I Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short "the court belolr'") seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶28

2 For convenience, rhe oarties witl be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the court below.

¶29

J Brief facts of the case are as follou,s :

¶30

On 30.03.2010, one Y.shankaraiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased) was proceeding on a Scooter along with a pillion rider lrom Bhuvanagiri to Rayagir, and rvhen he was on the left side of the road, a Car bearing No. AP-9-BA-6489, driverr by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Scooter from behind, due to which the deceased fell on the road and sustained head. injuries. Immediately ajter tlie accidenl_, the cieceased ivas shifted to the

¶31

¶32

Gandhi Hospital for treatment and succumbed to injuries on the same day. At the time of the accident, the deceased^was aged 35 years and u,orking as a mason earning Rs.250rr-^per day and Rs.50/- per day by collecting milk from the milk vendors. Therefore, the petitioners filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

¶33

4 Before the Tribunal, the l"t respondent remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition, inciuding the manner in which the accicient occurrcd, age, occupation and the deceased's income. It is also stated that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the Car. Therefore, responCelt \1o.2 is no[ liable to pay compensation an,:i praveo

¶34

Jc To prove the petitioners' case, PWs.l to 4 rvere examined and trxs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.Blcopy of the insurance policy was marked.

¶35

6 After considering the ora-l and documentary evidence available on record. the Court beiow held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

¶36

¶37

driver of the offending vehicle and, accordingly,^awardedan amount of Rs.4,95,800/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the petitioners'hled the present appeal seeking enhancement.

¶38

7 Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶39

8 Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that though the deceased was earning Rs.4O0/- per day as a mason, the Court below erroneously fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. The Court below has not awarded^just compensation under other heads; therefore, the amount a'"varded by the Court below is very meager and unjustihable

¶40

9 2nd Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/lnsurance Company submits that after

¶41

considering the evidence available on record, the court below has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference

¶42

The petitioners filed M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3462^of 2015 seeking to enhance the claim from Rs.6,00,000/-^to Rs.16,00,000 l- and the same was allowed by this Court^on t4.12.20t7.

¶43

11 The findir-rg ol the Court below with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final, as the respondents do not challenge the same.

¶44

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners stated that the deceased was earning Rs.40O/- per day, the court below erroneously fixe<i the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. In the instant case, the petitioners stated that the deceased u,as earning Rs.4 00/- per day by doing mason work, but the court^-t-1clou/ lixed^t he incorre of the deceaseci at Rs.3,OOOi - per month. u,hich is very meager and therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceaseci at Rs.6.500/- as the deceased was workinq as a mason and it is slrilled rvorl<. Apart fi-om the same, the petitioners are entitled to an additional of 4Oo/o towards future prospects on the deccased's incomc as per the decision of the Hontrle Supreme Court in National Inslaronce Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and, othersl. Therefore, the monthly deceased's income comes to Rs.9, 100/- (Rs.6,500/- + Rs.2,600/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards the

¶45

) 2017 AC.t 2700

¶46

)

¶47

personal expenses of the deceased following Sorla Vertna^Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the petitioners a,re six it would come to Rs.6,825/- per month (Rs.9,1O0 - Rs.2,275). Thus, the annua-l income of the deceased would come to Rs.81,900/- (Rs.Rs.6,825 /- x 12). As the deceased's age was 35 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per Sartc Vermq.'s case (supra) is '16'. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.i3,10,400/- (Rs.81,900/- X 16). As per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranag Sethi's ccse (supra), the l.t petitioner, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to a sum of Rs.44,O0O/- (Rs.aO,0OO /- * LO%l towards loss of spousal consortium. The petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.33,0O0/- (Rs.15,000/- + lOo/o + 15,000 + 10%) towards loss of estate and funera-l expenses. Further, considering the fact that petitioners 3 and 4 are the minor children of the deceased, tLris Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.4O,OOO/- each towards the loss of parental consortium and petitioners 5 and 6, who are pa-rents of the deceased, are entitled to a sum of Rs.4O,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurq.nce Conqtang Limited u. Nanu Ram @

¶48

, 2oo9 AC.J r2oa(sci

¶49

¶50

Chuhnt Ro,m and otherss. Tl-rus, in all,^{thc petitionersare} + + entitled to Rs. 15,47,4OO l-^{(Rs.13,10,aOO/-} Rs.44,oO0/Rs.33,000/-⁺ Rs.1,60,000/ ).

¶51

Thus, the petitioners are entitied^{to the enhanced} compensation of Rs. 15,47 ,4O0 I^- as against the awarded amount of Rs.4,95,800/ -.

¶52

The court below has rightly awarded^{the rateof} interest at 7.5% pet- annum and the^{sarne needs no} interference by this Court.

¶53

Accordinglv. thc M.A.C.M.A is allowed in^{part by} enhancing thc compensation from^{Rs'4,95,800/-to} Rs.15,47,400/-^(Rupee s Filtecrr lakt.r. torty^{seven thousernd} four htrndreri only) n'ith interest. at the^{rate of 7.5o/o p.a. on the} enhanced amount from the date of^{petition tillthe date of} realization. The respondents^{are directedtodeposit the said} amount together nith costs^and interest,^{afte r giving due credit} to the amount already^deposited, il any,^{within two months} from receipt of a copy ol this^{judgment. 'lhe compensation} amount shall be apportioned among^{the petitioners inthe} sarne manner and ratio as ordered by the court^beiow. '^{(zot 8)t I scc Do}

¶54

¶55

However, if not already paid, the petitioners are directed to pay the De ficit Court Fee on the enhanced arnount within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

Miscellaneous petitions, il' any are pending, sha_ll stand closed

¶57

¶58

,ITRUE^COPYI/

¶59

Sd,- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR k--,"

¶60

SECTION^OFFICER

¶61

¶62

" ; ,i:lxs;iitiifin#ffi a One^{CC to SRI RAVII}

5.^{Two CD Copies}

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2810812023

JUDGMENT

SlATT-
t
rre\l l\ri.J 6)
\tu \i
i-
tro0(o Ig
,
t ^ t-at
ot: s, i'/;1

¶70

MACMA.No.60 of 2013

¶71

PARTLY ALLOWING THE^MACMA

¶72

.olt

¶73

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶74

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶75

PRESENT

¶76

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶77

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 60 OF 20'13

¶78

Between:

¶79

1 . Yeshaboina Narsasmma, Wo. late Shankaraiah, age 37 years, Occ: Household

¶80

Yeshaboia Baghya, D/o.late Shankaraiah, age 20 years, Occ: Nil

¶81

Yeshaboia Rajitha, D/o.late Shankaraiah, age 17^years, Occ: Student

¶82

Yeshaboia Raju, S/o.late Shankaraiah, age 15 years, Occ: Student

¶83

Yeshaboia Mallaiah, S/o.Pentaiah, age 62^years, Occ: Nil

¶84

Yeshaboina Chandramma, W/o. Mallaiah, age 57 years, Occ: Nil All are Rl/o.Muthireddygudem Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District. [P3^{and 4 are minors rep bv Petitionet *o} '^".1-.{BTTLLANTS/'ET.a'NERS

¶85

AND

¶86

1 . The Manager, M/s.Kanchan tr,tarketing Shop No.7, Jamuna Arcade, Old Navarang Theatre Comple, Jambagh, Hyderabad

¶87

The Branch Manager, Bharathi AXA General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Gokul towers, 3d Floor, 6-3-666/8/6, Panjagutta, Hyderabad - 32.

¶88

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶89

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the decree and Judgment dated: 09.04-2012^passed in O.P.No.1045/2010, on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XV Additional Chief Judge,^(Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶90

ORDER: These appeals coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeals the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. CHANDRAIAH SOMAVARAPU, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI HARINATH REDDY^SOMA, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and SRI RAVI SHANKAR^JANDHYALA, Advocate for the RespondentNo.2 .

¶91

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶92

That this appeal be and hereby is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,95,800/- lo 15,47 ,4OOl- (Rupees Fifteen lakh, forty seven thousand four hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶93

That the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this^judgment;

¶94

That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the court below;

¶95

That the petitioners be and hereby directed to pay the Deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶96