Partly allowed

Smt. Bonagiri Venkamma , Venkatamma and 5 Others v. R. Sridhar and Another

Telangana HC20 Sept 2023MACMA/627/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two appeals arising from a motor accident death. The court enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of the deceased from Rs. 5,64,000 to Rs. 14,86,600 by recalculating income and applying appropriate multipliers, while disallowing the insurer's appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,64,000 to Rs. 14,86,600 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; insurer's appeal dismissed.

Smt. Bonagiri Venkamma , Venkatamma and 5 Others Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA"'ESHWAR RAO

¶6

M.AG.M.A.Nos:1342 ot 2OO8 and 627 ot 2013

¶7

M.A.C.M.ANo.1 342 ot.2OOB

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of M.V. Act, 1988 aggrieved by the order and decree daled 21-06-2007 made in OP No.842 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), at Nizamabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office, Godown Road, PB No- 313, Nizamabad. ...AppellanURespondent - 2

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Bonagiri Venkamma @ n Venkatamma, Wo. Late Chinnaiah, aged 32 years, Occ: Household

¶13

. Bonagiri Latha, D/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 17 years, Occ: Student,

¶14

Bonagiri Sriram, S/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 16 years, Occ: Student,

¶15

Bonagiri Ramya, D/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 15 years, Occ: Student,

¶16

Bonagiri Hanumanthu, S/o. Pentaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ: Nil,

¶17

Smt. Bonagiri Gangawa, Wo. Hanumanthu, aged about 55 years, Occ: Household

¶18

[All^{are R/o. H.No.5-2-88,Mudirajveedhi, Nizamabad.}

¶19

Respondents 2lo 4 are minors claiming compensation under the Guardian ship of their mother respondent No.1I

¶20

R. Sridhar, S/o. R. Narasimhloo, aged Major, Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP 01-W 1005, Ryo. H.No.14-16, Dasnagar Village Mandal lr4akloor, Nizamabad District.

¶21

(R7 not necessary vide Cou( Order dated 30-04-2008.)

¶22

...Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 6/Respondent-1

¶23

'-(

¶24

MACMAMP. NO: 222 OF 2008

¶25

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 stay the orders passed in O.P.No.842 of 2005 dated 21-6-2007 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [District Judge] at Nizamabad.

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V. SAMBASIVA RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.V. KALYAN SINGH

¶28

M.A.C.M.ANo.627 ot 2013

¶29

Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of M.V. Act, 1988 aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21-06-2007 made in OP No.842 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), at Nizamabad.

¶30

Between:

¶31

Smt. Bonagiri Venkamma @ n Venkatamma, W/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 32 years, Occ: Household

¶32

Bonagiri Latha, D/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 17 years, Occ: Student,

¶33

Bonagiri Sriram, S/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 16 years, Occt Student,

¶34

Bonagiri Ramya, D/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 15 years, Occ: Student,

¶35

Bonagiri Hanumanthu, S/o. Pentaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ: Nil,

¶36

Smt. Bonagiri Gangavva, Wo. Hanumanthu, aged about 55 years, Occ: Household

¶37

(All are R/o. H.No.5-2-88, Mudirajveedhi, Nizamabad.

¶38

(P.2 to P.4 are minors claiming compensation under the Guardian ship of their mother P.1 ) ...Appellants/Petitioners

¶39

AND

¶40

1 R. Sridhar, S/o. R. Narasimhloo, aged Major, Owner of Lorry Bearing No.Ap 01-W 1005, Rr/o. H.No.14-16, Dasnagar Village Mandal Maklbor, Nizamabad District.

¶41

R1- Dismissed for default vide Court Order dated^'13-09-2011 (No LR^petition filed)

¶42

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office, Godown Road, PB No. 313, Nizamabad.

¶43

...Respondents/Respondents

¶44

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI T.V. KALYAN SINGH

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. SAMBASIVA RAO

¶47

The Gourt delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶48

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO M.A.C.M.A.NoS. 1342 of 2OO8 an.d.627 of 2013 COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶49

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1342 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2013 filed by the petitioners are directed against the very same order and decree dated 21.06.2007 passed in O.P.No.842 of 2005 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-District Judge, Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal).

¶50

2 For convenience, the parties hereina_fter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribuna_I.

¶51

Brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2005 at about 3.40 a.m. whi1e, Bonagiri Chinnaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was on duty as the security guard at Agricuiture Market Check Post, Manikbhandar and whiie he was checking the vehicles, one lorryr bearing No.AP-01/W-1005, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent marner, came from the Nizamabad side and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the

¶52

)

¶53

2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.^{1 342-08 & 627-11}

¶54

deceasedfellontheroadandreceivedmultiplefracturesto the skull^{and grievous head injuries and died on the spot'} Prior to the^{accident, the deceased, who was aged 34 years'} was hale and^{healthy and was doing agriculture andalso} working as^{a Security Guard in Agriculture Market Check} Post, Manikbhaldar^{and was earning Rs'10'000/-per} month on^{agricultureand Rs'6,000/- per month as salary'} The accident^{occurred due to the rash and negligent driving} of the offending^{vehicle'sdriver'Therefore' the petitioners} filed the claim^{petition claimingcompensationof} Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶55

The l"t^{respondent remainedex-parte' The 2"d} respondent^{has filed a written statementdenying the} averments^{madein the claim petition'}

¶56

On behalf^{of the petitioners'PWs'l and 2 were} examined^{and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked' On behalf of} the respondents,^{no oral evidencewas adducedbut Exs'B1} and 82^{were marked'}

¶57

6 After considering^{the oral and documentary} evidence^{available on record' the Tribunal has awarded an}

¶58

RRN,J M.A. C.M.A. No.'1342_08 & 627_13

¶59

a-mount of Rs.5,64,000/- r.r,ith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation to be paid by respondent Nos.l and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the said award, the petitioners have filed M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2013, and the Insurance Company has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1342 of 2008.

¶60

7 Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶61

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that though the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the deceased's income at Rs.4,000/- per month. Though the petitioners are entitled to future prospects of the deceased, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. The Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3.a instead of l/4tn towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the petitioners are six in number. The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under other heads and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.

¶62

4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.1l42-08^{& 627-13}

¶63

g. On the other^{hand, iearned counsel appearing} for the Insurance^{Compaly has contendedthat the} Tribunal erred^{infixing thedeceased's incomeat} Rs.4,000/-^{per month withoutany documenton record'} The Tribunal^{ought to have seen that there is no rash and} negligent driving^{on the part of the lorry driver'The} Tribunal ought^{to have seen that Ex'A-1-FIR' Ex'A-2-} Inquest report,^{Ex.A-3-Postmortemreport and Ex'A-4-} Motor Vehicles^{Inspector's report do not establish the} factum of the^{accident.The compensation awarded by the} Tribunal is^{excessive,and the same has to be reduced'}

¶64

A perusal of^{the impugnedorder discloses that} the Tribunal,^{having framed issue No'l as to whetherthe} accid.enthadoccurredduetorashandnegligentdrivingof the offending^{vehicleby its driver and having considered the} evidence of^{PW.2 coupledwith the documentar5revidence} i.e., Ex.A-I-FIR^{and Ex.A-5-charge-sheet,concludedthat} theaccidentoccrrrredduetotherashandnegligentdriving of the driver^{of the offending vehicleand has answeredin} favour of the^{petitioners and againstthe Insurance}

¶65

5 RRN,J M.A. C.M. A. No.1342 _08 A 627 _11

¶66

¶67

Company. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver.

¶68

Insofar as the quaxtum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners stated that the deceased was working as a Security Guard in the Agriculture Market Check Post, Malikbhandar earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs.6,000/- per month on agriculture. Ex.A-2-lnquest report reveals the occupation of the deceased as a Security Guard in Agricultura-l Market Check Post, Manik Bhandar. Ex.A-8-passbook reveals that the Iand admeasuring Ac.l36 gts., stands in the name of the Sth petitioner i.e., father of the deceased. The petitioners did not choose to adduce any evidence with the regard to the deceased's income. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. But, the fact remains that Ex.A-8 pass book reveals that the land admeasuring Ac.1-36 gts., stands in the name of the deceased father and that the deceased was working as Security Guard in Agricultural Market Check post and

¶69

I \

¶70

6 RRN,J M.a.C.M.a.No. 1342-08 &^{627 13}

¶71

doing agriculture.^{Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix} the deceased's^{incomeat Rs.6,000/- per month' To this,} 40% future^{prospects are added,as the deceased was aged} 34 years at the time^{of the accident' Thus, the deceased's} monthly income is^{Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/-+ Rs'2,400/-)} and annua,lly it^{comes to Rs.1,00,800/-(Rs'8,aOOl- x 1'21'} From this, 1/4tr'^{has to be deductedtowards the personal} expenses of the^{deceased, as the petitionersare six in} number and it^{wouldcome to Rs'75,600/-(Rs'1,00,800/-;-} |^{25,2OOl-.,. As the deceasedwas aged 34 years at the time} of the accident,^{the appropriate multiplierapplicable is '16''} Thus, the total^{loss of dependencywould come to} Rs.75,600/- x^{16 = Rs.12,09,600/-'The petitionersare} further entitled^{to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000/-+ Rs'15,000/-} + lOo/ol torvards loss of^{estate and funeral expensesand the} 1st petitioner,^{who is the wife of the deceased,is entitled to} a sum of Rs'44,000/-^(Rs'a0'000 l-^{+ l0%) towardsspousal} consortium, as^{per the judgment of the ApexCourtin} Nqtionql Insurance^{CompangLimited Vs' Pranag Sethi} and othersr.^{The petitioners2 to 4, who are the minor}

¶72

1 2017 AcJ uoo

¶73

7 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A. No.1342 .08 & 677 _'13

¶74

¶75

\ \

¶76

children of the deceased, are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- towards parental consortium and the Sth and 6th petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/ each i.e., Rs.8O,O0O/- towards filial consortium as per MAGMA GENERAL IMURANC.E COMPANY LIMITED Vs, NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAIYP, Thus, the petitioners a-re entitled to a sum of Rs.14,86,600/-.

¶77

12, The Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest at 7 .5o/o per alnum arld the same needs no interference by this Court.

¶78

Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2013 is aliowed, and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,64,000/- to Rs.14,86,600/(Rupees fourteen lakh, eighty six thousand six hundred only) with intcrest @ 7 .5 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of rea-lization, The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a

¶79

'zor^s 1ts;^scc r:o

¶80

I I I !

¶81

8 RRN'J M.A. C.M. A. No.1142-08 & 627-11

¶82

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy^of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners^are permitted to withdraw their respective share arnounts^as apportioned by the Tribunal.^However, the^{petitioners are} directed to deposit the deficit court fee on the^enhanced amount.

¶83

M.A.C.M.A.N o.L342 of 2OO8

¶84

In view of the above findings in M.A.C.M.A.No.627^of 2013, which is decided in favour of the^{petitioners, this} M.A.C.M.A.No.1342 of 2008 hled by the^Insurance Company is hereby dismissed.^{No order as to costs.}

¶85

a.re As a sequel, miscellaleous petitions, if^any

¶86

pending, shali stand closed.

¶87

To,

¶88

//TRUE COPY//

¶89

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR q

¶90

SECTION OFFICER

¶91

The Motor Accidents craims Tribunar (District Judge), at Nizamabad. (with records)

¶92

One CC to SRI V. SAMBASTVA RAO, Advocate [OpUC]

¶93

One CC to SRI T.V. KALYAN SINGH, Advocate [OpUC]

¶94

Two CD Copies

kam

8n"q.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010912023

COMMON JUDGMENT

tA E STAr€
,c t
--) o
1 5 N[! 2tj2i
o
at
I
t DIS o/ ,,r- t" -'

¶101

MACMA.Nos.1342 of 2008 and 627 ot 2013

¶102

MACMA No.1342 of 2008 lS DISMISSED MACMA No.627 of 2013 lS ALLOWED

¶103

6 6 \rr^\r-3'

¶104

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE} STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶105

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF} SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE

¶106

PRESENT

¶107

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶108

M.AC.M.A.Nos:1342 ot 2008 and 627 ot 2013

¶109

M.A.C.M.A.No.1 342 ot 2O08

¶110

Between:

¶111

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Divisional^Office, Godown Road, PB No- 313, Nizamabad.

¶112

...AppellanURespondent - 2

¶113

AND

¶114

Smt. Bonagiri Venkamma @ n Venkatamma, W/o.^{Late Chinnaiah, aged 32} years, Occ: Household

¶115

2 Bonagiri Latha, D/o- Late Chinnaiah, aged 17^years, Occ: Student,

¶116

3 Bonagiri Sriram, S/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged^{16 years, Occ: Student,}

¶117

4 Bonagiri Ramya, D/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged^{15 years, Occ: Student,}

¶118

5 Bonagiri Hanumanthu, S/o. Pentaiah, aEed about^{60 years,} Occ:^Nil,

¶119

6 Smt. Bonagiri Gangavva, Wo. Hanumanthu,^aged about^{55 years, Occ:} Household

¶120

[All^{are Ri/o. H.No.5-2-88, Mudirajveedhi, Nizamabad.}

¶121

Respondents 2 to 4 are minors claiming compensation^{underthe Guardian} ship of their mother respondent^No.1l

¶122

7 R. Sridhar, S/o. R. Narasimhloo, aged Major,^Owner of^{Lorry Bearing No.AP} 01-W 1005, R/o. H.No.14-16, Dasnagar Mllage^{Mandal Makloor, Nizamabad} District.

¶123

(R7 not necessary vide Court Order dated 30-04-2008.)

¶124

...Respondents/Petitioners I to 6/Respondent-1

¶125

¶126

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of SRI V. SAMBASIVA RAO, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI T.V. KALYAN SINGH, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶127

M.A.C.M.A.No.627 of 2O13

¶128

Between:

¶129

Smt. Bondgiri Venkamma @ n Venkatamma, Wo. Late Chinnaiah, aged 32 years, Occ: Household

¶130

Bonagiri Latha, D/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 17 years, Occ: Student,

¶131

Bonagiri Sriram, S/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 16 years, Occ: Student,

¶132

Bonagiri Ramya, D/o. Late Chinnaiah, aged 15 years, Occ: Student,

¶133

Bonagiri Hanumanthu, S/o. Pentaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ: Nil,

¶134

Smt. Bonagiri Gangavva, Wio. Hanumanthu, aged about 55 years, Occ: Household

¶135

(All are R/o. H.No.5-2-88, Mudirajveedhi, Nizamabad.

¶136

(P.2 to P.4 are minors claiming compensation under the Guardian ship of their mother P.1 ) ...Appellants/Petitioners

¶137

AND

¶138

R. Sridhar, S/o. R. Narasimhloo, aged Major, Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP 01-W 1005, R/o. H.No.14-16, Dasnagar Village Mandal lvlakloor, Nizamabad District.

¶139

R'l- Dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 13-09-201 1 (No LR Petition filed)

¶140

United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office, Godown Road, PB No. 313, Nizamabad.

¶141

...Respondents/Respondents

¶142

Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of M.V. Act, 1988 aggrieved^{by the order} I and decree dated 21-06-2007 made in OP No.842 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), at^Nizamabad.

¶143

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^{perusingthe Memorandumof} Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the material^{papers in} the^{case,and upon} hearing the arguments of SRI T.V. KALYAN SINGH,^{Advocatefor the Appellants} and SRI V. SAMBASIVA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent^{No.2 andNone} Appeared for the Respondent No.1^.

¶144

This Court doth order and decree as follows:

¶145

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal No.1342 of 2008 be} and hereby is dismissed;

¶146

That the Motor Accident Civil lr/iscellaneous Appeal^{No.627of 2013be} and hereby is allowed;

¶147

That the compensation amount awarded by^{the Tribunal be and herebyis} enhanced from Rs.5,64,0001 to Rs.14,86,6001^{(RupeesFourteen Lakh,} eighty six thousand six hundred only) with interest @^{7.5% per annum} from the date of^petition till the date of^realization;

¶148

That the respondents be and hereby are directed^{to deposit thesaid} amount with costs and interest, after^giving due^{credit to theamount} already deposited, if any, within a^{periodof tvvo months from the date of} receipt of a copy of this^judgment;

¶149