Allowed

Alakunta Anjamma And 3 Others v. Mr. K. Palanivelu and another

Telangana HC2 Mar 2023MACMA/651/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by motor accident claimants against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court upheld the claimants' argument that the Tribunal undervalued the deceased's income and failed to provide adequate compensation for heads like consortium and funeral expenses, enhancing the awarded amount.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation from Rs.5,08,000 to Rs.9,27,500 with costs and 7.5% interest from the date of petition.

Alakunta Anjamma And 3 Others Vs Mr. K. Palanivelu… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132581

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 651 0F 2022

¶7

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act., aggrieved by the decree and judgment dt. 2810612012, passed in O.P.No. 26 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumlX Addl. District Judge Nizamabad at Kamareddy

¶8

Between:

¶9

Alakunta Anjamma, W/o late Alakunta Mallaiah Aged about 34 years, Occ. Household.

¶10

Alakunta Anusha, D/o, late Alakunta Mallaiah, Aged about 17.years, Occ. Student

¶11

Alakunta Anil, S/o late Alakunta Mallaiah Aged about 16 years, Occ. Student,

¶12

Alakunta Anjawa, @ Rukkawa, W/o late Rajaiah, Aged about 69.years, (Appellants 2 and 3 are being minors and rep by their mother and natural guardian Appellant No. 1)

¶13

All are Residents of H.No.'l -65-831 , lndiranagar Colony, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, Telangana State.

¶14

...APPELLANTS/CLAI MANTS

¶15

AND

¶16

Mr. K. Palanivelu, S/o Karuppannan, Aged Major, Occ. Owner of Lorry bearing No. TN 34 H 6436, Fl/o H.No. 37, A New Pillipalayam Road, B Komarapalayam, Thiruchengode, Tamilnadu

¶17

M/s Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, RGICI Erode, rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office Above Bank of Baroda, 3rd Floor, Opp. Mahija Chit Fund Company Limited, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad District Telangana State.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. AKKAM ESHWAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAMA KRISHNA REDDY

¶21

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

I I

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.No.65L OF 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This appeal is filed against the award passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy in M.V.O.P.No.26 of 2011 wherein the learned Chairman of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamareddy allowed the application liled by the petitioners and directed the respondents/ Insurance Company and owner of the vehicle to pay a surrl of Rs.5,08,000/- with costs and interest @ 7.5o/o per annum. The appellants herein are claimants in the said O.P.No.26 of 2011 and they filed the present appeal with specific claim that in spite of the evidence placed before the Tribunal, their case was not considered and inappropriate compensation amount was awarded, thereby they sought for enhancement of the compensation on the fol1or,r,'ing grounds:

¶28

The Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamareddy is contrary to law, ,,l,eight of

¶29

r - --::

¶30

¶31

SSNN, J MACMA.No.65 7 of 2022

¶32

evidence and probabilities of the case. The Tribunal committed an error and failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal grossly erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 1OO/- per day instead of Rs.3O0/- per day. The appellants have claimed that the Tribunal awarded a meager amount of Rs.25,OO0/- towards transport charges ald failed to award appropriate compensation for funera-l charges ald other major heads including anount towards consortium ald love and alfection, thereby they prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶33

Before admission, notices were directed against the respondents. Proof of service filed, but the respondents did not choose to attend the Court. Therefore, this Court appointed Sri Rama Krishna Reddy as counsel for the respondents who assisted the Court in disposal of the appeal

¶34

As could be seen from the order, O.P.No.26 of 2Oll has been filed by appellant Nos.l to 4 under Section 166

¶35

¶36

ssR.rv, J MACMA.No.651 of 2O22

¶37

(1) O ol Motor Vehicles Act 1988 r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V Rules 1989. According to the averments made in the said petition, it is the case of the appellants herein that on 12.17.2O7O Alakunta Mailaiah, the husband of 1"t appellant/ petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of petitioner No.4 while travelling on a moped i.e., TVS XL bearing No.AP-25-AC-5562 from Kamareddy to Indiranagar, met with an accident. When he reached the house of one Pinkesh Durgabai on Ramareddy road, the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-34-H-6436 drove the lorry in high, rash and negiigent manner arrd dashed the motorcycle of the said Ma-llaiah (hereinafter will be referred to as deceased) thereby he fell on the road with severe injuries. He was immediately shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy and then he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment.

¶38

4 . But, rvhile undergoing treatment, he died on 15.11.2010. The petitioners have Iiled O.P.No.26 of 2Oll against the cwner of the 1orry and also against the Insurance Company from r.vhich the owner of the lorry

¶39

¶40

¶41

SSR/Y, J MACMA.No.651 of 2022

¶42

obtained policy against the said vehicle and sought for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The l"t respondent remained exparte, but the Insurance Company contested the petition and filed counter. On the basis of material averments made by the petitioner in their petition ald counter filed by the respondent No.2, the Tribunal framed the following issues, namely:

¶43

1)Whether the accident dated 12.10.2010 tuas dur to rash and negligent driuing of the lorry bearing 1[o. 1"1[34H-6436 bg its driuer?

¶44

2)Whether the petitioners are entitled fo, claim compensation? If so, to uhat amount and from uthom?

¶45

3)To ulhat relieJ?

¶46

During enquiry, the petitioners have examined Rvs 1

¶47

and 2 atd marked Ex.Al to A4. The contesting respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal having considered the evidence on record, allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- with costs ald interest @ 7 .5%o per annum from the date of petition till the entire amount is realized

¶48

¶49

SSRN, J MACMA.No.651 of 2022

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation by simply considering the income of^the deceased as Rs. 100/- per day in spite of the fact that there is evidence before the Court to believe that the deceased was earning Rs.3O0/- per day, Even if it is believed that the deceased was a coolie, the minimum amount that he can earn per day will be more than Rs.300 l- apart from future prospects, the claimalts are entitled to compensation on other heads i.e., consortium for loss of love and affection, transport charges, funeral expenses, thereby prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

¶51

7 . The following point arose for consideration in this appeal is :

¶52

Whether the Tribunal failed to consider actual income of the deceased, tlerebg anuarded inappropriate compensation? If so, whether th.e appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation?

¶53

¶54

SSRAT, J MACMA.No.651 of 2022

¶55

8. POINT:

¶56

As could be seen from the discussion of the Tribunal in the Judgment referred above, it is very clear that there is no serious dispute about the death of deceased in a road traffic accident when the lorry owned by the 1"t respondent dashed him and he died while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secundrabad. The 1"t respondent remained exparte. As per the Post Mortem Examination report which is marked as Ex.A2, the death of the deceased was due to the injuries which he received in a road traffic accident that occurred on 12.11.2010.

¶57

The inquest report and post mortem examination report apart from the oral evidence of Pws I and 2 proves the age of the deceased as 36 years at the time of his death. The contesting respondents could not place aly material before the Court to prove that the deceased was more than 36 years. As per the evidence placed before the Court, by the time of accident, the deceased was proceeding on his own motor bike. Even, if it is considered that he was a coolie, since the accident took place in the

¶58

-rt^t;---,;r8...

¶59

¶60

ss8Jv, J MACMA.No.651 of 2022

¶61

year 2010, it can safely be presumed that the deceased can earn not less than Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, the compensation must be calculated on the basis of the said income. The ciaimants are also entitled to future prospects as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranag Sethi's case in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014, on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, if the monthly income ol the deceased is calculated as Rs. 150/-, it would be Rs.4,SOO/- out of which % shall be deducted towards his personal expenses Therefore, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,375l (4500 1125) If, 4O%o of the said arnount is added towards future prospects, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3375+ 1350=4725.

¶62

) \

¶63

Since the deceased was aged about 36 years, the relevant multiplier is^.i5". Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.4725 X 12 X 15 = 8,50,500/-

¶64

¶65

¶66

SSR]IJ, J MACMA.No.651 of 2022

¶67

I 1. The appellants are entitled to other amounts under

¶68

the following heads:

¶69

1	Consortium	Rs.44,0OO/-
2	Financialexpenses	Rs.16,500/-
a	Lossofestate	Rs.16,500/-

¶70

The appellants are entitled to the above said amour.rt with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum.

¶71

Therefore, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,08,000/- with costs and interest to Rs.9,27,500/- together with costs of the petition and @ 7 .5%o interest on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the entire amount is realized.

¶72

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if

¶73

any, shall stand closed.

¶74

To,

¶75

//TRUE COPY//

¶76

SD/- P. GOWRI SHANKAR AsstsrAEEEGtsrRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶77

¶78

'1 . The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-rX Additionar District Judge At Kamareddy & Nizamabad District.

¶79

One CC to SRl. AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate tOpUCI

¶80

Two CD Copies

"^Lr'--

HIGH COURT

SSRN,J

DATED:0210312023

JUDGMENT

1\iE Sl4 j-a-
E o
1 5 JUt'l ?u3 i
--..lr"l

MACMA.No.651 of 2022

ALLOWING THE MACMA

6.4. fr-
atl)
<br>

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

¶91

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF^MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶92

PRESENT

¶93

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBAS]VARAO^NAIDU

¶94

MOTORACCIDENT ClVlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO: 651 OF 2022}

¶95

Between:

¶96

1 . Alakunta Anjamma, Wo late Alakunta Mallaiah^{Aged about 34 years,Occ.} Household.

¶97

Alakunta Anusha, D/o, late Alakunta Mallaiah,^{Aged about 17.years, Occ.} Student

¶98

Alakunta Anil, S/o late Alakunta Mallaiah^{Aged about16 years, Occ. Student,}

¶99

Alakunta Anjawa, @ Rukkawa, W/o late^{Rajaiah,Agedabout69.years,} (Appellants 2 and 3 are being minors and rep by their mother and natural guardian Appellant No. 1 )

¶100

All are Residents of H.No.1-65-831 , Indiranagar^{Colony,Kamareddy,} Nizamabad District, Telangana State.

¶101

...APPE LLANTS/CLAI MANTS

¶102

AND

¶103

'l . Mr. K. Palanivelu, S/o Karuppannan, Aged Major, Occ. Owner of Lorry bearing No. TN 34 H 6436, R|io H.No. 37, A New^{Pillipalayam Road, B Komarapalayam,} Thiruchengode, Tamilnadu

¶104

M/s Reliance General lnsurance Company^{Limited, RGICI Erode, rep by its} Branch Manager, Branch Office Above Bank of Baroda,^{3rd Floor, Opp. Mahija} Chit Fund Company Limited, Hyderabad^{Road, Nizamabad District Telangana} State.

¶105

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶106

Appeal filed under section^'173 of M.V.Act.,^{aggrieved by the decree and} judgment dt. 2BlOOl2O12, passed in O.P.No. 26 of 2011 on the file of ft/otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumlX Addl.^{District Judge Nizamabad at Kamareddy}

¶107

ORDER: This appeal coming on for^{hearingand uponperusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower^{Court and the material papersin the} case and upon hearing the arguments^{of SRI AKKAM ESHWAR,Advocatefor the} Appellant, and Sri Rama Krishna Reddy,^{Advocate,for the Respondent No.1 and 2-}

¶108

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows

¶109

'1 . That the M.A.C.M.A No. 651 of 2022 be and hereby is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5,08,000/- with costs and^{interest to Rs.9,27,500/-} together with costs of the^petition and @^7.5 %^{interest on the compensation} amount from the date of^petition till the entire amount^{is realized;}

¶110