Allowed

Kaneez Fatima and 3 Others v. Aska Kiran Raja and Another

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023MACMA/806/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interpleader appeal against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants from ₹6,51,000 to ₹9,02,800, considering the deceased's loss of dependency, future prospects, consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, and directed the respondents to deposit the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from ₹6,51,000 to ₹9,02,800 with interest at 7.5% per annum; respondents directed to deposit the amount.

Kaneez Fatima and 3 Others Vs Aska Kiran Raja and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY HE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY MOTOR ACC IDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 806 0F 2015

¶5

Appeal Under section 173 of Motor vehicres Act against the order and decree in o P.No. 716 of 2012 dated 03-02-20'15 on the fire of the court of the chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- District Judge, Nizamabad. Between:

¶6

1, Kaneez Fatima, D/o. M.A. Majeed, Age_ 29 years, Occ_ Household,

¶7

Anees Fatima, D/o. M.A. Majeed, Age_ 2g years, Occ_ Household,

¶8

Mohd. Bilal, S/o. M.A. Majeed, Age_ 27 years, Occ- Student, 4 M.ohd _ Haji,, S/o. M.A. Majeed, Age_ 22 years, Occ_ Student, All are Rio. H No. 9-20-202/3, Maiapatiy, ruEirnqsan fua;eeO, lriiir"6rO]''

¶9

AND

¶10

...Appellant

¶11

Aska Kiran Raja, S/o. Solaman Raj, Age Major, Occ_ Owner ot TATA AC Vehicte Nizamabad.bearing no. Ap-25_w_861i; Rb H.r.rii. b_r_ioi N; Ba;i C;i;;y,

¶12

2 shriram Generar rnsurance cornpany Limited, represented by its Divisionar Manaq_er, Divisionat ofiice, 4170:17, fur.ro. SGrs-fi, siiortti nriio", +tn-' Floor, Flat N9, 40 1, 4o2, 403, Street No. o, Hir;;;ih';g"r, Hyderabad. (Vide Policy No. 't0003t12t46904 vatid from os.rjt.zo1l to b+ni 201ai ----^.''"-

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Appeltant: SRl. S. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate

¶15

counsel for the Respondent No.2: sRr. KONDADT AJAY KUMAR, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent No..t: None Appeared

¶16

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHET'TY

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.NO.806 0F 2015

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

Heard learned counsel Sri S.Surender Reddy for the appellants/claimants and Sri. K.Ajay Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent no. 2 -insurance company

¶22

The present appeal has been filed by the appeilants/ claimants dissatished with the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.716 of 2072, dated 03.02.2O15 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶23

The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

¶24

On 01.O5.2012 at about 11.20 am, while the deceased i.e., Mohd.Abdul Majeed was proceeding from Yedpally village to Nizamabad on his motorcycle bearing rigistration No.AP-2S-AH4O43, when he reached the limits of Bapunagar village at a distance of 6 k.m from Yedpally P.S., one TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.AP-25-W-8611 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the agarnst the motor vehicle, due to which, the deceased received multiple grievous injuries to all over the

¶25

¶26

¶27

LNA,l MACMA Na.8O6 ol 2015

¶28

body and died on the spot. The police, yedpally p.S., registered a case under Sections 3O4_A & 337 IpC against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.

¶29

5- The claimants, i.e., appellalt Nos.1 & 2 are daughters and appellant Nos.3 &4 are sons of deceased, have filed claim petition against owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 (t)(c) of M.V.Act, 1988 read with Rule 4S5 of A.p.M.V.Rules, 1989 before the MACT, claiming compensation of Rs. 1O,O0,000/_ along with interest @ 24%o from the date of the accident till the date of realization.

¶30

The claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 47 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was doing real-estate business ard was earning Rs. 30,0OO/_ per month and appellants lost the support of the deceased.

¶31

The respondent No. 1 owner of offending vehicle filed counter denying all the auegations made in the craim petition and rurther, contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the 2,d respondent-insurarce comp€rny and driver of the offending vehicle having valid driving licnece ald it was in force on the date of alleged accident and if the claimants al.e enti ed for any

¶32

,1,

¶33

¶34

LNA',J MA.MA No 806 ol 2015

¶35

¶36

compensation, the same may be granted against the insurance company and finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶37

The 2"d respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the insured and insurer of motorcycle are necessa-ry parties and that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly exorbitant and excess and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶38

On the basis of the pleadings, the MACT has framed the following issues:

¶39

i) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace bearing No.AP-25-W-8611 by its rider?

¶40

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what arnount aJId against whom ?

¶41

iii) To what relief ?

¶42

lO. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws. I & 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.Al to A8 were marked. To disprove the claim of the claimants, RW. 1- Sri S.Chandrashekar Reddy, who is the Legal Officer of insurance company was

¶43

¶44

¶45

LNA,I MACMA No 806 of2015

¶46

examined on behalf of the respondents and Ex.Bl-copy of insurance policy was marked.

¶47

I 1. The MACT, after considering the evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Ace bearing registration No.AP-25-W-8611 and awarded compensation as under:

¶48

Sl.No.	Head	Amountawarded
1	[,ossof dependency	Rs.5,76,O0O/-
2	Lossoflove&aJlection care and	Rs.50,0O0/-
3	Funeralexpenses	Rs.25,OOO/-
	Total	Rs.6,51,OOO/-

¶49

During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel^for appetlants/claimants submitted that the^{MACThas erred in not} granting the total amount of compensation as claimed, that^the MACT ought to have considered the^earnings of^{deceased as} Rs.3O,OOO/- per month by doing^real estate^{business.However,} the MACT failed to consider the same and considered^{only an} amount of Rs.8,OOO/- per month, which is against^{the evidence on} record and frnally prayed for enhancement of compensation^as claimed by the appellants in the claim^petition. \

¶50

LNA') MACMA No-8O6 oJ²⁰¹⁵

¶51

¶52

I I

¶53

On the other^{hand,learnedstanding counseifor insurance} company submitted that^{the claimants have failed to prove the} income of the deceased as^{Rs.30,0O0/- by frling supporting} documents and evidence and^{the MACT, on appreciationof the} evidence a:rd materia-l^placed on^{record, has taken the monthly} salary of the deceased as^{Rs.8,O00/- andawarded just and proper} compensation though there^{is no evidence, materia-l in support of} income of the deceased and therefore,^{there is no need to interfere} with the award of the MACT and frnally,^{prayedfor dismissa-lof the}

¶54

appea-l.

¶55

Consideration:

¶56

With regard to the^quantum of^{monthlyincomeof the} deceased, the MACT has rightly taken the^{monthlyincomeat} Rs.8,OOO/- as deceased was doing^{real estate business. In the} absence of any^proof with regard to the^{incomeof the deceased,} this Court is of the considered^view that^{the MACThas rightly} considered the^{monthlyincome of the deceasedas Rs.8,O00/-and} thus, does not^{warrantinterference by this Court.}

¶57

With^{regard tothe quantum} of awarding^compensation towards future^{prospects, the MACT erred in not awardingof 7O%o}

. .\

,l't'.,

LNA,l MACMA No-8O6 ol2015

¶62

of the income of the deceased towards loss of future^prospects in view of the decision of Hon'ble National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs.

¶63

Pranay Sethi and otherst. In Pranay Sethi, Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased is self-employed or on a fixed salary an addition of lOo/o of established^income should be warrant where the deceased^was between^{the age of 50} to 60 yea-rs.

¶64

t6. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex^{Court in Pranay Sethi} (supra), the dependents of the deceased are entitled to^{a sum of} Rs.4O,OOO/- each towards consortium, Rs.15,0OO/-^{towards loss of} estate and Rs. 15,OOO/- towards^{funeral expensesandtherefore,} the award is modified to the above extent.

¶65

Since the dependents of the^{deceasedare four, one-fourth of} the income to be deducted towards^{personaland living expenses} as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme^{Court in Sarla Verma} (supra) at paragraph-30 instead of one-third deducted^{by MACT.}

¶66

With regard to multiplier,^{as per the decisions of Honble} Supreme Court in Sarla^{Verma(supra),the multiplier is 9'for the} age groups of 56 to 60.

¶67

'^{1zotzy t6 scc o8o}

¶68

¶69

LNA,J MACMA No.8O6 ol2015

I I I

Conclusion:

In view of the above, the appellalts are entitled for the following compensation:

¶74

Sl.No.	Head	Com	pensationawarded
1	Lossof dependency	Rs.8 x 9) Rs.2, Rs.6	,64,0oo/-(Rs.8,OOO/-x12 minusone-fourthi.e., 16,000/-,whichcomesto ,48,OOO/-
2	Futureprospects	Rs.6 ann Rs.6	4,8OO/- (i.e., ua,l income ,a8,0OO/) lOo/oof i.e.,
3	Totalloss of dependency	Rs.6	,48,0oo/-⁺Rs.64,800= Rs.7,12,8OO/-
4	Consortium(Rs.4O,OOO/-to each oftheclaimants)	Rs.	1,60,()()()/-
5	Lossof estate	Rs.	15,OOO/-
6	Funeralexpenses	Rs.	15,OOO/-
	Total paid compensationtobe	Rs.	9,O2,AOO

¶75

The Appeal is allowed enhancing compensation from Rs.6,5l,O0O/- to Rs.9,02,800 /- with, interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition tilt the date of realization.

¶76

The respondent nos. l and 2 shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by duly adjusting the a-rnounts, if any, already paid to the ciaimants. The ratio of apportionment of amounts

¶77

¶78

¶79

'r!
LNA,,I
MACMA tto 806 oJ 2015

¶80

among the appellants/claimants arld the permission to withdrawal of amounts shali be in accordance with the terms of the award

¶81

passed by the MACT. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶82

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

¶83

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGIsTRAR //rRUE coPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- District Judge, N izamabad

¶88

One CC to SRl. S. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶89

One CC to SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶90

Two CD Copies

PSR { V

HIGH COURT

LNA,J

DATED:0611012023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.806 ot 2015

51ATE I A
C)
)u -1.*
o t\ $tt' 1N& +
} DESP A<br>

¶99

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶100

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶101

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶102

PRESENT

¶103

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶104

MOTO R ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEA L NO: 806 oF 2015

¶105

Between:

¶106

1 Kaneez Fatima, D/o. M.A. Majeed, Age_ 29 years, Occ_ Household,

¶107

2 Anees Fatima, D/o_ M.A. Majeed, Age- 2g years, Occ_ Household,

¶108

3 Mohd. Bilal, S/o. M.A. Majeed, Age_ 27 years, Occ- Student, 4. Mohd. Haii,, S/o. M.A.^ Ivlajeed, Age_ 22 years, Occ- Student. Allare Rio H.No. 9-20-202ts, Ma[a[Jiv, i.iEarn&-an tr,,ajedo, *iirru6ro]""''

¶109

AND

¶110

...Appellant

¶111

1 Aska Kiran Raja, S/o. SolamanRaj, Age Major, Occ- Owner ot TATA AC no. Ap-25_w_Bor i, nrt-H r.r'ol'b--rlzoi'N"* a";i c;t;;y,

¶112

Y;*5fff.r.,"n

¶113

2 shriram Gglerar rnsurance company Limited, represented by its -5<i_s?, Divisionar Managjir, Divisionat Otfice,417Oi1i, itirt" 5]i'batt, Arcade, 4th

¶114

Floor, FIat No. 401, 402, 403, Street ruo. O, gimayrin"#grr, Hyderabad. (Vide Poticy No. 10003t12t46so+ virio rrom osni ro;7i;'d"ol 2oiii --'"^,"

¶115

...Respondents

¶116

Appeal Under section 173 of Motor vehicres Act against the order and decree in o.P.No. 7 r6 ot 2012 dated 03-02-20 r 5 on the fire of the court of the chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶117

ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sRl. s. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of sRr. KONDADT AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and for the Respondent No.1 not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

¶118

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶119

'1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing compensation from Rs. 9,02,800/- with interest @ 7.5%o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶120

That the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the Compensation amount within a period of eight B weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by duly adjusting the amounts, if any, already paid to the claimants

¶121

3- That the ratio of apportionment of amount, among the appellants, Claimants, and Permission to with drawal of amounts shall be in accordance with the terms of the award passed by the MACT

¶122

That there be no order as to cots in this appeal.

¶123

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGI9TRAR //TRUE COPY// /,

¶124

6 SECTION OFFICER

¶125

To,

¶126

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- District Judge, N izama bad

¶127

fwo CD Copies \

PSR \j.F.-

HIGH COURT

LNA,J

DATED:0611012023

DECREE

MACMA.No.806 o12015

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶135

{ I^p-)-)

Kaneez Fatima and 3 Others v. Aska Kiran Raja and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaneez Fatima and 3 Others v. Aska Kiran Raja and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Venkateshwar Rao, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs R Shankar, Ranga Reddy Dist and Anr.

Geesa Narasamma and 4 Others Vs Bhookya Venkanna and 2 Others

The Reliance General Ins Comp Ltd, Hyderabd Vs Syed Putli Begum, Karimnagar Dist and amp, 6 Others

Reliance Gneral Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs Keshaboina Sammakka and 4 Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Thota Gopi Krishna and Another

Karravula Dhadi Raju Vs Bongani Mallesh and Anr.