Allowed

Smt.S.Mallamma and 4 Ors. v. K.Peeda Venkataiah and Anr.

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023MACMA/92/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Telangana High Court allowed an MCCMA under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court enhanced the tribunal's award from ₹6.73 lakh to ₹15.07 lakh by recalculating the deceased's income with future prospects and granting conventional compensation heads to dependents.

What did the court decide?

Increased compensation award from Rs.6,73,000 to Rs.15,07,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a.

Smt.S.Mallamma and 4 Ors. Vs K.Peeda Venkataiah and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No.92 of 2016

¶7

AppealUnderSection^{173ofMotor VehiclesAc} Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.23780t^{2011 dated19.04.201} ofthechairman,MotorAccjdent^{claims Tribunal-cum-llAd} CivilCourt,Hyderabad. '-tireen: 1.Smt S. Malamrna,WolateYadaiah Aged27 years, occ:Household,	^{tagainsttheOrderand} ^{5 0nthe file of thecourt} ^{ditionalchiefJudge,city}
2.S. Nagaraju,s/olateYadaiah Aged14years, occ: Student,	\|
3.S.Jayaprada,D/olateYadaiah Aged 12yeais, occ:Student, I
4.S.Chetan Krishna,D/olateYadaiah Aged4 years, occ:Student,	I I
5.Smt.S.Veeramma,WoShivaiah Aged 62years, occ:Nil,
(Appellants 2to4heing minorsrepby [i,rrirnatural Mothei' andguanlian,Smt S.Malamnra.^t"tAppellalt) Ail residentsof Allipur village,Shlvampet-Mandal MedakDistrict, presently RloH.No.18-1-38311121416 Malakpet, Hyderdbad-500036 AND	..Appellants/Petitioners {
1. K.PeedaVenkabiah,S/oMala Kondaiilh Aged:Major, Occ:Business R/oH.No.4-65,Sai Nagar Colony,R.(1.Puram MedakDistrici 2. UnitcdIndiaInsuranceCoLtd Repby itsReqianal Manager Off:UnitedIndiaInsuranceBuilding Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500029 ..	.Respondents/Respondents-,,,-

I t

t I

I !

---:>

( (

E a

Counsel^{for the Appellants:SRI' KASIREDDYJAGATHPALREODY} Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2:SRISRINIVAS RAOVUTLA} Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'1: NONEAPPEARED} The Court^{deliveredthe following: JUDGMENT}

¶16

I I

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶18

M.A.C.M.A.NO.92 0F 20t6

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/ petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 19.01.2015 passed in O.P.No.2378 of 2OLL by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Il Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short'the Tribunal").

¶21

2 For tl-re sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶22

3 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners liled a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/on account of the death of S. Yadaiah (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") stating that petitioner No. I is the wife, petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 are minor sons, petitioner No.3 is the daughter and petitioner No.5 IS the mother of the deceased, and on 22.09.2011 at about l.3O p.m. the deceased and one Shiva Kumar were proceeding on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-BD-4106 from Gundlamachnoor village towards Patancheru side and when they reached Indresham village

¶23

¶24

RRN.J MACMA No 92 ol20l6

¶25

outskirts, one lorry bearing No.AP-05U-604 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking another vehicle, dashed their motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries to the head and other multiple injuries all over his body and immediately, he was shifted to Mythri Hospital where while undergoing treatment, succumbed to injuries on the salne day at 5.00 p.m. On a complaint, the polic.e Patancheru registered a case in Cr.No.321 of 20 I 1 under Section 304-4..ancl 337 IPC against the driver of the said lorn'. It is stated that l.he deceased was aged about 32 years and n'as doing business in the name and style "Bhavani Amba Driliing Machine' at Patancheru and was getting income of Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶26

Rcfore the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 was set ex parte and respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition allegations. They mainl_v contended that the accident was due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No.AP28BD-4 106 and that the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle \vere necessary parties and that the driver of the lorry and rider of the motorcycle were not having valid and effective driving licenses. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the clarm petition.

¶27

¶28

MACMA No 92 ol20l6

¶29

5 To prove their case, petitioners examined PWs.l and 2 ald got marked Exs.Al to A6. On behaif of the respondents, neither the oral nor documentary evidence was adduced

¶30

On appreciation of the evidence on relcord, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.6,73,000/- with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inferalia contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month though he was doing Drilling Machine business and did not add future prospects and that the Tribunal did not grant compensation amount under conventional heads as per the judgments of Apex Court. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the deceased was aged more than 40 years and since there is no evidence that the deceased was doing business and getting income, prayed to grant a reasonable amount of compensation.

¶33

¶34

¶35

RRNJ MACMA No 9l ot20l6

¶36

9 Heard both sides. Perused the record

¶37

A perusal of the order of the Tribunal goes to show that it considered the age of the deceased as 35 years as per Ex.A3/lnquest report and trx.A4/pME report. The petitioners have not filed any document to show that the deceased was doing the Drilling Machine business and earning Rs.2O,00O/_ per month. The petitioners got filed Ex.A6/Income certiircate issued by the Tahsildar, Shivampet Mandal, which shows that the deceased r.vas getting an annual income of Rs.50,OO0/. Even if Ex.A6 is considered, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,167/-. Since it is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was doing Drilling Machine business, it comes under creative work in nature. Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,50O/-. To this, hrrure prospects of 4Ooh as per the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Noitional Insurance Compang Ltd. Vs. Pranag Sethit as the deceased was aged 26 years. The annual income of the deceased including future prospects would come to Rs.1,09,200/- (Rs.6,5OO/ + 4To/o x l2). The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Scrla

¶38

'^{(20I 7) l6} scc 680

¶39

RRN,-I MACMA^{No 92of2016}

¶40

¶41

Vertna Vs. Delhi^{Transport.Corporattonzis "16"'Since the} dependants are 5^{innumber,a deductionofI l4th of the} income of the^{deceasedtowards personal expenses whichthe} deceased might^{have spent for himself. Thus, the total loss of} dependency would^{come to Rs. 13,10,a00/-(Rs'1,O9'2OOl--} 1/4tu x 16).

¶42

1 1. The Tribunal awarded^{Rs. 1O,OOO/-towards funeral} expenses, Rs.lO,OOO/-^{towardsloss of estate arrd Rs'5,O00/-} towards loss of consortium^{to the petitioner No' lwhich are} meagre. However,^{the petitionersare entitled to compensation} under conventional^{heads as per the decisionof the Hon'ble} Apex Court in National^{Insla,ranceCompang Llmited us} Prdnag Sethi and^{otherss,and Magma InsuronceCompang} Ltd. Vs. Nsnu^Ram @Chuhru^{Rama. Ppetitioner No' l, being} the wife of the^{deceased, is entitled to Rs'44,OOO/- towards} spousal consortium,^{petitioners No.2 and 4 beingminorsare} enritled to Rs.4O,OOO/-^{each i'e' Rs.8O,OO0/-(i'e' Rs'40,000/-} x 2) towards loss^{of parental consortium,and petitioner No'5'} being the mother^{of the deceased,is entitled to Rs'4O'000/-} towards filial consortium.^{The petitioners are also entitled to}

¶43

t (zoog) 6 scc tzt. \2017)^{16 scc 680.} r20 t8 Law Suit (SC) 90a

¶44

RRN.J MACMA No 92 of20l6

¶45

(

¶46

Rs. 16,500/- tor,r,ards luneral expenses and Rs. 16,500/_ towards loss of estate. Wir.h regard to interest, the Tribuna_l rightly considered aL T .5(t,, p.a., which needs no interference.

¶47

In ail, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to Rs. 15,07,O00/- tovvards compensation. Though the claimed anount is Rs.10,O0,00O/ , invoking the principle of just compensation, and in vieu' ol the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Cor-rrt in Rajesh us. RaJbir Singhs, and in a catena of decisions, this Court ts empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the petitioner/appellanr shall pay the dehcit Court fee on the enhalced compensation

¶48

In the resulr. thc M.A.C.M.A is allowed and the compensation amount au arded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.6,73,OO0/ to Rs.1S,O7,OOO/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh and seven Thousand onl-r') u rth interest @)T .S o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the da re of realization. Respondents No. I and 2 are directed to deposit the said arnount with costs and interest after dedur:ting the amount, if any, already deposited, within two months fronr rhe date of receipt (lf a copy of this

¶49

5 MANu/sc/048o/2o tj

¶50

¶51

RRN-J MACMA No 9l ol 20r6

¶52

judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with the manner and proportion as determined by the Tribunal subject to payment of deficit Court fee within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶54

closed.

¶55

To,

¶56

SD/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR l'---' SECTIdN OFFICER

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

1 . The Chairman,^{Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal{um-llAdditional Chlef} Judge, City Civil Court,^HYderabad.

¶59

One CC to Sri Jagathpal^{Reddy Kasi Reddy,Alyocale} [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Srinivas^{Rao Vutla,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶60

Two CD Copies

CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 6 10612023

JUDGMENT

-t=-1
'irtE =' rA i-€
)tr
q <br>c:) 1t [us 1[11 I
r.)
:,.* -q:' -

¶67

MACMA.No.92 of²⁰¹⁶

¶68

ALLOWING THE^MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

¶70

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶71

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

¶72

FRIOAY, THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF JUNE}

¶73

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶74

PRESENT

¶75

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTTCE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶76

M.A.C.M.A.No.92 of 16

¶77

Between:

¶78

1.SmtS.Malamrna,Wo^{late Yadaiah} Aged27^years,occ:^Household,
2.S.Nagaraju,s/o^lateYadaiah Aged14^years,occ:Student
3.S.Jayaprada,^{D/olate Yadaiah} Aged12^years,occ: Student,
4.S.Chetan Krishna,^{D/olateYadaiah} Aged4^years,occ:^Student,
5.Smt.S.Veeramma,Wo^Shivaiah Aged 62Years,occ:^Nil,.. :
(AppellanE2to 4being^{pinorsibpby tlreir naturdl}. tloiherand^guardian,Smt^{s.tutalamma,1$Appellant)}
AND All residentsof Allipur village,^{Shivampet-Mandal} MedakDistrict,^{presently R/ol=l.No.t8-1-3831 Ll2l4 l 6} Malakpet, Hyderabad-500036

¶79

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶80

1.K. PeedaVenkataiah,^{S/oMalaKondaiah} Aged:Major, Occ:^Business n7on.ruo.+-OS,Sai^{NaEarColbni,R,C. Puram} MedakDistrict. 2. UnitedIndia Insurdnce^CoLtd. Repby itsRegional Manager Off:UnitedIndiaInsurance^Building Basheerbagh,Hyderabad'500029^.	...Respondents/Respondents

¶81

AppealUnderSection1T3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorderand Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.2378^{0f 2011 dated 19.04.20150n the file of the court} of the chairman, Motor Accident^{claims Tribunal-cum-llAdditionalchief Judge, city} Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶82

¶83

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 Sri Kasi Reddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of sri vutla Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and of not appeared either in person or by Advocate No.1. This Court doth Judgment and Decree as follows:

¶84

That the Motor Accident civir Misceflaneous Appear be and hereby is aflowed.

¶85

That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunar is enhanced from Rs.6,73,0001 to Rs. 1 5,07,000/-.

¶86

3 That the enhanced amount shal carry the interest at the rate of 7.50/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶87

That the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount withcosts and interest after deducting the amount, if any arready deposited, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶88

5' That on such deposit, the petrtioners are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with the manner and proportion as determined by the Tribunal.

¶89