Partly allowed

M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Swetha Kedia

Telangana HC3 Nov 2023MACMA/94/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court decided two appeals regarding compensation for a motor accident victim. While rejecting the insurer's appeal against the quantum, the Court partly allowed the claimant's appeal by enhancing compensation to Rs. 28,79,824/- based on revised medical expenses, attendant charges, and multiplier calculations.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 28,79,824/-; insurer's appeal rejected; original decree confirmed otherwise.

M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Swetha Kedia — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

M.AC.M.A. Nos:94 of 2010 &2123 of 2013

¶6

M.AC.M .A No: 94 OF 2010

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles^{Act against the order and decreein} M.V.O.P.No. 1122 ot 2006 dated^{12.05.2009on the file of the Court of the} Chairman Motor Accident^{ClaimsTribunal --cum-Chief Judge,City Civil Courts,} Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. National lnsurance Co. Ltd.,^{Rep.byits Divisional Manager, D.O.No. 2'} having its office at 302 Swapnalok Complex,^{Secund^erabad,A.P. cover Not!:No.} 2222d9, dated 9-8-2004 to 8-8-2005^{(issued by D.O.2, Volga Complex,Canal} Road, Jammu & Kashmir^{for Maxi Cab. No. JK 02 S 2553)}

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Smt. Swetha Kedia, D/o.^{Srin Surrender Agarwal,W/o. Sri Vishal Kedia Occ:} Private Service, FJo. Flat^No. 202,^{21-2-445, Gokul Das Complex,} !4lttl:kqsher,Charkaman,Hyderabad,A.P^{...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER}

¶13

2 M/s. Tanveer Transport^{Co.,, HavingitS office at Shop No. 87, YardNo. 1,} Transport Nagar, Jammu.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT^No.1

¶15

MACMAMP. NO:5 061 oF 2014

¶16

Between:

¶17

Smt. Swetha Kedia, D/o. Srin Surrender^{Agarwal,Wo. Sri Vishal Kedia Occ:} Private Service, Ri/o. Flat No. 202, 21-2-445,^{Gokul Das Complex,Mitti-ka-sher'} Charkaman, Hyderabad, A.P ...PETITONER/RESPONDENT

¶18

(Common in MACMA MP No.s 5061 and 5062 of 2014)

¶19

AND

¶20

M/s. National lnsurance Co. Ltd.,^{Rep.by its Divisional Manager, D.O.No.2,} having its office at 302 Swapnalok^{Complex, Secunderabad,.}

¶21

<->-

¶22

..RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶23

(Common in MACMA MP No.s 5061 and 5062 of 2014)

¶24

2 M/s. Tanveer Transport Co.,, Having its office at Shop No. g7, yard No. 1, Transport Nagar, Jammu.

¶25

(Respondent No.2 not necessary party) ...RESPONDENT/ RESpONDENT

¶26

(Common in MACMA MP No.s 5061 and 5062 of 2014)

¶27

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiition, ine Hign court may o" pr."r"Jio permit the petitioner / craimant to withdraw an imount of 8s. 1'1 ,7r,rfi9ldeposited to the credit of op.no. 1122 ot 2006 on the file of tne cniei.luJge - cum-MACT, Hyderabad.

¶28

MACMAMP. NO: 5062 OF 2O1A

¶29

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine uign court may ue pr.a."Jio vacate the order dt. 15ro2r2010 passed in MAcMA.Mp.no. isg or 2010 in MACMA.No. 94 of 2O1O.

¶30

MACM AMP . NO: 353 0F 2010

¶31

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of .the peiition, ine nigrr court may ue pteaseJio stay the proceedings in M.V.o.p.No. 1122 of 2006, Jated tz-os-2oos'on theliie of the Motor Accidents craims Tribunar cum chief Judge, city cirir corris, Hyderabad pending the final disposal of the main appeai.

¶32

M.A.C.M.A. NO:2 123 0F 2013

¶33

Appeal Under section 173 of ltrotor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.1122 OF 2006 dated 12.05.2009, on the file of the Cou,t of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal __cum_Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

¶34

Between:

¶35

Smt. Swetha kedia, Wo. Sri Vishal Kedia, Flat No 4O1, 21-2-767 Rikabgunj Hyderabad.

¶36

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

AND

1. M/s. Tanveer Transport co., Having its office at Shop No. 87, Yard No. Transport Nagar Jammu

¶41

R-1 set aside vide Court Order dated 2.12.2013 in CMP No. 6150 of 2013

¶42

M/s. National lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager D.O.No. 2 Having its Office at 302 Swapnalok Complex

¶43

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶44

.A NO: 2 OF 201 MACMAMP. NO:61 o

¶45

Petition under Order I Rule 9 of CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the dismissal order in M.A.C.M.A 2123 of 2013 dt.10-07201 3 passed against the respondent No.'1^.

¶46

Counsel for the Appellant(ln MACMA^No.2123 of²⁰¹³ andⁱⁿ R-l in^MACMA94 :SRl. PRAMOD KUMAR KEDIA of 2010)

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents/lnsurance Company :SRl KOTA SUBBA^RAO

¶48

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶49

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSITY AND

¶50

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶51

M.A.C.M.A.N os.94 of 2OlO & 2L23 of 2Ol3

¶52

COMMON WDGMENTi(per Hon'bte Sri Justice p.sAxr Kosfly)

¶53

Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated |2.OS.2OO9 in M.V.O.P.No.1 I22 of 2006 on the hle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as^.the Tribunal), the Insurance Company has frled MACMA No.94 of 2O10 and the claimant has frled MACMA No.2123 of 2013.

¶54

Since the challenge made in both the appeals is to the common Award and decree dated 1 2.05.20O9 passed by the Tribunal, both the appeals are being decided by way of this common judgment.

¶55

Heard Mr. Kota Subba Rao, Iearned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and Sri pramod Kumar Kedia learned counsel appearing for the .claimant and perused the entire material on record.

¶56

The claim petition was hled by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.57,20,523/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal has gralted an

¶57

¶58

PSKJ & LNA'J MACM .Nos.94 of20l0 & 2l2l of2013

¶59

amount of Rs.25,02,683/- as compensation with an interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of application till the date of deposit of the amount. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company frled an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, so also the claimant has filed an appea-l questioning the quantum of compensation and prayed for the enhancement of the compensation.

¶60

The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has erroneously considered the income of the claimant to be on the higher side and has relied upon the income tax return which itself was frled subsequent to the date of accident. Therefore, it was not^justified for the Tribunal to have taken the said income tax return as the basis for the purpose of calculating the compensation.

¶61

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/appellalt referred to the income tax return and said that the income tax return reflects only the income of three months. If that would be taken as basis, then it should had been calculated Iirst for the whole year and thereafter, should had gone in for the quantification of the compensation. Learned counsel had also referred to the eviden'ce of the Doctor, which

¶62

-J..J

¶63

¶64

PSK,J & LNA,J MACM^ Nos 94 ot20t0 & 2123 of20l3

¶65

would show that there was further medical expenses also which would had been required for medica-l treatment and for which also there would had been future income that should had been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. But the Tribunal had restricted the Award towards future medical expenses to only Rs.2,00,000/- which is on the lower side. Likewise, it was also contended that considering the fact that the right hand of the claimant has received grievous injuries and has not been properly functioning as it was prior to the accident, it has become necessary for the claimant to engage an attender ail through his life and the Tribunal has not grarted compensation suitable under this head, but has only granted compensation for attender for a limited period of three years.

¶66

However, perusal of the record would show that on the previous two assessment years, the income of the deceased to be around Rs. 1,O0,O00/- annually. The annual income of the claimant for the Assessment year 2O03_04 was disclosed as Rs. 1,O4,756/- per annum and which perhaps seems to be the income which the Tribunal has also arrived at for the purpose of calculation of the compensation.

¶67

¶68

.7a

¶69

PSK.J &^I-NA'J MACMA Nos.9.1 of 20^t0 & 2l2l^ot2013

¶70

B. We do not hnd any^{grave illegality or irregularity on the} part ol the Tribunal in^{assessing the incomeof the claimantas} such. However,^{from the perusal of record,it rvould show that} the right hand of the claimant^{was injured and received grievous} injuries. That the evidence^{of the Doctoralso would show that} there was continuous^{further treatmentrequired and} recommended and^{whichthe claimartt musthaveundergone'}

¶71

g. However, pending the^{appeal before this Court, the} claimant had frled^{MACMA.MP.No.5062 of 2Ol4 (l'A'No'2 of} 2}l4l. The claimant^{had only producedcertain receipts from} the Physiotherapist from^{the centrewhere she is said to have} undertaken^{physiotherapy' The claimant has not produced arty} material so far^{as the furthermedicalexpenditure that theyhave} incurred is concerned,^{eitherin the year2O14 when I'A'No'2of} 2014 was fi.led or^{insubsequent period inbetween, to} substantiate the fact^{that there was further medical expenses} also incurred.^{Nonetheless, since the documents show that} there was certain^{expensesincurredby the claimanttowards} physiotherapy, subsequently,^{in addition to the compensationof} Rs.2,00,000/-^{whichhas been awardedby the Tribuna-l, we are} of the considered^{opinion that further addititrnal compensation} of Rs.2,00,000/- towards^{future medicalexpenses wouldsufhce'}

¶72

¶73

PSK,J & LNAJ MACMA.Nos.9l of20t0 & 2l2l of20ll

¶74

t I

¶75

So also as regards the attendant charges is concerned, though the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,O3,5OO/-, considering the nature of injuries that the claimant had received and also realizing the difhculties that she must had faced for all this period, we of the opinion that it deserves to be enhanced by another Rs. 1,OO,000/-. Moreover, from the pleading it appears that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is of 17, whereas, considering the age of the injured at the time of the accident as 23 years, the multiplier ought to have been is 18. Therefore, the compensation towards future loss of earning capacity also needs to be recalculated applying the multiplier of 18 instead of 17. Thus, after the multiplier of 18 being applied, the total loss of earnings capacity of the claimant comes to Rs.77,140.8OX18 = 13,88,534/-, instead of Rs. 13,1t,393/-.

¶76

Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of an amount of Rs.28,79,824/-, instead of Rs.25,O2,683/-. So far as rate of interest @ 9Vo is concerned, the same would remain intact as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶77

In view thereof, the MACMA No.2123 of 2013 stands partly allowed to the extent that the claimant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.28,79,824/- instead of Rs.2S,O2,6g3/-

¶78

¶79

',-

¶80

PS(J & I,NA.J NIACMA.NoS 94 01 2010 &1t2) otz}tl

¶81

as awarded by the Tribunal and the MACMA.No.94 of 201O filecl by the Insurance Company stands rejected. There shall be no

¶82

order as to costs.

¶83

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶84

closed.

¶85

//TRUE COPY//

¶86

SD/- K.VENKAIAH ASSTSTANT REGTSTfnR v

¶87

SECTION OFFICER

¶88

To,

¶89

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-Chief Judge, City^Civil Courts, Hyderabad (With records)

¶90

One CC to SRl. PRAMOD KUMAR KEDIA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶91

One CC to SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶92

TworcD Co^pres

DL NS

i j il II I I I I

HIGH COURT

PSK,J &

NTR,J

DATED:0311112O23

COMMON JUDGMENT

e STATQ
I
Nl C)
clo 2o 0tt 3
* c *
DESP^a f,\t

¶101

MACMA.No.94 of 2010 & 2123 OF 2013

¶102

MACMA No. 2123 of 2013 is partly allowed &

¶103

MACMA No. 94 of 2010 is rejected

L
( WD

[^337e ]

: I I

I I I

t I I I, I i I

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

¶110

-FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTHREE

¶111

PRESENT

¶112

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶113

M.A.C.M.A. Nos: 94 O^{F 2010} &^{2123 ol2013}

¶114

M.A.C.M A. No:^{94 OF 2010}

¶115

Between:

¶116

M/s. National lnsurance Co.^{Ltd., Rep.byits Divisional Manager, D'O No} .2' nauino iti office at 302 Swapnalok^{Coniple:x, Secunderabad, A P' coverNote No'} iizzis, dated 9-8-2004 to^{8-8-2005(iisued by D.o.2, volgaComplex,Canal} Road, J'ammu & Kashmirfor^{Maxi Cab- No. JK 02 S 2553)}

¶117

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^{No. 2}

¶118

AND

¶119

1 Smt. Swetha Kedia,^{D/o. Srin Surrender Agarwal,W/o. Sri Vishal Kedia Occ} irivate Service,^Ry6. rtat^{No. 202,21-2-445, Gokul Das C-ompl.l,-El!i]tg--} sher,Charkamin,Hyderabad,A.P^{...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER}

¶120

2 M/s. Tanveer Transport^{Co.,, Having its office at Shop No. 87, YardNo 1'} Transport Nagar, Jammu.

¶121

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT^No.1

¶122

Appeal under Section¹⁷³ of^{Motor Vehicles Act against the orderanddecreein} M.V.O.P.No. 1122 of^20OO dated 12.05.2009 on the file^of the^{Court of the} Chairman Motor^Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-Chief^{Judge,City CivilCourts,} Hyderabad.

¶123

M.A. C.M.A NO: 2123^OF 2013

¶124

Between:

¶125

Smt. Swetha kedia, Wo.^{Sri Vishal Kedia,Flat No. 401, 21-2-767 Rikabgunj} Hyderabad.

¶126

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

AND

,{ I i I

I I

I t

I I t I

M/s. Tanveer Transport co., Having its office at Shop No. 87, Yard No. 1 Transport Nagar Jammu

¶134

R-1 set aside vide Court Order dated 2.12.2013 in CMP No. 6150 of 2013

¶135

2 Mis. National lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager D.O.No. 2 Having its Oflice at 302 Swapnalok Complex

¶136

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶137

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No.1122 of 2006 dated 12.05.2009, on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal --cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

¶138

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. PRAMOD KUMAR KEDIA, Advocate for the Appellant-Claimant and of SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent-lnsurance Company.

¶139

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶140

That the MACMA No. 94 of 2010 filed by the lnsurance Company be and hereby is Rejected;

¶141

That the MACMA No. 2123 of 2013 be and hereby is parfly allowed to the extent that the claimant would be entifled for a compensation of Rs. 28,79,8241- instead of Rs. 25,02,6831- as awarded by the Tribunal;

¶142

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

¶143

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶144

To,

¶145

SD/. K.VEN AH ASSISTANT REG TRAR s&'riw ffi".ElL-

¶146

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal --cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad

¶147

Two C.D.Copies

't, I ii, l M.

! i I

HIGH COURT

PSK,J

NTR,J

DATED:03/11/2023

COMMON DECREE

MACMANo.94 of 2010 & 2123 OF 2013

¶157

MACMA No. 2'123 of 2013 is partly allowed &

¶158

MACMA No. 94 of 20'10 is rejected

¶159

()
2
q2D

M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Swetha Kedia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Swetha Kedia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Shriram Chits Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Exemptions Vs M/s. Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad. Vs Sri Narender Kumar Goel

Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

M/s.New India Assurance Company Vs Byndla Jyothi

Narender Reddy Racharla Vs The Income Tax Officer