Allowed

J Narsimha, R.R.Dist and Others v. Sombir, Delhi and Others

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024MACMA/2562/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of their family member in a road accident involving a lorry. The High Court recomputed monthly income with future prospects, applied multiplier 16, added conventional heads and parental consortium, enhancing compensation from Rs.6,22,000 to Rs.12,32,200 and interest to 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.6,22,000 to Rs.12,32,200 with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization, payable within two months.

J Narsimha, R.R.Dist and Others Vs Sombir, Delhi and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

l32s1l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No: 2562 of 2015

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 30-06-2015 passed in O.p.No.1040 of 2013 on the file of the court of the chairman, lvlotor Vehicles Accidents claims Tribunal-curnlAdditional Dastrict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l . Jettipaga Narsimha, S/o. Irilogulappa, Age: 45 years, Occ: Security Guard, 2. J. Srinivas, S/o J. Narsimh a, Age 17 years, Occ: Student,

¶10

Kum. J. Shiva Leela, D/o J. Narsimha, Age:^'15 years, Occ: Student

¶11

(Appellants No. 2 and 3 being minors Rep by Appeltant No.1)

¶12

All are R/o Block No.96/5, Rajiv Gruhakalpa, Nizampet (M) R.R. District.

¶13

...Claimants/Appellants

¶14

AND

¶15

1 Sombir, S/o. Sh. Om Prakash, Aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No. HR 61 A 3217 Rlo. H.No.B-23, Adhyapak Nagar, District West 6ethi-t 1d041

¶16

2 N?tional lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager, Twin Cities Market Complex, M.J. Road, Hyderabad.

¶17

...Respondents/Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI V. ATCHUTARAM

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. HARINATH GUPTA

¶21

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶23

MOTOR ACCIDENT CTVIL US APPEAI No.2562 of 2O15 JUDGMENT:

¶24

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') against the Order and Decree dated 30.06.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1O4O of 2013 (for short 'impugned Order') passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribuna-l-cum-l Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rargareddy District at LB Nagar (for short 'the learned Tribunal').

¶25

The Original Petition was filed by claimants claiming compensation of Rs.9,5O,0OO/- for death of their family member by name Smt.J.Chittemma (here-in-a-fter referred as 'deceased'), who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 02.12.2073. Clairnant No.1 is the husband of the deceased and claimalt Nos.2 and 3 are their children. The learned Tribunal after considering oral arrd documentary evidence placed on record and submissions made bv bottr sides, vide impugned order

¶26

¶27

granted compensation of Rs.6,22,OOOl-. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred the present appeal.

¶28

As the present appeal ]S preferred only for enhancement of the compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal and as there is no dispute with other findings of the learned Tribunal, this Court is not going into other details-

¶29

In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the learned Tribunal discarded Ex.A7-Salary certificate as no authorized person was examined to prove the same. [t is claim of claimants that deceased r,vas earning Rs.9,OOO/per month. As there is no proper evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.9,OOO/- per month, the learned Tribunal has ta.ken monthly income at the rate oF Rs.a,5OO/- and after deducting I /3,a incorne towards personal expenses, ultimately the annr.-ral income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.36,OOO/- per annr.rrn. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶30

¶31

case, this Court is of the^{opirrion that rnonthly} income of Rs.4,SOO/-^{is at lower side and the same} is enhanced to Rs.6,OOO/-.^{It is also to be noted} that while calculating^{compensation amount, the} learned Tribunat has^{not awarded future} prospects.

¶32

In view ol the^{decision of the Honourable Apex} Court in National Insurance^{Compang Limited Vs'} Pranag Sethi ond othersl,^{4OQk i-e., Rs.2,400/-towards} future prospects can duly^{be added thereto, whichcomes} to Rs.8,4OO/-^{(Rs.6,0OO/- +Rs.2,4OO/-)'Hence, this} Court is inclined to^{fix the annual income of the} deceased at Rs.1,OO,BOO/-^{(Rs-S,4OOx12)'Since} there are three dependents,^{after deducting1/3ta of the} income (Rs.33,60O/-)^{towardspersonalexpenses of the} deceased, as^per the^{decision of the HonourableApex} Court in Smt.Scrta Vartna^{a. DelhiT"ansporA} Corporation and another2,^{tkt e net annualcontributionto}

¶33

I zov ac,s 2zoo ,2009 (6) SCC 121

¶34

¶35

the family comes to Rs.67,2OO/- (Rs.t,00,SO0/_ Rs.33,600/-).

¶36

During the course of submissions, both the learned counsel submitted that there is ambiguity in the age of the deceased, as seen from the impugned order in the pleadings it is stated that deceased is aged 34 _years, as per inquest report it is mentioned as 32 years and as per postmortem examination report it is mentioned as 30 years. In order to remove the above ambiguity, this Court is of the considered view that average of the above mentioned age, has to be taken for granting just and reasonable compensation. Hence, this Court is inclined to take the age of the deceased fafls under 3l_35 years. As per the decision ol the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Scrtcr Varrna (supra), the appropriate multiplier is '16'. Thus, applying the multiplier .16, to the arrnual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.67,2OO / , ttre total'loss of dependency,comes to Rs. 10,75,200/ (Rs.67 ,2OO / - x 16) and claimants are entitled to Rs.77,OOO/- under the conventional heads (Rs.7O,OOO/- +

¶37

{

¶38

¶39

In addition^{thereof, claimartt} 1O7o enhancement^thereon)' No.2 and^{3 who are minor children of the deceased and} claimant^{No.1 are entitledfor Rs'40'000/- each i'e"} Rs.8O,OOO/-^{under the head of 'parental consortium'as per} thedecisionoftheApexCourtinMaLgmoGeneral Insurance^{Compang Limited a'No:nuRam @ Chuhru} Ram ond otherss.^{Thus, in all' claimantsare entitledto} compensation^{of Rs'12,32,2O0I-'}

¶40

)

¶41

07 . In^{view of the above discussron'this Court is of} the considered^{oPinion ttratthe comPensation arnount} awarded by^{the learned Tribunal at Rs'6'22'OO0/- is at} lower side^{and the same is enhancedto Rs' 12'32'20o/-' In} so far as^{interest is concerned' the learned'Tribunal} has awarded^{interest at the rate of 7 percent per} anntlm^{from the date of petition tillthe date of} deposit.^{This Court by relyingupon the decision of the} Hon'ble Apex^{Court in Rajesh and others v' RajbirSingh} and othersa^{inclined to enhance the rate of interest} awarded by^{the learned Tribunal to 7'5 percent per annum} '(20t8)^{t8 scc llo} "^{)o ti ac.; l4o3= 2o l 3 (4 ) ALT3s}

¶42

¶43

on entire compensation arnount from the date of petition till the date of reali-ation. The entire compensation amount along with enhanced interest shall be deposited by respondents within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. on such deposit, claimants are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing arry security, subject to payment of, deficit Court fee.

¶44

Accordingly, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaleous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, it any, shall stand closed.

¶46

Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman. lvlotor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. (with records, if any)

¶51

One CC to SRI V. ATCHUTARAM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

One CC to SRI P HARINATH GUPTA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies

¶54

Kanr/[)[.

¶55

f^trc.

¶56

HIGH COURT DATED:0610912024

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

MACMA.No.2562 of 2015

¶59

-i r-lE S 4 I
.a
JuJ
2 5 l'i[\J 2$20
*
Fo n.. ,t't

¶60

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶61

q$c,., .}r-r.. r-q\to\

¶62

[^32sl ]

¶63

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶64

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶65

PRESENT

¶66

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶67

M.A. C.M.A.No: 2562 of 2015

¶68

Between:

¶69

Jettipaga Narsimha, S/o. Mogulappa,^{Age.45 Years, Occ: Security Guard,}

¶70

J. Srinivas, S/o J. Narsimha,^{Age. 17 years, Occ: Student,}

¶71

Kum. J. Shiva Leela,^{D/o J. Narsimha,Age: 15 Years, Occ: Student}

¶72

(Appellants No. 2 and 3 being minors Rep by Appellant^No.1)

¶73

All are R/o Block No.96/5, Raiiv Gruhakalpa,^{Nizampet(M) R.R. District.}

¶74

...Claimants/Appellants

¶75

AND

¶76

Sombir, S/o. Sh. Om Prakash,^{Aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorrybearing-No} HR 61 A 3217 Rto. H.No B-23, Adhyapak^{Nagar, DistrictWest Delhi-'l10041}

¶77

National lnsurance Company^{Ltd,, Repby its Divisional Manager, Twin Cities} t\rla rket Complex, tt/.J. Road, Hyderabad.

¶78

...ResPondents/ResPondents

¶79

Appeal Under Section 173 of^{Motor vehicles Act aggrievedby the} Judgment and decree dated 30-06-2015^{passedin O.P.No.'1040 of 2013 on the} file of the court of the chairman,^{t\ilotor Vehicles Accidents claimsTribunal-cum-} lAdditional District and Sessions^{Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L-B.Nagar'}

¶80

This appeal coming on^{for hearingand upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree^{of the Court below and the material papersin} the case and upon hearing^{the arguments of SRI V. ATCHUTARAM,Advocatefor} the appellants and SRI P.^{HARINATH GUPTA, Advocate for the Respondent No 2} and None Appeared for the^{RespondentNo.1.}

¶81

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶82

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶83

That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.6,22,0001 to Rs. 12,32,2001 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand and Two Hundred only),

¶84

That the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced from 7 percent per annum to 7.5 percent per annum on entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶85

That the entire compensation amount along with enhanced interest shall be deposited by respondents within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶86

5- That on such deposit, claimants be and hereby are entifled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security, subject to payment of deficit Court fee, and

¶87

6- That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶88

Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. (with records, if any)

¶93