Allowed

Ega Aruna Devi v. Komuravelli Dayakar and Anr.

Telangana HC5 Aug 2024MACMA/2752/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A mother appealed enhancement of compensation for her son's death in a road accident. The court raised notional income to Rs.3,000 p.m., added 40% future prospects, deducted half towards personal expenses, applied multiplier 20 with conventional heads, and enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,39,000 to Rs.5,23,600 with interest @ 7.5% p.a.; withdrawal permitted on payment of deficit court fee.

Ega Aruna Devi Vs Komuravelli Dayakar and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NA:.2752 OF 2008}

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section I-73(1) oI Motor^{Vehicles Act, '1988 against the} Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.1349 of 2005^{dated 17-11-2006 on the lile of the} M.A.C.T-cum-l Additional District Judge, at Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Eqa Aruna Devi, W/o.Late Venkateshwarlu Household^{Rlo.H.No.7-2-17711} M-achilibazar, Hanamkbnda Mandal, Warangal District.

¶10

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Komuravelli Dayakar, S/o-Kailsam Business^Fl/o.C-'l ,^{Green Square} Apartments, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

¶13

2 United lndia lnsurance Company Limited,^{rep., by its Branch Manager} H.No.1 5-2-'19, Rangampet Opp Ramakrishna Theatre,^Warangal.

¶14

(Respondent No.1 is not a necessary party)

¶15

...Respondents/Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants

¶17

: Sri B.Harlnath rao

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2

¶19

: Sri V.Venkata Rami Reddy

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1

¶21

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶23

M.A.C.M.A No.2752 OF 2OO8

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

The appellant-claimalt who is the mother of the deceased, dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the Tribunal preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellart and the learned counsel appearing for 2"d respondent-Insurance Company.

¶27

The manner in which the accident had taken place and the tiatrility of the Insurance Company is not in dispute.

¶28

On 3O.12.2005, while the deceased was returning home on his two wheeler, the offending vehicle which is a car hit the vehicle of the deceased at a high speed in the opposite direction resulting in the deceased falling down and receiving injuries and died on the next day in the hospital.

¶29

The ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that though it was claimed that deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m., the Tribunal without assiBning any reason, considered the income of the deceased at Rs.2,20O/-p.m. Further, the multiplier that was adopted should be considering the age of the deceased, not the age of the mother of the deceased. In

¶30

¶31

support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in llo:resh Shantitat Aalani v. Neu India Assurance Co. Ltd..l

¶32

Keeping in view that the deceased was ar Electrician, his income calr be considered at Rs.3,00o/-p.m.

¶33

7 . Accordingly, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-p.m., the annual income comes to Rs.36,0O0/_ p.a.(3,O00x12). Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.. Vs. pranag Sethi2, 4O%o has to be considered towards future prospects which comes to Rs.50,4OOI-(36,000+ 14,4OO). Out of which, t/2 ]nas to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which comes to Rs.25,2OOI-(5O,4OO-25,2OO). As per the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla. Varrna Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3, adopting the appropriate multiplier 20, the tota-l comes to Rs.4,53,6O0/-(25,200x18). In addition, the appellant/claimant is entitled to Rs.4O,000/- towards consortium, Rs.15,OOO/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,00O/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellant is entifled for an amount of Rs.5,23,60O/- towards compensation (4,53,600 +40,000+ 15,OOO+ 1s,0o0).

¶34

1 Law Finder Docld#2528019

¶35

'z^{zorzlo; nlo rzo} 1sc;

¶36

' 200e(6) scc 121

¶37

¶38

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is aliowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,39,000/- to Rs.5,23,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition tilI the date of reali-ation. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, on pa1rment of defrcit Court fee. Except the above enhancement, the award of the Tribunal sha_ll remain same on all other aspects. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶39

I sd/- T. TIRUMALA^DEVI /, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To'

q..,

The M.A.C.T-cum-l^{AdditionalDistrictJudge,at Warangal'}

¶46

One CC to Sri^{B.HarinathRao, Advocate} IOPUCI

¶47

One CC to Sri^{V.Venkata Rami Reddy,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶48

Two CD CoPies

Svs/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510812024

.- .,ii,i5 a,
C,
, i)Z:):-) sr $q T6
t.';-
.. :---

¶57

DECREE

¶58

MAGMA.No.2752 of 2008

ALLOWING THE MACMA

/ ./z Q^t"- Z^/t'/ts

[32s1 |

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶64

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶65

PRESENT

¶66

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶67

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2752OF 20OB

¶68

Between:

¶69

Ega Aruna Devi, Wo.Late Venkateshwarlu Household No.H.No.7-2-17711 Machilibazar, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District.

¶70

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶71

AND

¶72

1 Komuravelli Dayakar, S/o.Kailsam Business Rl/o.C-1, Green Square Apartments, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

¶73

2 United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch fManager H.No.15-2-19, Rangampet Opp Ramakrishna Thi:atre, Warangal.^-

¶74

(Respondent No.'l is not a necessary party)

¶75

...Respondertts/Respondents

¶76

Order and _ Appeal decree in filed Under M.V.O.P.No.1349 Section 173(11 of 2005 of Motor dated Vehicles 17-11-2006 on Act, 1988 against thelite of thethe M.A.C.T-cum-l Additional District Judge, at Warangal.

¶77

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 Sri B.harinath rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri V.Venkata Ranli Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and None appeared for the Respondent No.1 .

¶78

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶79

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is^partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,39,0001 to Rs.5,23,600/-; as hereunder

¶80