Partly allowed

Jalla Saidulu and 2 Others v. Thumoz Hari Prasad and Another

Telangana HC12 Aug 2024MACMA/2968/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses the insurer's appeal against the quantum of compensation and allows the claimants' appeal to enhance the award from Rs.2,84,000 to Rs.5,05,600.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,84,000 to Rs.5,05,600 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondent to deposit amount within 8 weeks.

What the court decided

Jalla Saidulu and 2 Others Vs Thumoz Hari Prasad and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

MACM ANO; 2099 oF2013,AND 29680 F 2016

¶7

MACMA NO: 2099 OF 2013

¶8

Appear fired Under Section '173 0f Motor Vehicres Act,1gB8 against the order and decree in o.p.No.434 ot 2012 datea.rl'-ol-zoii on tne fire of the court of the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-"rr- rri nooitionar District Judge (r Fast Track Court), at Nalgonda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

United lndia ln_surance Company_ Limited, R/o. Regional office, T.p.Hub. ll!l"o.6o?nrr"n Buitdins,^{posriett'e#"i.,,-iiiu"[} idIX,'nm Koti. Hyderabad_

¶11

AND

¶12

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶13

Sri. Jalla Saidulu. S/o. Sri Kistaiah @. Krishnaiah, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Kondapuram Villaqe of Chi oistriEt. frese-nriv^" Ri/o.Gdndhinas,,- r"";ri,v "'i[[1#f,::el}?%?]ta

¶14

2 i,! ny".c)-,rirliiirbZlLljiSflt=vlr i?:i^{J:??flfl'v;:", *| 5i:l3iii)} Narsonda^g#H1 rown and ii:11; b,rnfl,?,.,',",, fl..^{r, ran a B} Presentty^{u si n e s s}

¶15

3 Smt. Rapolu Savitramma W{o Qrt Venkanna, Occ Household, R/o. [ij8?"Tf, ,TJx,:1r,1,p,^Jl[:l#u+"*l,g%.joffi^iFi?.;Irtv

¶16

...Respondents/Claim petitioners

¶17

Sri. Thumoz Hari prasad.,.S/o. Srr Ramachary Occ Business, R/o. H.No. 4_35350/43, Venkateshwara Nasar, Ra;;JL";Jslihln. oirtri.t.

¶18

...RespondenURespondent No.2

¶19

--'.-js*ae_....-.

¶20

¶21

I.A.^N O:1O^{F 2013(MACM AMP.NO: 4697O} F 20'l³⁾

¶22

tated in Petitionundersectionl5lCPCpraying.thatinthecircumstancesS to stay e file of the affidavit^{fiteo in suppori} "1^{ih" p"titil"li'nJwgh.corrtmav be pteased} or alt rurther^{proceedingsH;'; i;i:;ijii; o'-P No 434 or 2012 on th} District^. the Chairman,^{H4otor venililt"io*t ci'i"rr.iounal Cumlll Additional} Judge,^{(l Fast Track co"ti lt'rilgona" in"r'olng execution Proceedings'}

¶23

Counsel^{for the APPellant: Sri B NaraYana ReddY}

¶24

Counsel^{for the Respondents: Sri P RamakrishnaReddy}

¶25

MAC MA^{NO:2968OF2016}

¶26

*T":;1,

¶27

s",-d-'l':l'r,[i;:"';:P.J''i,:rufJ,x] B?&: i?J'f:'J,',',J"#i 53lifli"T8]

¶28

Villaoe and Chiluku il;jiiy;indsonda^{rownand Dist}

¶29

, :l,lt g:,r, v ,; f" *r' * 8lt lffiH ,?nT, ;,^',51s,1^{B,:'JHff' #"1} e;;;;I;;;;^{rc'caiitv Ji r'ratsonoarown and Dist'}

¶30

.$f,,g:,J;i,,gf, n,,.Hf..Yt"i,:U*o?'B';,n8i"'='J"ti#,1[:13fl^l"T3] i;;iilY;iN"rsonda^{rown and Dist}

¶31

...dPPel^{lants/Petitioners}

¶32

AND

¶33

1 rhumozHariPrasad'S'S-i1{1il"R'#;:h";Fr:'[8::rB"nLn]"0-tu-350i43' Venkateshwara^Nagar.F(alr

¶34

2 United^{lndia lnsurance Co} -Ltd^{Fl/oRegionalOffice' T P Hub ll-Floor'Church} (not"v H[sr.timl:L',ma;iilar,*tl,:mr:t-i]"'"rit'4":ffi

¶35

...ResPondents/ResPondents

¶36

Counsel^{for the Appellants :Sri P RamakrishnaReddy}

¶37

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2 : Sri B Narayana Reddy}

¶38

The Court^{delivered the following: CommonJudgment}

¶39

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶41

M.A.C.M.A Nos.2099 of 2013 and2968 of2016

¶42

COMMON IUDGMENT:

¶43

Aggrieved by the award dated 17.07.2013 in O.P.No.434 of 20L2 passed by the III Additional District |udge (I Fast^Track Court) at Nalgonda, the claimants have filed MACMA No.2968 of 20'1,6 for enhancement of the compensation and the Insurance Company has filed MACMA No.2099 of²⁰¹³ questioning^the quantum of compensation

¶44

Since botl'r the appeals arise out of^the very^{same finding} in O.P.No.434 of 20L2, both the appeals are disposed^{of by way of} common judgment.

¶45

J Having heard Sri P.Ramakrishna^{Reddy, learned counsel} for the claimants, Sri B.Narayana^{Reddy, learned counsel for the} Insurance Company, perused the^{entire materialon record.}

¶46

The manner of accident^{and the death of the deceased are}

¶47

not disputed by either of the parties.

¶48

¶49

The claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased and claimant No.3 is the daughter of the deceased. They have filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and the Tribunal has granted Rs.2,84,000/ - directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the amount.

¶50

According to version of the claimants, on 24.03.2012 at 05.30 am, while the deceased and her son were crossing the road at the outskirts of Aakupamula village to go to Nalgonda town, meantime the offending vehicle which is Ambulance bearing No.AP 29 TA 7205 proceeding's towards Kodad side drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. Due to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries to head and ail over the body and died on the spot.

¶51

¶52

Learned counser for the claimant wourd submit that though the deceasecl was doing kirana business and earning an amount of Rs.5000/_ per month, the Tribunal considering the income at I{s.3000/_ per month granted compensation

¶53

¶54

accordingly. Learned counsel requested the Court to consider the income at Rs.4,500/- per month and grant compensation.

¶55

Having gone tl-rrough the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle.

¶56

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the claimants would not depend on the mother and accordingly the reduction of income should be at 50% and not 1/3'd. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as laid down the conditions that only in the event of bachelor the income would be deducted at 50%. Here, the deceased was the mother and in^fact she was housewife and also doing kirana business. In the said circumstances, even assuming that the children are not dependent, however, the reduction of incorne sl-rould be at Lf 3'd only.

¶57

¶58

This Court relying^{on the judgmentof the Hon'ble} Apex Court in case of^{RamachanilrappaVs' Managet' Royal} Sunilatam Alliancel,where^{the monthly income of the daily wage} labourer is considered^{at Rs.4,500/- without therebeing any} evidence, is inclined^{to take.the monthly income of the deceased} at Rs.4,500/-^{as claimedby the claimants'}

¶59

The Hon'ble Apex^{Court in case of National} lnsurance Co.^{Ltit. Vs. Ptanay Sethi2 has held that while} considering the^{compensationin cases of death' the future} prospects of the self^{employed shall also be considered'Having} regard to the age^{of deceased i.e. 51 years as on the date of} accident and^{occupation as self-employed,if 10% (percent) of the} income is included^{as futureprosPects, the annual income would} cometoRs.59,400/-(Rs.4500+450x12)'Asperthedercisionofthe Hon,ble Supreme^{Court in Smt. Sarla Varmao Delhi Transport} Corporations,^{since the dependants are three memberc' rt 1'f 3'd ol}

¶60

1 (2011) 13 SCC 236

¶61

,2017 (6\ 170 (s:)

¶62

3 2009(6) SCC 121

¶63

¶64

the income is deducted towards personal expendifure, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be Rs.39,600/- (Rs.59,400-19,g00). As per Schedule II of the Act, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is ,11,. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,35,600/- (Rs.39,600X11).

¶65

As regards the consortium to be paid, each claimant is entitled to Rs.4O000/_ towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of pranay Sethi (1 SuprO.With regard to the funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/-.

¶66

Therefore, the claimants/appellants are eligible for the compensation as below:

¶67

Head

¶68

Compensation awarded

¶69

(1) Loss of dependency

¶70

Rs.4,35,600/-

¶71

(2) Funeral expenses and Loss of Estate

¶72

Rs.30,000

¶73

¶74

(3) Loss of parental consortium Rs.40,000^{for clailnant Nos.1} to3

¶75

Totalcompensationawatded Rs.5,05,600/-

¶76

In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous^{Appeal of} the Insurance Cornpany fails^{and the sameis dismissed.However,} the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal^{of the claimants are} allowed enhancing the compensation^{amount awardedby the} Tribunal from Rs.2,84,000/- lo^{Rs.5,05,600/-as hereunder:.}

¶77

(a) The enl-tanced amount shall carry interest^{at 7 -5'/op.a}

¶78

from the date of petition till the^{date of realization.}

¶79

(b) The claimants shall pay the court^{fee on the enhanced} amount of compensation.

¶80

(c) The Respondent Nos.1 and^{2 shall deposit the amount} within a period of⁽⁸⁾ weeks^{from the date of receiptof} cop), of^judgment. On^{such deposit, claimants are} pernritted to withdraw entire^{amount withoutfurnishing} any security

¶81

-7

¶82

¶83

(d) Amounts^{shall be apportionedin terms of the ratio}

¶84

decided by^{the Tribunal in the Award'}

¶85

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions' 1f any' shall stand}

¶86

closed.

¶87

SdI T.^JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 . The^{Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll AdditionalDistrict} j;;d il i;.i irack court)' at Nalgonda(w ity:::ii')

¶92

One"CC^{to Sri B Narayana Reddy' Advocateluruu1} a . il; &^{io sri p Ramakrishna Reddv' Advocate[oPUc]} 4. Two CD^CoPies

ADt(gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210812024

COMMON JUDGMENT

{ s TA re
P
1 [Ps ?s6
it
-a
,,o c
t OESf,Al

¶98

MACMA.No.2099 of 2013 AND 2968 ot 2016

¶99

l v'

¶100

DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.2099 of 2011 AND

¶101

ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.2968 ot 2016

¶102

I
h
/
q
I I/z

¶103

.-1

¶104

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶105

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

¶106

PRESENT

¶107

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶108

MACMA NO: 2099 0F 2013 AND 2968 0F 2016

¶109

MACMA NO: 2099 OF 2013

¶110

Between:

¶111

United lndia lnsurance Companv Limited, R/o.^{Regionaloffice,T.P.Hub, ll-} Floor, Church Building, Posnett iShavan,^{Tilak Road, Ram Koti,Hyderabad-} 500 001.

¶112

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶113

AND

¶114

1 Sri. Jalla Saidulu, S/o. Sri. Kistaiah @ Krishnaiah, Occ^{Agriculture,R/o.} Kondapuram Village of Chilukur Mandal, Nalgonda District,^Presenlty R/o.Gandhinagar Locality of Nalgonda Town and^District.

¶115

2 Sri. Jalla Nagaraju, S/o. Sri. Kistaiah @ Krishnaiah, Occ^{Kirana Business,} R/o. Kondapurarir Village of Chilukur Mandal, Nalgonda^{District, Presenlty} R/o.Gandhinagar Locality of Nalgonda Town and^District.

¶116

3 Smt. Rapolu Savitramma, W/o. Sri. Venkanna, Occ^{Household, R/o.} Kondapuram Village of Chilukur i\ilandal, Nalgonda District,^Presenlty R/o.Gandhinagar Locality of Nalgonda Town and District.

¶117

...Respondents/Claim Petitioners

¶118

Sri. Thumoz Hari Prasad, S/o. Sri Ramachary Occ^{Buslness,Rl/o.H.No.4-35-} 350/43, Venkateshwara Nagar, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶119

... RespondenURes pondent No.2

¶120

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988^{against the Order} and decree in O.P.No.434 of 2012 dated.17-07-2013 on the file of the Court of^the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional^{DistrictJudge(l Fast} Track Court), at Nalgonda.

¶121

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 Narayana Reddy,^{Advocate for the} Appellant and of Sri P Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶122

MACMA NO: 2968 OF 2016

¶123

Between:

¶124

I Jalla Saidulu S/o Kistaiah @ Kirshanaiah, Occ^- Agriculture,^{Ri/o Kondapuram} Village and Chilukur Mandal, Nalgonda Dist, Presently Fl/at Gandhinagar Locality of Nalgonda Town and Dist.

¶125

2 Jalla Nagaraju, S/o Kistaiah @ Kirshanaiah, Occ - Kirana^{Business,8l/o} Kondapuiam- Village and Chilu=kur Mandal, Nalgonda^{Dist,PresentlyRl/at} Gandhinagar Locality of Nalgonda Town and^Dist.

¶126

Rapolu Savitramma, Wo Venkanna, Occ - Household,^{R/oKondapuram} Village and Chilukur [,4andal, Nalgonda Dist, Presently^{Rl/at Gandhinagar} Locality of Nalgonda Town and Dist.

¶127

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶128

AND

¶129

Thumoz Hari Prasad, S/o Ramachary, Occ: Business,^{R:/o H. No.4-35-350/43,} Venkateshwara Nagar, Rajendra Nagar. Ranga^{Reddy District}

¶130

2 United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, R/o Regional^{Office,T.P.Hub,ll-Floor'Church} Building, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ram Koti,^{Hyderabad-sO0 001.(Polciy} No.05052/31/1 1/02100000960)^(valid from^{29.06.2O11 to 28.06.2012)}

¶131

... Respondents/ResPondents

¶132

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles^{Act, 1988 against the Order} and decree in O.P.No.434 of 2012 daled.17-07^{-2013 on the file of the Court of the} Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum- lll^{AdditionalDistrictJudge (l Fast} Track Court), at Nalgonda.

¶133

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^{perusingthe grounds of appeal'} the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^{papers in the Case} and upon hearing lhe arguments of Sri P Ramakrishna^{Reddy, Advocatefor the} Appellants and of Sri B Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent^No.2.

¶134

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶135