Allowed

Anees Begum and 4 Ors. v. M/S.Cosmo Roadlines and Anr.

Telangana HC21 Feb 2025MACMA/2228/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation for death of a self-employed auto driver in a road accident. The Court fixed age at 32 years based on driving licence, added 40% future prospects, applied multiplier 16 and enhanced conventional heads, enhancing compensation from Rs.3,90,000/- to Rs.7,22,120/- with interest at 7.5%.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.3,90,000/- to Rs.7,22,120/- with 7.5% p.a. interest, payable jointly and severally by respondents 1 & 2 within two months.

Anees Begum and 4 Ors. Vs M/S.Cosmo Roadlines and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NQ: 2228 OF 2009

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.NO.21 of 2006 dated. 1810712007 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1. Anees Begum, Wo. late Mohd lnayathi Ali, aged about 24 fears, Occ Housewife

¶10

Mohd Zoeb, S/o. late lnayathi Ali, age 4 years

¶11

Mohd Shoeb, S/o. late Mohd lnayathi Ali, Age 2years

¶12

Mohd Naseeruddin, S/o. Mohd lsmali, age: 60 years, Occ: Nil

¶13

Beejan Bee, Wo. Mohd Naseeruddin, age: 55 years.

¶14

[Petitioner^{2 and} 3^{are minors} u/g ship of their mother Aneesa Begum, Petitoner No.ll All are R/o.H.No.7-168, Jahangeerwada, Koheer Town-and Mandal, Medak District.

¶15

....APPELLANTS/PETITION^ERS

¶16

AND

¶17

M/s. Cosmo Roadlines, rep by Abid Khan, Owner of Lorry No.AP 09 W 9813 R/o.H.No.15-'l-503/5, Old Feelkhana, Hyderabad.

¶18

M/s.National lnsurance Company Limited, rep by its Branch Manager O/o. Main Road, Patancheru, Medak District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. NIKITHA GORNIKA, rep SRt. R VINOD REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.2:SRl. P BHANU PRAKASH

¶22

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶24

M.A.C.M.A.N0.2228 OF 2OO9

¶25

JUDGMEN'I':

¶26

I . Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, the Tribunal), in O.P.No.21 of 2006, dated 18.07.2007, the claimants in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

¶28

The brief lacts of the case are that the petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,OO,00Ol- for the death of one Mohd.lnayath Ali (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceasedJ in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.1 1.2005. It is stated by the petitioners that on 16.11.2005 at 1.0O A.M., when the deceased was riding Scooter bearing registration No.APIO/L9989 at a moderate speed and when reached Venkateshwaragutta in the limits of Budhera on National Highway No.9, a Lorry bearing No.AP-09/W-9813, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came at a

¶29

¶30

¶31

MGP,J MACMA.No.2228 of 2009

¶32

high speed and dashed against the Scooter of the deceased in opposite direction, due to which, the said accident occurred which resulted the death of the deceased.

¶33

Based on a complaint, Police of Munpally^police Station registered a case in Crime No.69 of 20O5, under Sections 3O4-A and 337 IPC against the driver of said lorry.

¶34

It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased used to work as Auto Driver and earn Rs.6,0O0/- per month. and contribute the same for maintenance of their family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, they lost their breadwinner and it is becoming difficult for them to eke out their livelihood. Hence liled claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents 1 & 2 who are the owner and insurer of the said crime lorry.

¶35

Respondent No. l/Owner of Lorry bearing No.Ap-O9W9813 filed his counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime lorry and as the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 having valid insurance policy, as such, the 2nd respondent aione would be liable to pay the compensation, if any, awarded and that the

¶36

¶37

MGP,J MACMA.No.2228 of 2009

¶38

claim ol compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against him.

¶39

Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the owner of crime lorry had violated the conditions of insurance policy as the insured failed to report about the accident to the insurance company, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation to the petitioners and that the ciaim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to dismiss tl.e claim against it.

¶40

Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-

¶41

i. Whether the accident ocqured due to the rash and negligent diuing of the driuer of crime uehicle?

¶42

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at uhat quantum and from uthom?

¶43

iii. To uhat relief?

¶44

9 . Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/ injured examined himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.Al to

¶45

¶46

MGP,J MACMA.No.2228 of 2009

¶47

A9 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

¶48

After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.3,90,OO0/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realizatior, deposit payable by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

¶49

i 1. Heard arguments submitted by Ms.Nikita Goenka, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellants/ claimants and Sri P.Bhanu Prakash, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.

¶50

The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellants as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/per month instead of Rs.3,OOO/- and ought to have considered the age of the deceased as 28 years instead of 32 years and

¶51

¶52

¶53

MGPJ MACMA.No.2228 of 2009

¶54

hence prayed this Court to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

¶55

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after consiclering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.

¶56

14, Now the point that emerges for determination is,

¶57

Wlether tLe appellants are entitled for enh ance ment of co mp e ns atio n?

¶58

POINT:-

¶59

Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no necessitlz to once again decide the-above said aspects. The only point that has to be considered in the present Appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.

¶60

Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased as 28 years instead of 32 years.

¶61

¶62

MGP,J MACMA.No.2228 0f 2009

¶63

In this regard, it is relevant to mention that in a-11 the documents i.e., Ex.42-Charge sheet, Ex.A3-lnquest report, Ex.A5-Post-Mortem Examination report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 28 years. Whereas, Ex.B1-Driving License of the deceased shows his date of birth as 20.O5.1973, which means that the deceased was aged 32 as on the date of accident. Since the RTA Authorities issue the Driving License based on the details furnished by the applicant who apply for license, therefore, the said Driving License can be considered as an effective proof rather than considering the inquest and postmortem reports wherein, the age will be mentioned based on mere surmises. Hence, this Court, considering the Driving License of the deceased, come to a conclusion that the age of the deceased is 32 years and hereby interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and adopt the suitable multiplier '16' as per the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Smt.Sqrla Venna V,fulhi Transpot't. Corporatlonr and calculate the compensation accordingly.

¶64

A perusal of the impugned^judgment shows that the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased @ Rs.30O0/- per month and deducted 1/3'd towards personal

I (2009) 6 scc t2 t

MGP,I

MACMA.No.2228 of 2009

¶69

expenses without awarding future^{prospects. Hence,this Court,} by considering the^judgment of the Honble^{Apex Court in} Nc:tional Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranag Sethl2 ,^{hereby add} 407o towards future prospects to t].e income of^{the deceased} since the deceased being below^{40 yearsat the time of accident} and is self-employed. Thus, his net monthly^{income comes to} Rs.4,2OO/-. Since the number of dependants^{are live,} if^{1/4tn is} deducted towards^personal expenses of the^{deceased,then his} net monthly income comes to Rs.3,360/ - and^{the annual} income comes to Rs.4o,320/-. After applying multiplier't6i,^the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,45,120/-.

¶70

Further, a perusal of the amounts awarded by^the Tribunal under conventional heads would show that^{an amount} of Rs.15,00O/- was awarded towards loss of consortium to petitioner No. I and Rs. 15,OOO/- towards loss of estate, which this Court I-rnd s the same to be meager and hereby award^{a sum} of Rs.77,0O0/- under Conventional Heads as per the Judgment of Hontrle Apex Court in the case of Notlonal Insurance Co.

¶71

Ltd. Vs.Pranag Sethl & others (2077 ACI 27OO). Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation as in{icated under:.

-,).-

:{,rol7 16l t7o sc}

MGP,J MACMA.No.2228 of 2009

¶76

!il

¶77

S.No.	Nameof theHead	Amount awarded Tribunal by	Amount awardedby thisCourt.
1	Monthlyincome	Rs.3,000/-	I
2	Addition towards prospects of4OYo future		Rs.4,2O0l-
3	Deductiontowards personalexpenses.	Rs.2,000/- (afterdeducting 1/ s'a1	Rs.3,360/- (after deducting Il4'h)
4	Amountarrived afterapplicationof Multi lier	Rs.3,60,0O0/- (multiplierused is15)	Rs.6,45,120l- (multiplier usedis16) I
5	Conventional Heads	Rs.3o,o00/-
6	TOTAL COMPENSATION	Rs.3,90,0O0/ I	Rs.7,22,12O/-

¶78

Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim amount, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and others3 wherein, the Hontrle Apex Court held that compensation can be granted more than the claim made based on cogent and convincing evidence.

¶79

tAIR 2oo3 sc 67+

¶80

¶81

MGP,I MACMA.No.2228 of 2009

¶82

In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court decms fit and proper to allow the Appeal.

¶83

In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,90,O0O/ - to Rs.7 ,22,120 I - which shall carry inrerest @ 7 .5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondents I & 2 jointly and severally. The respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the enhancbd compensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the appellants/ claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying dehcit Court [ee. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶84

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶85

Sd/- A.SREEN IVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SEC'TION OFFICER

¶86

¶87

l The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- principar District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. (With Records) ^ 2. one CC to SRt R VINOD E_EDDY, Aljvocate IOPUCI 3 One CC to SRt p BHANU pnexnbn, nor"irtEidpuct 4. Two CD Copies pr

rt'rEE

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2110212025

JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.2',228 of 2009

¶93

ALLOWED

¶94

E S-TATA
1 C(
,
c.J 1s rtq t6
.f
I n r'a n'1r ,Z

¶95

¶96

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶97

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶98

PRESENT

¶99

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶100

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:,2228 OF 2009

¶101

Between:

¶102

Anees Begum, Wo. late Mohd lnayathi Ali, aged about 24 years, Occ: Housewife

¶103

Mohd Zoeb, S/o. late lnayathi Ali, age 4 years

¶104

Mohd Shoeb, S/o. late Mohd lnayathi AIi, Age 2 years

¶105

Mohd Naseeruddin, S/o. Mohd lsmali, age: 60 years, Occ: Nil

¶106

Beejan Bee, Wo. Mohd Naseeruddin, age: 55 years.

¶107

[Petitioner^{2 and 3 are minors u/g ship of theirmother AneesaBegum,} Petitoner No.1l All are R/o.H.No.7-168, Jahangeerwada, Koheer Town and Mandal, Medak District.

¶108

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶109

AND

¶110

Mis. Cosmo Roadlines, rep by Abid Khan, Owner of Lorry No.AP 09 W 9813 R/o.H.No.'15-1-503/5, Old Feelkhana, Hyderabad.

¶111

M/s.National lnsurance Company Limited, rep by its Branch Manager O/o. Main Road, Patancheru, Medak District.

¶112

,,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶113

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.NO.21 of 2006 daled. 1810712007 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶114

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. NIKITHA GORNlKA, rep SRl. R VINOD

¶115

REDDY, Advocate for the appellant and of SRl. P BHANU PRAKASH, Counsel for the Respondents No.2.

¶116

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶117

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,90,000/lo Rs.7,22,1201 which shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondents 1 & 2 Jointly and Severally.

¶118

Thal the respondents 1 & 2 be and hereby are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶119

That, upon such deposit, the appellants/Claimants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned tribunal by paying deficit Court fee; and

¶120