MACMA/542/2014 of CHAOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., Vs K JAYAMMA AND 3 OTHERS on 29 December 2023

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These appeals are trled against the Order dated 23.03.2013 in O.P.No.2534 of 2010 passed by the learned IIAdditional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ciry Civil Courts, Hyderabad.Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ciry Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. The petition uide O.P.No.2534 of 2010 was filed by thepetitioners/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,00O/-for the death of the deceased Praveen Kumar @ Praveen, whodied in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 15.07.2010. TheTrial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidenceon record, granted compensation of Rs.7,30,OOO/- along withinterest @ 60/o per annum from the date of petition tilirealization. Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferredM.A.C.M.A.No.632 of 2OL4.

3. The Road Transport Corporation (R.T.C) has also filedM.A.C.M.A.No.542 of 2Ol4 against the same Order inO.P.No.2534 of 2OlO and disputed the quantum ofcompensation awarded by the trial Court and requested theCourt to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

4.

4. Parties herein are referred as petitioners and respondentsas arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

5. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.O7.2010, facts of the case are that on 14.O7.2010, of the case are that on 14.O7.2010, the case are that on 14.O7.2010, case are that on 14.O7.2010, are that on 14.O7.2010, that on 14.O7.2010, on 14.O7.2010, 14.O7.2010, thedeceased along with his familymembers started fromHyderabad for travelling to Shiridi.On 15.07.201O, at aboutO4.4O AM, when they were near English School on Jintur_JalnaRoad, parbhani District, Maharashtra, a tempo vehicle bearingNo.MH 20 AT 92g3 came in a rash aDd negligent mannerdashed the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. As aresult, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on thespot. A case in Crime No. IO7 of2OlO under Sections 337, 338and 3O4-A IpC was against the driver of the crime vehiclebearing No. MH 20 AT 9283.

The brief facts of the case are that on 14.O7.2010, facts of the case are that on 14.O7.2010, of the case are that on 14.O7.2010, the case are that on 14.O7.2010, case are that on 14.O7.2010, are that on 14.O7.2010, that on 14.O7.2010, on 14.O7.2010, 14.O7.2010, the

6. p.Ws. I and 2 are examined on behalf of the petitionersand Exs.Al to A5 were marked. Ex.Bl was marked on behalf ofrespondents.

7 . The learned Counse.l for the the petitioners mainly contendedthat the deceased was eaming Rs.fO,O00/_ per month, the trialCourt petitioners mainly contendedthat the deceased was eaming Rs.fO,O00/_ per month, the trialCourt without assrgning any reasons taken his salary assalary asRs.S,OOO/- per month and relied upon a decision made byupon a decision made by The learned Counse.l for the the petitioners mainly contended -#-1k-'-'

Hon'lcle [Apex ][Court ][in ][Rajesh ][Vs' Rajbir ][Singhl ][a ][three-Judge]Bench [judgment ][held ][that in ][case ][of self-employed persons also']if the deceased [victim ][is ][below ][4O ][years' ][there ][must ][be ][addition]of 50% to [the ][actual ][income ][of ][the ][deceased ][while ][computing]future [prospects ][and ][the ][amount ][towards ][iove ][and ][allection ][was]not granted. [Therefore, requested tJlis ][Court to ][modiff ][the ][order]of the [Trial ][Court.]

Heard arguments [of ][both ][sides ][and ][perused ][the ][entire]

8evidence [on ][record.]

Learned [[counsel ]][[for ][petitioners ]][[petitioners ]][[relied ][upon ][a ][decision]][[upon ][a ][decision]][[a ][decision]][[decision]]

g. Learned [[counsel ]][[for ][petitioners ]][[petitioners ]][[relied ][upon ][a ][decision]][[upon ][a ][decision]][[a ][decision]][[decision]]made by [Honbte Apex ][Court ][in ][Kunta ][Devi and others ][Vs]Bhura RaE [and ][another2, wherein ][it ][was held ][that ][the]monthly [income ][of ][the ][deceased ][who ][was ][working ][as ][a]carpenter [was][ taken ][as ][Rs. ][12,000/- ][per ][month' ][Though ][the]deceasedwasaskilledgoldsmithandwaseamingRs.l0,0o0/.per month, [this ][Court ][hnds ][it ][reasonable ][to ][take ][his ][income ][at]Rs.8,OOO/- Per [month ][']

10. As [per ][the ][guidelines of the ][Honble ][Apex ][Court ][in ][dictum]ofsarlaVerntaVs.DelhiT?oinsPo,iaCotporatTon,3ifthedeceased [was unmarrie ][d', V" ][of ][his ][income ][has ][to ][be ][deducted]

I (2013) 9 scc 54' [zozl ][ect ][23Eq]I lzooe; o scc tzt' [zozl ][ect ][23Eq]I lzooe; o scc tzt towards personal expenses and the Hontrle Apex Court in thedictum of Nationat Insurance Compang Limtted. Vs. pranagSethia, held that the future prospects of income of the self_employed deceased shall also be included in determination ofthe compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased,4OYo of the income has to be added towards future prospects.This sum if multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the ageof the deceased i.e. 1g, it would come to Rs. 12,09,6O0/_. Thus,the petitioners/claimants are entitled to Rs.12,O9,600/_ underthe head 'Loss of Dependency,.

11. Besides, petitioners arealso entitled for compensationunder 'conventional heads, asprescribed in the dictum ofNattonal Insuro:nce Compang Limtted Vs, pranagSethi, i.e.,Rs.I5,OOO/- towards loss of Estate and Rs. l5,0OO/_ towardsfuneral charges.

12. Further, the Honble Supreme Court, by reiterating thecomprehensive interpretation of tonsortium, given in theauthority of Magnu. Genetz.l lrtsu"ornce Compang Llmlted os.Na,nu R.am Atias Chuhttt Rorm & otherd, and in the authoritybetween Unlted Indla Insurance Compang Ltmited. as.

'(20 [t7) ]t6 scc 680

scc 680680, (20t8) t8 SCC 130, (20t8) t8 SCC 130

Satinder Kaur @ Sdtuinder Kaur and. others, fortified ttratthe amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to thechildren who lose the care and protection of their parents asthe amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to thechildren who lose the care and protection of their parents as'parental consor[ium' and to the parents as, [.filial ]consortium,for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate theirfor the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate theiragony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceasedchildren. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to awardRs.40,00O/- each petitioner Nos. I and 2 towards filialconsortium.consortium.

13. Therefore, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for thecompensation amount in the following terms:

14. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.632 of 2Ol4 is allowed andM.A.C.M.A.No.542 of 2O14 is dismissed. The amount ofcompensation granted by the trial Court is enhanced fromRs.7,30,OO0/- to Rs.13,19,600/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhsNineteen thousand six hundred only) with interest at the rate of u lzozol e scc aa + ,r*/,$

7.5o/o per annum from tJ e date of filing the petition till the dateof rea_lization. Though, Respondents No. I and 2 are jointly andof rea_lization. Though, Respondents No. I and 2 are jointly andsevera y liabre to pay compensation, respondent No.2 isdirected to deposit the entire amount within aperiod ofone month from the date of this Judgment.PetitionerNo.3, sister of the deceased was aged 19 yea_rs as on thedate of fiIing of the appeal in the year 2Ol4 and she isdependent on her father, petitioner No.2, as such, she isnot entitled forany compensation. Onsuch deposit,petitioner Nos. 1and 2 are permitted towithdraw theentire amount along with interest accrued on it equally.The appellants/petitioners are directed to pay the deficitcourt fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be noorder as to costs.one month from the date of this Judgment.PetitionerNo.3, sister of the deceased was aged 19 yea_rs as on thedate of fiIing of the appeal in the year 2Ol4 and she isdependent on her father, petitioner No.2, as such, she isnot entitled forany compensation. Onsuch deposit,petitioner Nos. 1and 2 are permitted towithdraw theentire amount along with interest accrued on it equally.The appellants/petitioners are directed to pay the deficitcourt fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be noorder as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions

pending, if any, shall standany, shall stand closed.

SD/. ttIOHD. SANAULLAH AT.TSARIASSISTATGISTR.ARASSISTATGISTR.AR

GISTR.AR

CSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

lo

1' The Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-, Additionar ' '-'chief Judge, city_ [Civil Court at Hyderabad.(Witn ]necorOs if anvf 3. 2. one one cc cc to to sRt. snr. Kora r uswAiiuF4c*#Ri, subeeirAo,'AjrGil"6ilcfffi;J*re [opuc]cD coPies_ [Civil Court at Hyderabad.(Witn ]necorOs if anvf 3. 2. one one cc cc to to sRt. snr. Kora r uswAiiuF4c*#Ri, subeeirAo,'AjrGil"6ilcfffi;J*re [opuc]cD coPies ,.roori '*o w'

f,.*..,,.,..,

+

HIGH COURT

DATED: [2911212023]

COMMON [JUDGMENT]MACMA.Nos.632 [AND]542o.F [2014]

:i1HE [S](.lo3 0 [il,qil ][?J?]4 iiiitA il.7_ ,t.!,. .. i'.., , !'i*

DISMISSING [THE MAGMA.N0.542 OF ][2014]

ANDALLOWING [THE MACMA.NO.632 ][OF ][2][0'|-4]

G4[a'rV,-f,*'1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE [OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY MNTH DAY OF [OECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY [THREE]

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

M.AC.M.ANOs: 632 AND 512OF [2014]

M.AC.M.ANO:632 oF 2014

Between:

1. K. Jayamma, W/o. K. Pandu, aged [40 years, ][Occ ][Household]

2. K. Pandu @ Pandu [Chary, S/o. ][Sathaiah, ][aged ][42 years, Occ: ][Nil,]

3. K. Bhavani, D/o. [K. Pandu, ][aged ][19 ][years, Occ: Household]All are R/o. 13-2-91012, Puranipool, [Rahipura, Hyderabad.]All are R/o. 13-2-91012, Puranipool, [Rahipura, Hyderabad.]

...APPELLANTS

AND

1. Pawar Kailash Sukhdev, aged [45 ][years, ][Occ: ][Business, ][Ryo ][Rahirgaon, K€nnqd]Taluq, Aurngabad District, MR. [(Owner ][of ][the ][Tempo ][bearing No. ][MH-2o-AT-]9283)Taluq, Aurngabad District, MR. [(Owner ][of ][the ][Tempo ][bearing No. ][MH-2o-AT-]9283)

2. Cholamandalam, M/s. General [lnsurance ][Co. ][Ltd, Rep by its Regional ][Manager,]Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

M.AG.M.A.NO: 5420[F ]2014

Between:

Cholamandalam MS. General lnsurance Co Ltd., [Rep ]by [its ][Regional ][Manager,]Hyderabad.

.,.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2

ANO

1. K Jayamma, W/o K Pandu, aged 43 [years, ]Ocr: Household, No [13-2-91012,]Puranapool, Rahipura, Hyderabad.Puranapool, Rahipura, Hyderabad.

2. K Pandu @ Panu Chary, S/o Sathaiah,aged 45 years, Occ: Nil, Rlo 13-2-91 0/2, P-uranapool, Rahipura, Hyderabad.91 0/2, P-uranapool, Rahipura, Hyderabad.

3. K Bhavani, D/o K Pandu, Occ: Household, Rlo 13-2-91012, Puranapool,Rahipura, Hyderabad.Rahipura, Hyderabad.

#

1

,.r

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

4. Pawar Kailash Sukhdev, S/o not [known, ]Occ: [Business, ][Rl/o ][Rahirgaon,]Kannad [(Tq), ]Aurangabad Dist, [MR.(Owner ][of ][the ][Tempo ][No,MH-AT-9283).](R4 is not necessary)Kannad [(Tq), ]Aurangabad Dist, [MR.(Owner ][of ][the ][Tempo ][No,MH-AT-9283).](R4 is not necessary)

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

Appeals filed under Section [173 ]of M.V.Act., against [the ][Order and decree]dated 23.03.2013 [passed ]in O.P.No.2534 of 2010 [on the ][file of the ][Court ][of ][the]Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional [Chief Judge, City Civil Court ][at]Hyderabad.

ORDER: This appeals 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. T [VISWARUPA CHARY, ][Advocate ][for]the Appellants in MACMA.no.632 ot 2014 and Respondents [in ][MACMA.No.S42 ot]2014 and of SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate for the [Respondents ][and ][Appellant]in MACMA.No.542 of 2O14

The Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That this MACMA.No. 542 of 2014 be and hereby is dismissed [and]MACMA.No.632 of 20'14 be and hereby is [partly ]allowed;MACMA.No.632 of 20'14 be and hereby is [partly ]allowed;

2. That the amount of compensation granted by the trial court is enhanced [from]Rs.7,30,0001 to Rs. 13, 19,6001 (Rupees Thirteen lakhs Nineteen thousandsix hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o [pd ]annum from the date offiling the petition till the date of realization;Rs.7,30,0001 to Rs. 13, 19,6001 (Rupees Thirteen lakhs Nineteen thousandsix hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o [pd ]annum from the date offiling the petition till the date of realization;

3. That the respondents No.1 and 2 be and hereby are [jointly ]and severallyliable to pay compensation, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entireamount wilhin a period of one month from'the date of this Judgment;liable to pay compensation, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entireamount wilhin a period of one month from'the date of this Judgment;

4. That the petitioner No.3, sister of the deceased was aged 19 years as on thedate of filing of the appeal in the year 2014 and she is dependent on herfather, petitioner No.2, as such, she is not entitled for any compensation;date of filing of the appeal in the year 2014 and she is dependent on herfather, petitioner No.2, as such, she is not entitled for any compensation;

5. That on such deposit, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 be and hereby are permitted towithdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it equally;withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it equally;

6. That the appellants/petitioners be and hereby are directed to pay the deficitcourt fee on the enhanced amount;court fee on the enhanced amount; #i *Sr#

7. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the rower tribunar shall stand confirmedin all other respects; andin all other respects; and

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

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARIASSISTAT^ BEGISTRARL'Yr,.- //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To

1. The Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-I Additionar chief Judge, city. Civil Court at Hyderabad.2. Two CD CopiesPrlAKF{

:w

:,,]

ffi

tl

.,..t

.1,fr,.,*

d

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

COMMON DECREEMACMA.Nos.632 AND.542 0F 2014

DISMISSING THE MACMA.N 0.542 OF 201 4

AND

ALLOWING THE MACMA.NO.632 OF 2014

q c{tatr',

ffi

i

ffi

t

::j