MACMA/1574/2007 of The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Chintapatla Prasanna Laxmi , Manjula on 30 December 2022

1. Chintapatla Prasanna Laxmi @ Ivlanjula, Wo Late Chintapatla Srnivaschary,aged 22 [years, ]Occ : House holdaged 22 [years, ]Occ : House hold

2. Ch. Sushma, D/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, aged 2 years

3. Ch. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Chintapatle Srinivaschary, Age 30 days (Res. 2 and 3 are being minors rep. by their natural guardian and mother i.e1'' Respondent)1'' Respondent)

Rl to R3 Rl/o C/o Sri Sai Deepa Rock Drills [P] Limited, Cherlapally,Hyderabad.

....RESPONOENT/PETITIONERS

4. K. Shankar Yadav, S/o K.Ashaiah, age major Business, Owner of Lorry noAAP 7 W 2149 No H.No.27-16118/6/1, Srikrishna nagar, Malkajgiri,Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy District. (Owner of the Lorry bearingNo.AAP7W2149)AAP 7 W 2149 No H.No.27-16118/6/1, Srikrishna nagar, Malkajgiri,Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy District. (Owner of the Lorry bearingNo.AAP7W2149)

,7

5. G.Satyanaraya na, S/o Seshagiri Rao, age major R/o 9th Ward, Park Bazar,Sattenapalli, Guntur District.Sattenapalli, Guntur District.

(Amended as per Order No.l.A.No 3271O5, dated 01-06-2006)

.....RESPONDENTS/R]:SPONDENTS

M.A.C.M.A.No.3955 OF 2012

Between

1. ' Chintapatla Prasanna Laxmi @ Manjula, W/o Late Chintapatla tlrnivaschary,aged 22 years, Occ : House holdaged 22 years, Occ : House hold

2. Ch. Sushma, D/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, aged 2 years

3. Ch. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, Age 30 days C/o.Sri Sai Deepa Rock Drills [P] Limited, Cherlapally, Hyderabad.

....PETITIONERS'\PPELLANTS

AND

1 . K- Shankar Yadav, S/o K,Ashaiah, age major Business, Owner of Lorry no.AAP Secunderabad, 7 W 2149 Rlo Ranga H.No.27-16118/6/1 Reddy District. (Owner , Srikrishna nagar, Malkajr;iri,of the Lorry beari rgNo.AAP7W2149)AAP Secunderabad, 7 W 2149 Rlo Ranga H.No.27-16118/6/1 Reddy District. (Owner , Srikrishna nagar, Malkajr;iri,of the Lorry beari rgNo.AAP7W2149)

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager,Ranigunj, Secunderabad.Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

3. G.Satyanarayana, S/o Seshagiri Rao, age major R/o 9th Ward, l>atk Bazat,Sattenapalli, Guntur District.Sattenapalli, Guntur District.

(Amended as per Order No.l.A.No.327105, dated 01-06-2006)

....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA.1574lO7 lor Respondent No.2 in395512012:395512012:

Sri.B.Devanand

Counsel for the Appellants in MACMA.395512012 for Respondents .2 to 5 inMACMA1574/07 : Sri.P.Rama Krishna Reddy The Court made the following Common Judgment : -

..#-*,,.-*--7

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIKM.A.C.MA. Nos.1574 of 2OO7 and 3955 of 2Ol2COMMON JUDGMENT

These tu'o appealsa-re being disposed of by thiscommon judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No. i 574 of 2007 filedby the lnsurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.3955 of2012 ftled by claimants are directed against the very samejudgment and decree, dated 1.8.05.2017 made inO.P.No.l799 of 2OO4 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal cum-XXiI Additional Chief Judge, CityCriminal Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").2. The case of the claim petitioner in brief:

On 15.01 .2OO4 in the midnight at about 12.00 [p.M.]Chinthapatla Srinivasa Chary (hereinafter referred to as"the deceased") was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP-28Q 4552 lrom Hyderabad towards Alair slowly onextreme left side of the road and when he reached near theviliage limits of Tallagudem, one lorry bearing No.Ap-7W-2149 driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner [and ][dashed ][the ][motorcvcle ][of ][the]deceased from behind [and ][as ][a ][result, ][the ][deceirsed fell]down, sust.ained [fatal ][injuries ][and ][died ][on ][the ][slrot]

3. It is pleaded that the [deceased ][\\ias ][aged ][alout ][25]years at the time of accident [and he ]'"r'as [halt:, ][healthy,]young alld energetic. It is further [pleaded ][that ][pric'r ][to ][his]death, the deceased [u'as ][sorking ][as Turner ][rn ][Sri ][Sai]Deepa Rock Drills [(P) ][Ltd., ][Chertapally, ][H,vderaLad ][and]getting salary of Rs.6,O00/ [pcr ][month ][ar-rd ][rtsed ][to]contribute his earnings [lor the ][mairltenanc:e ][of ][the]claimants. Due to [sudden demisc ][of the ][dcceas;ed, ][the]claimants lost their [dependency, ][love ][and ][affection ][and]their source of income. [Therefore, ][the claimants ][laid ][the]claim against respondent [Nos.1 to 3, ]claimingcompensation of Rs.12,0O,000/- [under various ][hearls']

4 . Respondent No. 1 filed [counter ][before ][the ][T'ribunal]the claim of [claimants and ][contended ][that ][the]opposing lorry driver was having [valid driving ][licence ][at ][the ][time ][of]accident and the said [vehicle ][was having ][valid ][inr;urance]

policy as on the date of accident, therefore, respondentNo.2, insurance company alone is liable to pay thecompensation

5. Respondent No.2/New India Assurance company filedits counter before the Tribunal and opposed the claimpetition inter alia contending that the claim petition is notmaintainable and is liable to dismissed. It is pleaded thatthe claimants are put to strict proof regarding manner ofoccurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income ofthe deceased. It is further pleaded that the deceased hadno proper and valid licence and the deceased withoutobserving the following tralfic rules drove the motorcycle ina rash and negligent manner and thereby contributed forthe accident. Respondent No.2 filed petition in I.A.No. 327of 2OO5 under order 1 rule 10 of C.p.C to implead one G.Satyanarayana, who is the owner of vehicle bearing No. Ap_7W-2L49 and respondent No.3 remained ex parte beforethe Tribunal.

On behalf of the claimants P.Ws. 1 to 3 behalf of the claimants P.Ws. 1 to 3 of the claimants P.Ws. 1 to 3 claimants P.Ws. 1 to 3 1 to 3 [[u'ere]]

6. On behalf of the claimants P.Ws. 1 to 3 behalf of the claimants P.Ws. 1 to 3 of the claimants P.Ws. 1 to 3 claimants P.Ws. 1 to 3 1 to 3 [[u'ere]]examined. trxs.Al to A19 and trxs.Xi [to X5 ][s'ere ][marked.]On behalf of respondent [No.2, ][R.W.1 ][u'as ][examinecl. ][Ex.Bl]pohcy u,as marked.

7 . On considering the material [and ][evidencc ][on ][re ][cord,]the Tribunal had allowed the O.P. [in ][part ][by ][a'r'arding]compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- [together ][u'ith ][int'rrest ][at]7 .Sok per arnum from the [date ][of petition ][till ][the ][date ][of]realisation, payable by [respondent ][Nos.2 ][and ][3 ][jointlv ][and]severally as under:

1. Loss of income Rs.2,72,0002. Funeral expenses [Rs.2,00O]2. Funeral expenses [Rs.2,00O]

3. Loss ofestate Rs.i0,0O0

4. Loss of consortium [Rs.15,0OO]

Total Rs.2,99,O00/

Rounded of to [Rs.3,OO,00O/ ][-]

8. Heard both sides [and ][perused the record']

9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimaltscontends that the Tribunal had rvrongly taken the earningsol the deceased on lou.er side and awarded lesscompensation. It is further contended that the Tribunallailed to take in to consideration the future prospects andincrease in the salary. As per Ex.A8 to Ex.A1O, thedeceased was skilled worker having passed National TradeCertificate (ITI), National Apprentice Ship and TradeApprentice Ship. It is further conLended that the Tribunalerred in awarding less compensation tou,ards consortium,loss of estate and funeral expenses.

i0. In contra, the Learned Standing Counsel appearingfor the Insurance Company, contended that the Tribunalfailed to consider the fact that there was contributorynegiigence on the part of the deceased as he drove themotorcycle without observing the vehicles. It is furthercontended that the Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier17 for the age group of 33 years old deceased u,hich is onhigher side. It is further contended that the Tribunatgrossly erred in awarding excessive compensation under t,\ I\t\(\l\\,:-I,it l0 )'r|.1 [r.riiL) -irt-]

different heads. It is lurther contended thar the Triltunalfailed to appreciate the specific plea of the insurer Ll-ratinsurarce policy was issued in the name of 3,,1 resporrdentar-rd 1"1 respondent is no way concerned and that he is notthe owner of the lorry involved in the accident as alleged bythe claimants 1 1 . This court has taken note of the submissions madeby the respective parties

12. A perusal of the record would show that the l'ribr-rnalhad framed Issue No.1 as to whether the :rc<:id,:nt tookplace on 15.01.2005 at midnight due to rash and negligentdriving of Lorry bearing No.AP O7 W 2149 by its crivcr, towhich the Tribunal after considering the evidence tl P.W.2coupled with the documentaqz evidence i.e., trx.Al- F.l.R.and Ex.A2-charge sheet, has categorically observed thatthe accident has occurred due to the rash and negligentdriving of the driver of the Lorry. Therefore, this Courthoids that the Tribunal had [justified ]in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of iorry bearing No.AP 07 W 2149.

13. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased wasnorking as Turner (skilled worker) and earning Rs.6,0O0/-per month, the Tribunal had taken the income of thedeceased at Rs.24,000/ per annum. In vier.r, of thedecision of the Apex Court in Minu Rout Vs. SatyaPradyumna Mohapatral, this Courr is inclined to take theincome of the deceased at Rs.6,0OO l- pe, month bytreating the deceased as skilled worker. The claimants arealso entitled to an addition of 4Ooh towards futureprospects, as per the decision of the Hon,ble SupremeCourt in National fnsurance Company Limited Vs.Pranay Sethi and others2.Therefore, monthly income ofthe deceased comes to Rs.8,40O/- (Rs.6,000/- +Rs.2,aOO/-). As the dependants are 3 in number, 1/3rd isto be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.

' [(zor) ][to ][scc ][oqs]z to17 AcJ 27cf E

' [(zor) ][to ][scc ][oqs]z to17 AcJ 27cf E

w-'

l'\.1

NI\( \tr\.Noii-tt,atolrl .rra [r.ri<Lrl ]l)

After deducting 1/3rd amourlt towards his pers,rnal andthe contribution of the deceascd to Lheliving expenses, family works out to Rs.5,600/- per month. As p,:r S.S.C.Certificate, the age of the deceased was 33 [yr:at ]s al thctime of the accident, hence the appropriate multiplrer is'16'. Adopting multiplier '16', the total loss of dep,en6ign6y'comes to Rs.5,6OO/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 10,75,200/. Theclaimants are also entitled to Rs.77,OO0/- under theconventional heads i.e., loss of consortium, loss rrf estaleand funeral expenses as per Pranay Sethi's case [(sr-t ][pra).]Apart from the above, as per the decision of the Apr:x Courtin Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. NanuRam @ Chuhru Ram and others3, considering the [fact]that the claimant Nos.2 ald 3, who. are the chilclren [of ][the]deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum [of]Rs.40,0OO/- each under the head of parental consortiumThus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 12,32,200/- asunder:

1. Loss of income Rs.10,75,200

r (2018) t8 scc r3Q- _

9

l)K. [[I]]

[[I]]trlA( \l \ \(' t5;.1 ol l0r)' r,)J rrj i [()l ]l,, iltrlA( \l \ \(' t5;.1 ol l0r)' r,)J rrj i [()l ]l,, il

2. conventional heads Rs.77,000

3. Loss of consortium Rs.80,000

Total

14. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurancecompany submits that the claimants claimed only a sum ofRs.l2,OO,000/- as compensation and the quantum ofcompensation which is now awarded would go beyond theciaim made which is impermissibie under law.

15. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman (@ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another4and Nagappa Vs, Gurudayal Singh5, the claimants areentitled to get more amount than what has been claimed.The Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficia-l piece oflegislation, where the interest of the claimants is aparamount consideration the Courts should always o (2o n ) lo scc 7i6

5 zoo: ,rcL ru 1sc1zoo: ,rcL ru 1sc1

endeavour lo [extend ][the ][benefit ][to ][the ][claimant ][s ][.:o ][a ][just]and reasonable [extent]

16. Accordingly, [M.A.C.M'A ][No'1574 ][of ][2OO7 ][fileC ][bv ][tl-ie]Insurance [Company ][is ][dismissed ][and ][M'A'C M'A'No ][3955]of 2012 filed [by the ][claimarlts ][is allowed ]Thecompensation [awarded ][by ][the ][Tribunal ][is ][herebv enhanced]from Rs.3,0O,OOO/- [to ][Rs' ][12,32,2OO1-' ][The ][enhanced]amount will [carry ][interest ][(a-1, ][7 ]['5o/' ][per annrrnl ][liom ][the]date of petition [till ][the ][date ][of ][realization ][The ][enhanced]amount shall [be ][apportioned among ][the ][claimanl's ][in ][the]sarne proportion [in ][which ][original ][compensatio ][n ][emounts]were directed by [the ][Tribuna'l' ][Time ][to ][deposit ][the]compensation [is ][two months ][from ][the date of ][receipt ][of ][a]of this [judgment. ][On ][such ][deposit' ][th ][e ][maj ][or]copy claimants [are ][permitted to withdraw ][their ][respective ][share]amounts [without ][furnishing ][any ][security' ][subject ][to]of deficit [Court ][Fee ][on ][the ][enhanced ][amount']payment There shall [be ][no order ][as ][to costs']

'

t,|....]

\lA( N1A \o I5r- l ol 1007 3|J [r,)ii ](il lUIl ll Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these appeals shall stand closed.

Sd/.K.VENKAIAHASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

To1. The Xll Additional Chief Judge - cum - Before the MACT - City CriminalCourts at Hyderabad.1. The Xll Additional Chief Judge - cum - Before the MACT - City CriminalCourts at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri.P.Bhanu Prakash, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri.B.Devanand, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri.V.Krishna Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies

SA

?onq.

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212022

COMMON JUDGMENTMACMA.N o.1574 of 2007 Ap> [zlss/]

MACMA.1574IO7 IS DISMISSED

AND

MACMA.3955/I2 IS ALLOWED.

@e^q2-..L&\D'

STAT€ OpNB()\'L [ttt];tl\()-n [:,,]'i.., HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

M.AC.M.A.NO:157 4 0F 2007 AND 39ss OF 2012

M.A.C.M.A.No.1574 of 2007

Between:

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager,Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

[P-olicy [No.558/62093/61603, ]dated 05-09-2003 issued by Narasaraopet BranchOffice, valid from 06-09-2003 to 05-09-20041-

.....AppELLANT/RESpONDENT No.2

AND

1 . Chintapatla Prasanna^Laxmi @ Manjula, Wo Late ChintapatlaSrnivaschary, aged ZZ years,bcc : House holdSrnivaschary, aged ZZ years,bcc : House hold

2. Ch. Sushma, D/o Late Chintapafla Srinivaschary, aged 2 years

3. Ch. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Chintapafla Srinivaschary, Age 30 days ([e9. 2 and 3 are being minors rep. by their natural guardian and mother i.e1" Respondent)1" Respondent)

R1 to R3 Fi./o C/o Sri Sai Deepa Rock Drills [p] Limited, Cherlapally,Hyderabad.

....RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS

4. K. Shankar Yadav, S/o K.Ash_aiah, age major Business, Owner of Lorryno. AAP 7 W 2149 Ryo H. No.27-1611-816/1,'srikrishna naoar. Matkaioirilecy1{gqU.qO, [Ranga Reddy District. (Owner oiti,e-f_oir-y-U'eiiing-'"" ]["]No.AAP7W2149)no. AAP 7 W 2149 Ryo H. No.27-1611-816/1,'srikrishna naoar. Matkaioirilecy1{gqU.qO, [Ranga Reddy District. (Owner oiti,e-f_oir-y-U'eiiing-'"" ]["]No.AAP7W2149)

5. G.Satyanarayana,..S/o Seshagiri Rao, age major Fyo gth Ward, parktsazar, Sattenapalli, Guntur District.tsazar, Sattenapalli, Guntur District.

(Amended as per Order No.l.A.No.32Zl05, dated O1{6_2006)

.....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

M.A.C.M.A.No.3955 OF 2012

Between

1 .Chintapatla Prasanna Laxmi @ Manjula, Wo Late Chintapa.laSrnivaschary, aged 22 years, Occ : House holdSrnivaschary, aged 22 years, Occ : House hold

2. Ch. Sushma, D/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, aged 2 y,lars

3. Ch. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, Age 30 days C/o.Sri Sai Deepa Rock Drills [P] Limited, Cherlapally, Hyderalrad.

....PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

AND

1. K. Shankar Yadav, S/o K.Ashaiah, age major Business, Owner of Lorry no.AAP 7 W 2149Rlo H.No.27-16118/6/1, Srikrishna nagar, Malkz.lgiri,Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy District. (Owner of the Lorry bearingNo.AAP7W2149)AAP 7 W 2149Rlo H.No.27-16118/6/1, Srikrishna nagar, Malkz.lgiri,Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy District. (Owner of the Lorry bearingNo.AAP7W2149)

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its DivisionalManager, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

3. G. Satyanarayana, S/o Seshagiri Rao, age major Rl/o [gth ]WarC, Park Bazar,Sattenapalli, Guntur District.

(Amended as per Order No.l.A.No.327105, dated 01-06-2006)

....RESPONDENTS/RI:SPONDENTS

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the o(Jer and decreein OP.No.1799 of 2004 dated 01-05-2007 on the file of the Court of the XXltAdditional Chief Judge - cum - before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City CriminatCourt at Hyderabad.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal,the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material pap€rs in the caseand upon hearing the arguments of Sri.B.Devanand, Advocate for the Appellant inthe Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material pap€rs in the caseand upon hearing the arguments of Sri.B.Devanand, Advocate for the Appellant inMACMA-1574/07 for Respondent No.2 in 395512012 and ol Sri.P.RamaKrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents 3 to 5 in MACiMA.1174l1land Appellant MACMA.3955/1 2.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents 3 to 5 in MACiMA.1174l1land Appellant MACMA.3955/1 2.

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : -

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby isallowed.allowed.

2. That the compensation awarded by the XXll Additional Chief Judge -cum - Before the MACT, City Criminal Court, Hvderabad isenhanced from Rs.3,00,0001 to Rs.12,32,2001-.cum - Before the MACT, City Criminal Court, Hvderabad isenhanced from Rs.3,00,0001 to Rs.12,32,2001-.

3. That the enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% [per ]annumfrom the date of petition till the date of realization.from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. That the enhanced amounl shall be apportioned amount theclaimants in the same proportion in which original compensationamounts were directed by the tribunal time to deposit thecompensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment.claimants in the same proportion in which original compensationamounts were directed by the tribunal time to deposit thecompensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment.

5. On such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdrawn therrrespective share amounts without furnishing any security, subject topayment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced amounts.respective share amounts without furnishing any security, subject topayment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced amounts.

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall standsconfirmed in all other respects ; andconfirmed in all other respects ; and

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

B. MACMA.No.1574lO7 : - This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: - That the MACMA.No.1574|07 filed by the lnsurance Company isd ism issed.: - That the MACMA.No.1574|07 filed by the lnsurance Company isd ism issed.

Sd/.K.VENKAIAHASSISTANT REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To [,3<rt]

l.TheXll Additional Chief Judge - cum - Before the MCT - City Criminal Courts atHyderabad.

2. Two CD CopiesSA

Pnu..

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212022

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.N o.1574 of 2007 A t! D [Botss]l)- MACMA.1574IO7 IS DISMISSED

AND

MACMA.3955/12 IS ALLOWED.

,,b