MACMA/1395/2015 of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., Vs R PADMAVATHI AND 3 OTHERS on 30 December 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Thesc two appeals are being disposed of by this commonjudgment since M.A.C.M.A.No. 1395 ol 2015 filed by the UnitedIndia Insurance Company Limited challenging the quantum ofcompcnsation and M.A.C.M.A.No. l856 of 2015 filed by thejudgment since M.A.C.M.A.No. 1395 ol 2015 filed by the UnitedIndia Insurance Company Limited challenging the quantum ofcompcnsation and M.A.C.M.A.No. l856 of 2015 filed by theclaimants seeking enhancement of compensation, are directedagainst the very same award and decree, dated 20.01.2014 made inO.P.No. l0-s7 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicleagainst the very same award and decree, dated 20.01.2014 made inO.P.No. l0-s7 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor VehicleAccidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge. CityCivil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the ['Iribunat").]Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the ['Iribunat").]

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will bereferred to as per their array before the Tribdnal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

Originatly the claimants filed a petition under Sections 166and 163-r\ read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, lgggagainst the respondents I and 2, clairning compensation ofRs.10,00,000/- for the death of one R.Durga Sai prasad @Durga Plasad (hereitralicr rel-err.ccl io as [,,the ]deceased,,), who diecl in theaccident that occurred on I -s 04.2012. Subsequently rltey confinedto Section 166 of Motor Vehiclcs Act by filing a rnemo. Accordingto the claimants, on 15.0.1.20 l4 at about ld-45 hours Rajasekhar.and R.Durga Prasad were pi'oceedirrg on the motorcycle bearingNo. TN 07 Al' 68 l5 from Gandimaisamma towards Bachupallyside and when they reachcd near Bcwrarnpet Cross r.oads, Eichervehicle bearing No. AP 2l Y 6001 being driven by its dr.iver.camein a rash and negligent rlannL-r at high speed and while overlakingenother vehicle dashecl the nrotor.cycle due to which both of themfell down and died on rhe spot. According to the petitioners, thedeceased rvas aged 23 years and was working as Carpenter inVertex Homes Private Limited and was getting Rs.10,000/- permonth. Therefore, they are seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-against the respondent Nos. I and 2, who are the owner and insur.erof the Eicher vehicle, jointly and severally.4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. I filed counter denyingthe averments made in the claini-petition including the manner inwhich the accident took place, a-se, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the oflending vehicle wasinsured with the respondent No.2 and therefore, prays to dismissthe petition.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner ofaccident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is furthercontended that the compensation claimed is excessive andtherefore, prays to disrniss the petition.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed thetbllowing issu es:

ILlther her the pleaded,acc ident dated t 5 -04_2 0 t 2was occurred due to the rash and negligentdriving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e.,-nin",vehicle bearing No. Ap 22 y 6003 and whetherthe deceased R.Durga prasad died due to thesaid accident?was occurred due to the rash and negligentdriving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e.,-nin",vehicle bearing No. Ap 22 y 6003 and whetherthe deceased R.Durga prasad died due to thesaid accident?

2ll/hether the petitioners are entitled forforcompensation and if so, to what quantum andwhether crime vehicle was owied by firstrespondent and insured with second ,"rpoid"rtand what is the liability of the respondenti?whether crime vehicle was owied by firstrespondent and insured with second ,"rpoid"rtand what is the liability of the respondenti?

3To what relie"f?

l

i

I

I

-

7. In ordel to prove thc issues. P\n's. I and 2 were examittecl aud-Exs.Ai to A6 were n',arkcd ,.lr bchalf of the petitioners. On behallcf the respondcrlts, no witncsses were examined [and ][no ][docutnent]was rnarked.

8. After considering the oral and [documentary ][evidence]available on record, the ['l'ribunal ][held ][that ][the ][accident ][occurred]ciue to the rash and negliger,t [driving ][ol'the ][Eicher vehicle ][and]awarded the total cornpetrsation [ol ][Rs.8,26,000/- ][rvith ][costs ][and]interest at [7 ][.5o/o ][pel ][annurr ][liorn ][the ][date ][of ][pctition ][till ][the ][date ][of]deposit of amount to be [paid ][b1' ][the respondent ][Nos.l ][and ][2 ][jointly]and severally

g. Heard both the [earned [counsel and perused ][the ][material]available on record.

10. The rnain [contention ][raised by ][the ][leamed Standing ][Counsel]for the respondent [No.2-United ][India ][Insurance ][Company ][Limited]is that the Tribunal [granted exccssive compensation ][by ][deducting]-y' IB'd of the eanrings insteacl of half of the [eamings ][towards],LpeApnal expenses of the deceased by taking the income of the

deceased at I{s.6,000/- pel month instead of Rs.3,000/- per monthand prays to set aside the Order passed by the Tribunal.

I l. Learned Counsel for the claimants has submitted that thoughthe claimants established that the deceased was working in I\4/s.Vertex Homes Private Limited and was earning Rs.10,000/- permonth, the Tribunal did not consider the future prospectus and hasarvarded ver), meager amount.

12. With regard ro the manner of accident, there is no dispute.However, the Tribunal alter evaluating the evidence of pWs. I and2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record,rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligentdriving of the driver of the Eicher vehicle

13. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the evidence ofPW-l shows that the deceased was a Carpenter working at VertexHomes Private Limited and getting Rs.10,000/_ per month. Ex.A6Certificate also shows that the deceased was being paid salary ofRs.10,0004 per month. However, as the person who issued Ex.A6was not examined to prove the income of the deceased. his income can be laken at I{s.6,000'-. s,hich is ven, Iess. 1'hei'efcre,considering thc age and avocation ol the deccased, this Court isinclined to take the actual income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- [per]month. Furiher the claiurants are entitlcd to addition ol [40%o]towards future prospects to the establisheci [income, ][as per ][the]decision of, the Apex Courl irr Nalional [Insurunce ][Cortpnny]Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi utt rtlherst . [Thelelbre. ][future ][mor.rthly]income of the deceased cotles to [Rs. ][I ][1.200/- ][(Rs.8,000/- ][+]Its.3,200/- being40o/o thereol) [[rorr.r ][tl.ris,50% ][is ][to ][be ][deducted]towards personal expenses of the [deceased ][foltowing ][Sarla ][Verma]v, Delhi Transporl Corporaliotr2 [as ][the ][deceased ][was ][a ][bachelor.]After deducting500/o, amount towards his [personal ][and ][living]expenses, the contribution [of ][the ][deceased ][to ][the ][family ][would ][be]Rs.5,600/- per month. Since [the ][age deceased ][was ][20 ][years by ][the]time of the accident, the [appropriate ][multiplier ][is '18' ][as per ][the]decision reported in Sarla [Verma ][v. ][Delhi ][Transporl Corporation](supra). Adopting multiplier 'lE', the total [loss ][of ][dependency]rvould be Rs.5,600/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.I2,09,600/-. In addition ' [z.olt ][rtcl zloo]' [zoog ][ACJ ][t298 ][(sc)]' [zoog ][ACJ ][t298 ][(sc)]

thereto, the clairnants arc [also ][entitled ][to ][Rs.33,000/- under ][the]conventional heads as [per ]Pranay [Sethi's ][(supra). ][Further ][the]petitioner Nos.l and 2 are also cntitled to [parental ][consortium ][at]Rs.40,000/- each as per the Magrna Gcneral Insurance CornpanyLimited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all [the]claimants are entitled to Rs.13,22,600/-.

14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.l856 of 2015 filed by theclaimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation amountawarded by the Tribunal lrom Rs.8,26,000/- to Rs.13,22,600/-.The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5oh per annum fromthe date of petition till the date' of realization, payable byrespondent Nos.l and 2 jointty and severally. The enhancedamount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by theTribunal. Time to deposit the compensation is one month lrom thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants shall pay thedeficit court fee and on such payment of court fee only, theclaimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation withoutfumishing any security. The M.A.C.M.A.No.l395 of 2015 filed r 20 I I Law Suir (SC) 904

ii

I

-

by the insulance colxpati)' [starlds ][parlly ][allo"ved ][to ][the ][extent ][of]deducting 500,/o towards [pcrsonal ][expenses ][of ][the ][deccased ][instead]of t/3''r as [\l'as ][deducted ][by ][the ][tribunal ][while ][cornputing ][the]quantum ol compensation. [There shall ][be no ][order ][as ][to ][costs']

15. Miscellancous [petitions, ][if ][any, ][pending shall ][stand closed.]

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA [REDDY]ASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]q-fD//TRUE COPY//SECiiON OFFICER

To,

l.TheMotorVehicleAccidentsClaimsTribunal-Cum-|lAdditionalChiefJudge,CitV Cirit Courts, [Hyderabad ][(with records)]CitV Cirit Courts, [Hyderabad ][(with records)]

2. One CC to [SRl. SRINIVASA ][RAO VUTLA, ][Advocate ][[OPUC]]

3. One CC to SRl. [JAGATHPAL ][REDDY ][KASI REDDY' Advocate ][[OPUC]]

4. Two CD [CoPies]

-V--\

VH

HIGH COURT

DATED: 3011212022

COMMON JUDGMENT

:S I ... ,.MACMA.No.1395 of 2015)..&,, \<,a)MACMA.No.1856 of 2015i-)2 7 APn 208\n)^,\'.,*.^.--'-:..- '-1, ..

PARTLY ALLOWING [THE]MACMA NO. [1395 ][0F ][2015]AND ALLOWING [THE]MACMA NO. 1856 0F 2015

\

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

MACMA NO: 1395 AND 1856 OF 2015

TIACMA NO: 1395 OF 2015

Between:

United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager,Office is situated at Possnetl Bhavan, Tilak Road, Abids, HyderabaO - 5OO001.001.

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2

AND

1. R Padmavathi Wo Sri R Satyanarayana Aged 40 years, Occ: Housewife

2. Sri R Sathyanarayana, S/o Sri R Nageswara Rao Aged 45 years, Occ : Coolie

3. Sri R Bhanupriya, D/o Sri R Satyanarayana Aged 19 years, Occ: Student All are Ri/o. H.No.13-14-176/1 Malakpet, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/CI.AIMANTS

+ !t{{s. S! Rama Agercies, Rep by Vijay Kumar Gaud, Major Occ: Business, Ri/oH.No.1-10-85/3B Shasabgutta, Mahdboobnagar - SO9001H.No.1-10-85/3B Shasabgutta, Mahdboobnagar - SO9001

...RESPONDENT/RESpONDENT No. 1

Between:

1. R. Padmavathi W/o R. Satyanarayana Aged 43 years, Occ: Housewife

2. R. Satyanarayana, S/o R. Nageshwara Rao, Aged 50 years, Occ: Cooli

3. Ms. R. Bhanupriya, D/o R. Satyanarayana, Aged 22 years, Occ: Housewife All are residents of H.No: 13-14-17611 , Malakpet, Hyderabad.

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

AND

1. M/s Sri Rama Agencies, Rep by Vijay Kumar Goud Aged Maior, Occ:Business H.No: 1-10-85/38, Shasabugutta, Mahaboobnagar [- ][509 001.]Business H.No: 1-10-85/38, Shasabugutta, Mahaboobnagar [- ][509 001.]

2. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its [Divisional ][ltilanager, ][Off:]Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

Appearrired under section 173 or M.V.Act il::n:'"=r)":[:::::dated 20-01-2014 [passed ][in ][O.P.No. 1057 ][of ][2012, ][on ][the ][file ][of ][the, ][Motor]Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll [Additional ][Chief ][Judge, ][City ][Civil]Courts, Hyderabad

This Appeal coming on [for ][hearing ][and ][upon ][perusing ][the ][ground ][of]appeal, the Judgment and [Decree of ][the ][Lower ][court ][and the material papers ][in]theCaSeanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriSR|N|VASARAoVUTLA'Advocate for the Appellant [in ][MACMA ][No. ][1395 ][of ][2015 ][& ][counsel ][for]RespondentNo.2inMACMANo.l856of20l5andSriJAGATHPALREDDYKASI REDDY, Advocate [for ][the ][Respondent ][Nos. ][1 ][to ][3 ][ln ][I\4ACMA ][No.1395 of]20.1 5 & counsel for Petitioner [Nos. ][1 ][to ][3 ln ][MACMA ][No. ][1856 ][0l ][2015 ][and ][None]appeared for the Respondent [No.4 ][ln ][MACMA ][No. ][1395 ][of 2015 & ][Counsel for]Respondent No.1 ln [MACMA ][No. ][1856 ][of2Q15]

cOMMON DECREE: [This ][Court ][Doth order and Decree ][as ][here under:]

1. That the MACMA be [and here ][by is ][partly allowed ][in ][MACMA ][No ][1395 ][of]2015 filed by the insurance [company ][stands partly ][allowed ][to the ][extent of]deducting 50% towards [personal expenses ][of ][the ][deceased ][instead ][of ][1/3d]2015 filed by the insurance [company ][stands partly ][allowed ][to the ][extent of]deducting 50% towards [personal expenses ][of ][the ][deceased ][instead ][of ][1/3d]. as [was ][deducted ][by ][the ][tribunal ][while ][computing ][the ][quantum ][of]compensation.compensation.

2. That the MACMA [No. ][1856 ][of ][2015 ][be and hereby ][is ][allowed ][and ][filed ][by]enhancing the compensation [amount ][awarded ][by ][the ][Tribunal ][from ][Rs']8,26,000/- to Rs. 13,22,6001;enhancing the compensation [amount ][awarded ][by ][the ][Tribunal ][from ][Rs']8,26,000/- to Rs. 13,22,6001;

3. That the enhanced amount shall [carry interest ][at ][7.5o/o ][per annum ][from ][the]date of petition till the date of realization, [payable ]by respondent Nos. 1 and 2jointly and severally;date of petition till the date of realization, [payable ]by respondent Nos. 1 and 2jointly and severally;

4. Thar the enhanced amount shall be appor oned in the manner as ordered bythe tribunal;the tribunal;

5. That the Time to deposit the compensation is one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.receipt of a copy of this order.

6. That the claimants shall pay the deficit court fee and on such payment of courtfee only the claimants are entifled to withdraw lhe compensation withoutfumishing any security;fee only the claimants are entifled to withdraw lhe compensation withoutfumishing any security;

7. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the lower court shall stands confirmedin all other respects; andin all other respects; and

8. That there shall be no order as to costs to this M.A.C.M.A.

Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDYASSISTANT REGISTRARlfDSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1Civil Motor Courts, vehicle HyderabadAccidents craims Tribunar-cum-il Additional chief Judge, city 2One CC to SRt. SR|N|VASA RAO VUTLA, Advocate tOpUCI

\ V

3. Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 3011212022

COMMON DECREEMACMA.No.1395 [of ][2015]&MACMA.No.1856 of [2015]

PARTLY ALLOWING [THE]MACMA NO. [1395 ][0F ][2015]AND ALLOWING [THE]MACMA NO. 1856 0F 2015