R Padmavathi And 2 Others v. M/S Sri Rama Agencies And Another

[ 3253 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MACMA NO: 1395 AND 1856 OF 2015 MACMA NO: 1395 OF 2015 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the order and decree 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 Clvil Courts, Hyderabad Between:

United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager, Office is situated at Possnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001 .

...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 19years, Occ:student All are Ri/o. H.No.13-14-176/1 Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/CLAI MANTS

4. M/s Sri Rama Agencies, Rep by Vijay Kumar Gaud, Major Occ: Business, Ri/o H.No.1-10-85/38 Shasabgutta, Mahaboobnagar - 509001 ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No. 1 MACMA NO: 1856 OF 2015 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the order and decree 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 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 t t I I i I I I All are residents of H.No: 13-14-11611 , Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...APPE LLANTS/PETITION ERS AND M/s.Sri Rama Agencies, lep by Vijay Kumar Goud Aged lrrlajor, Occ: Business H.No : 1 -1 0-85/38, Shasabugutta, tr/ahaboo6nagar'- 5b9 001. I l United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Off Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPDTS Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA No. 1395 of2015 & Counsel for Respondent No.2 in MACMA No. 1856 ot 2015 Sri SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ln MACMA No.1 395 of 2015 & Counsel for Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 InMACMANo. 1856of2015 : Sri JAGATHpALREDDYKAST REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4 ln MACMA No. 1395 of2015 & Counsel for Respondent No.1 ln MACMA No. 1856 ot 2015 : None appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

HONOURABLIi SMT. JIrS'tICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.Nos.l395 of 2015 and 1856 of 2015 COMMON JUDGMENT:

Thesc two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No. 1395 ol 2015 filed by the United l India Insurance Company Limited challenging the quantum of compcnsation and M.A.C.M.A.No. l856 of 2015 filed by the I claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, are directed against the very same award and decree, dated 20.01.2014 made in O.P.No. l0-s7 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the 'Iribunat"). 2.

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribdnal. 3.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

Originatly the claimants filed a petition under Sections 166 and 163-r\ read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, lggg against the respondents I and 2, clairning compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one R.Durga Sai prasad @Durga

---.-IIr Plasad (hereitralicr rel-err.ccl io as ,,the deceased,,), who diecl in the accident that occurred on I -s 04.2012. Subsequently rltey confined to Section 166 of Motor Vehiclcs Act by filing a rnemo. According to the claimants, on 15.0.1.20 l4 at about ld-45 hours Rajasekhar. and R.Durga Prasad were pi'oceedirrg on the motorcycle bearing No. TN 07 Al' 68 l5 from Gandimaisamma towards Bachupally side and when they reachcd near Bcwrarnpet Cross r.oads, Eicher vehicle bearing No. AP 2l Y 6001 being driven by its dr.iver.came in a rash and negligent rlannL-r at high speed and while overlaking enother vehicle dashecl the nrotor.cycle due to which both of them fell down and died on rhe spot. According to the petitioners, the deceased rvas aged 23 years and was working as Carpenter in Vertex Homes Private Limited and was getting Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, they are seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondent Nos. I and 2, who are the owner and insur.er of the Eicher vehicle, jointly and severally. 4.

Before the Tribunal, respondent No. I filed counter denying the averments made in the claini-petition including the manner in which the accident took place, a-se, avocation and income of the

J deceased. It is further contended that the oflending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

5.

Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and therefore, prays to disrniss the petition.

6.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the tbllowing issu es:

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

I ll/hether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what quantum and whether crime vehicle was owied by first respondent and insured with second ,"rpoid"rt and what is the liability of the respondenti? To what relie"f?

, l i I I

l - 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 behall cf 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 peApnal expenses of the deceased by taking the income of the ,L

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

Learned Counsel for the claimants has submitted that though I I the claimants established that the deceased was working in I\4/s. Vertex Homes Private Limited and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal did not consider the future prospectus and has arvarded 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 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher vehicle

13. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the evidence of PW-l shows that the deceased was a Carpenter working at Vertex Homes Private Limited and getting Rs.10,000/_ per month. Ex.A6 Certificate also shows that the deceased was being paid salary of Rs.10,0004 per month. However, as the person who issued Ex.A6 was not examined to prove the income of the deceased. his income

l) 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 is inclined 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 deducting 500/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.

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 Cornpany Limited 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 the claimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal lrom Rs.8,26,000/- to Rs.13,22,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5oh per annum from the date of petition till the date' of realization, payable by respondent Nos.l and 2 jointty and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to deposit the compensation is one month lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee and on such payment of court fee only, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation without fumishing any security. The M.A.C.M.A.No.l395 of 2015 filed r 20 I I Law Suir (SC) 904

1l - 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)

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 \ I I I I I I l i i I I I I

HIGH COURT DATED: 3011212022 I I I I i I II I I i i COMMON JUDGMENT i MACMA.No.1395 of 2015 & MACMA.No.1856 of 2015 :S I ... ,.

)..

,, \<, a) i-) 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 TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO 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 - 5OO 001.

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2 AND ,h

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/o H.No.1-10-85/3B Shasabgutta, Mahdboobnagar - SO9001 ...RESPONDENT/RESpONDENT No. 1 MACMA NO: 1856 OF 2015 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.

2. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional ltilanager, Off: 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.l856of20l5andSriJAGATHPALREDDY KASI 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 . as was deducted by the tribunal while computing the quantum of 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;

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 2 jointly and severally;

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

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

6. That the claimants shall pay the deficit court fee and on such payment of court fee only the claimants are entifled to withdraw lhe compensation without fumishing any security;

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

8. That there shall be no order as to costs to this M.A.C.M.A. Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR lfD SECTION OFFICER To, //TRUE COPY// Motor vehicle Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-il Additional chief Judge, city Civil Courts, Hyderabad One CC to SRt. SR|N|VASA RAO VUTLA, Advocate tOpUCI

3. Two CD Copies \ V

HIGH COURT DATED: 3011212022 COMMON DECREE MACMA.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