Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 905 OF 2010 Appeal filed Under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Acl against th-e order and decree in O.p.tto.tO of 2006 dated 18.06.2009 on the file of the Court of the cr'iiirun Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. t 3364I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 905 & 369 oF 2010 Between: 1. P. Vijaya lakshmi, Wo Late P. Rajeshwar Rao, R/o Plot No. H No' 33-44 RTC Colony, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad-1 5 2. P. Avinash, S/o Late P. Rajeshwar Rao, Occ: Student ( Being Minor Rep by his Mother P. VUaYa lakshmi ) ...Appellants/Petitioner AND 1. Md. Nizamuddin, S/o Md. Chota Miya, R/o H.No.48-193, Ganesh Nagar Chinthal, Quthbullapur, R.R.District. 2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Manager, Motor Third Party Claims Cell, # 5-2-17412, ll Floor Madan Mohan Building, R'P Road Secunderabad-500003. 3. Smt. P. Sindhu Tai, Wo Late P. Hanumantha Rao C/o P. Sankar Rao H'No' 3-5-548, Vittalwadi, Narayanaguda Hyderabad-500029. ...ResPondents/ResPondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Sri T RAMULU The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 359 OF 2010 Appeal filed Under Section '173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.16 of 2006 dated 18.06.2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Between: The New lndia Assurance Company Limlted, Rep by its Manager, Motor Third Party Claims Cell, # 5-2-17412, ll Floor Madan Mohan Building, R.P. Road Secunderabad- 500003. ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND 1. P. Vijaya lakshmi, Wo Late P. Rajeshwar Rao, R/o Plot No. H.No. 3344 RTC Colony, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad-15 2. P. Avinash, S/o Late P. Rajeshwar Rao, Occ: Student ( Being Minor Rep by his Mother P. Vijaya lakshmi ) ...Respondents/Petitioner 3. Md. Nizamuddin, S/o. Md. Chota Miya, aged major Business R/o. H.No. 48- 193, Ganesh Nagar, Chinthal, Quthubullapur, Ranga Reddy District, A.P. 4. P.Sindhu Tai, Wo. Late P.Hanumantha Rao Household C/o. P.Sankar Rao, H.No. 3-5-548, Vittalwadi, Narayanguda, Hyderabad - 29. ...Respondent Nos.1 & 3 Counsel for the Appellants: Sri T RAMULU Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K SRINIVASA RAO The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.gOs and 369 of 201O COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'bLe SmL Justice P.Sree Sudha) These appeals are hled against the Judgment dated 18.06.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.16 of 2006 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I - Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Secunderabad. 2. M.V.O.P.No.16 of 2006 was hled by petitioners / claimants claiming compensation of Rs.60,97,479 I - for the death of the deceased P.Rajeshwar Rao, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.1O.2006. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.14,93,400/- along with interest @ 9%. per annum. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, they preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.905 of 20 10. 3. Insurance Company also filed M.A.C.M.A.No.369 of 2010 against the same Judgment in M.V.O.P.No.16 of 2O06 and mainly contended that pelitioners have not summoned the Income Tax Returns of the deceased from the Income Tax
2 Department to know the Gross salary received by the deceased for the relevant Assessment Year. They further contended that P.W.3 clearly stated that Human Resource Manager will have all the records pertaining to the employees in M/s.Dupont India Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioner might have summoned the Human Resource Manager instead of P.W.3. The trial Court erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.15,OO0/- pM on assumptions and presumptions. They further contended that interest granted by the trial Court is excessive and petitioners are entitled to only interest at the rate of 60/o per annum but not at the rate of 9o/o per annum and requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court. 4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record. 5. Parties herein are referred as petitioners a_nd respondents as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 6. As the present appcals are preferred only against the quantum of compensation granted by the trial Court, the issue regarding rash and negligence of the motor vehicle need not be gone into.
, 7 . The petitioner No. I examined herself as P.W. 1 and got examined P.Ws.2 & 3 on their behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A21 and marked Ex.Bl on behalfof the respondents. 8. P.W.3 was the co-employer of the deceased. He stated that he was working as Regional Sales Manager in the aforesaid Company and deceased worked as Executive (Sales) in their Company. He stated that deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.44,941/- per month till the date of his demise. He further stated that Human Resource Manager will have all the records pertaining to the employees in the Company and he will know about the terms and conditions of the employment, basic pay and other perks of the employees. He further admitted that he has no sanctioning authority or disbursement authoritlr, he will not issue any salary certificate and he has no personal knowledge about the terms and conditions of the employment, basic income, other contributions and deductions of the deceased. 9. Petitioners have Illed Exs.P1O to P13, which are original computer generated Pay Slips for the month of October, September, August, Juiy of the year 2O06. Apart from that they have filed Bank Statement under Ex.A 14, Form- 16 dated
4 O1.O4.2OO4,01.04.2005 and 01 .O4.2006 under Exs.A15 to A17 and another Bank Statement under Ex.A18, Certihcate issued by the employer of the deceased under Ex.A19. The Insurance Company hled a copy of the Insurance Policy under Ex.B1, but they did not lay any evidence to disprove the contention of the petitioners. The trial Court observed that as per the Pay Slips, his income was varying from month to month and also observed that Income Tax Returns from the Income Tax Department were not called for. 10. Admittedly, it is the case for compensation under M.V.Act beneficial legislation. Considering the documents filed by the petitioner and also the evidence of P.W.3, this Court hnds that it is just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per month. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and Petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased and respondent No.3 is the mother of the deceased. 11. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Vertna Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,l if the deceased was married, 1/3ra of his income has to be deducted as there are 3 dependents i.e., l,44,OOO l- towards his personal ' (2009) 6 scc t2l
5 expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would come to Rs.2,88,000 I - per annum (Rs.a,32,000 - Rs. 1,44,0O0 = Rs.2,88,O0O/-) and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Seth?, held that the future prospects of income of the self-employed deceased shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e.,4l years, 2570 of the income i.e., Rs.72,00O/- has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.3,6O,O00/ - (Rs.2,88,000 + Rs.72,000 = Rs.3,60,000). This sum if multiplied with the multiplier i4, as applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.41, it would come to Rs.50,40,0O0/- (Rs.3,6O,O00 X i4 = Rs.5O,aO,OO0/-). Thus, petitioners are entitled to Rs.50,40,0O0/- under the head 'Loss of Dependency'. 12. Besides, appellants are also entitled for compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of National Insuro,nce Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi, i.e., Rs. 15,O00/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,0OO/- towards funerai charges and Rs.40,O00/- to the first petitioner towards spousal consortium. 'lzorry to scc oso
6 13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the authority of Magma General Insurance Compang Linited os. Na,nu Ra,m Alias Chuhru Ram & other*, and in the authority between United India Insurance Cornltang Lirnited os. Satinder Kaur @ Satuinder Kaur and other{, fortified that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.4O,OOO/- to petitioner No.2 as parental consortium and Rs.40,00O/- to respondent No.3 towards hlial consortium. When the petition hled for compensation in the year 2006, the mother of the deceased was aged about 65 years and now she is aged about 82 years, and it is not known to the Court whether she is alive or not. So also, the second petitioner was aged about 11 years in the year 20O6, and thus he might have attained the age of majority. ' (zo r a) rs scc r:o ' (2020) 9 scc 644 $'
7 14. Therefore, petitioners are entitled for the compensation amount in the following terms 15. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.905 of 201O is partly allowed and M.A.C.M.A.No.369 of 2010 is dismissed. The amount of compensation granted by the trial Court is enhanced from Rs. 14,93,4OOl- to Rs.51,9O,000/- (Rupees Fifty one lakhs Ninely thousand rupees only) with interesl at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of liling the petition till the date of realization. Though, Respondents No. I and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgrnent. On suctr Deposit, petitioners and respondent No.3 are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accmed t I I Loss of dependency Rs.50,40,000/- c Conventional heads Rs.70,00O/- l) Parental Consortium for children Rs.40,000/- 4 Filial Consortium for parents Rs.4O,00O/- TOTAL Rs.51,9O,OOO/- \
8 on it. Out of total compensation amount petitioners No.2 and respondent No.3 are entitled to Rs.5,OO,OOO/- each arrd petitioner No.l is entitled for balance arnount. If respondent No.3 is not alive, petitioner No . 1 is permitted to withdraw her share also. Petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation a,long with interest accrued on it. There shall be no order as to costs. tuliscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/.MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. K SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. T RAMULU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SP '\Y\:- To, G-,'
HIGH COURT DATED:0210812023 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.9OS of 2010 AND MACMA No.369 OF 2010 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.9O5 OF 2O1O AND DISMISSING THE MACMA No.369 OF 2010 >v-3 QN:' q f, ,d $tu o,s 1 o lffi rlr \ +. I STAT€ '.r9 t1 DESi) s C\
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO3 I OF 2010 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 369 OF 2010 Between: The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Manager, Motor Third Party Claims Cell, # 5-2-17412, ll Floor Madan Mohan Building, R.P. Road Secunderabad- 500003. ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND 1. P. Vijaya lakshmi, W/o Late P. Rajeshwar Rao, RJo Plot No. H No. 33-44 RTC Colony, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad-1 5 2. P. Avinash, S/o Late P. Rajeshwar Rao, Occ: Student ( Being Minor Rep by his Mother P. Vijaya lakshmi ) ...Respondents/Petitioner 3. Md. Nizamuddin, S/o. Md. Chota Miya, aged major Business Rl/o. H.No. 48- 193, Ganesh Nagar, Chinthal, Quthubullapur, Ranga Reddy District, A.P 4. P.Sindhu Tai, Wo. Late P.Hanumantha Rao Household C/o. P.Sankar Rao, H.No. 3-5-548, Vittalwadi, Narayanguda, Hyderabad - 29. ...Respondent Nos.1 & 3 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against th-e Order- and decree in O.P.No.16 of 2006 dated 18.06.2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. ORDER: This appeal 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 iase and upon hearing the argumenls of SRl. T RAMULU, Advocate for the Appellants and of SRl. K SRINIVAS RAO, Advocate for the Respondents
I This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: I . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Dismissed confirming the Lower Court Order. 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/-MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// e SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Two CD Copies 2 SP t$t( I
HIGH COURT DATED:0210812023 DECREES MACMA.No.905 of 2010 AND MACMA No.369 OF 2010 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.9O5 OF 2O1O AND DISMISSING THE MACMA No.369 OF 2010 Nz <.r-.\ ( \il\
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEA L NO: 905 & 369 OF 2010 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 905 OF 2010 Between: 1. P. Vijaya lakshmi, Wo Late P Raleshwar Rao, R/o Plot No' H No 3344 RTC Colony, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad-1 5 2. P. Avinash, S/o Late P. Rajeshwar Rao, Occ: Student ( Being Minor Rep by his Mother P. VijaYa lakshmi ) ...Appellants/Petitioner AND 3. Md. Nizamuddin, S/o Md. Chota Miya, R/o H'No' 48-193, Ganesh Nagar Chinthal, Quthbullapur, R.R District. 4.TheNewlndiaAssuranceCompanyLimited,RepbyitsManager,MotorThird PartyClaimsCell,#5-2-lT4t2,llFloorMadanMohanBuilding,RPRoad Secunderabad-500003. 5.Smt'P.SindhuTai,WoLateP.HanumanthaRaoC/oP'SankarRaoH.No. 3-5-548, Vittalwadi, Narayanaguda Hyderabad-500029' ...ResPondents/ResPondents AppealfiledUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainstth^eorderand Oecree'i'['O.F.No.16 of 2006 dated 18.06.2009 on the file of the Court of the Ci,;.*";; Vtoioi AcciOent Cliims iriUunal-cum- | Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. ORDER:Thisappealcomingonforhearinganduponperusingthegrounds..of ,pp"it, tn" Judgment and Deiree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sRl.K SRINIVAS RAO, Advocate for the Appellants and of SRl. T RAMULU, Advocate for the Respondents
This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed enhancing the compensation granted by the Trial court is enranced from Rs.l4, 93,4001- to Rs.5 l, 90,0001(Rupees Fifty One Lakh Ninety thousand Rupees Only). 2. That the enhanced amount carry with interest at the rate of7.5%oper Annum from the date of filing the petition till the date ofrealization. 3. That the Respondent No.r & 2 are jointry and severa y liable to pay compensation, respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. on such Deposit, petitioners and respondent No.3 are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. out of total compensation amount petitioners No.2 and respondent No.3 are entitled to Rs. 5, 00,000/- each and petitioner No. l is entitled for balance amount. If respondent No.3 is not arive, petitioner No.r is permitted to withdraw her share arso. petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation along with interest accrued on it. 4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/.MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII @--' To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- I Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 2. Two CD Copies *(\.,- SP
HlGH COURT DATED:0210812023 DECREES MACMA.NO.905 0F 2010 AND MACMA.No.905 of 2010 PARTIY ALTOWING THE MACMA NO.9O5 OF 2O1O AND DISMISSINGTHE MACMA No.369 of 2010 \1> t"$.6 \}