The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. My Home Industries Ltd

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL rwo it-tousaruo AND TWENTY TWo PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI M.A.C.M.A. NO :250 oF 2015 Appeal under Section 173 of M'V Act' against the Order and decree made in Ir/VoPNo'1281of2008dated31/05/2012onthefileoftheCourtoftheChairman, IvlotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-PrincipalDistrictJudge,atRangaReddy District at L.B.Nagar, HYderabad' The Court delivered the fotlowing: JUDGMENT Between: '1 . Smt Gorla Tara Devi, W/o Late Bheemaiah' O^cc:- Hosehold' i. X;;;;C;;ri r,rraruura, Dr'o L'te Bheemaiah' occ:- Student' 3. 3;i M;i-#;, D7o'Late Bheemaiah' occ:- Student' - Atl are R/o Ralendranagar, R R Dist ...A''ELLANTS AND 1. The Registrar. Acharya N G Ranga Agriculture.University'.Raje^ndra Nagr' Hvderabad, tOwner Jfihe Ouatit ieedOear.ing No AP-28-AX-7045) , r#"o;ffii;ii"";;;;"L";. Li; "i"p 6v ii' OiVisionar Manaser'. Divisionar - otrt"-i, rrui No soz, rir Fioor,-cj'sii Crl'a' ri555ft BtrHSiFSS$o* orrrt For the Appellants : SMT K'RAJITHA' Advocate For the Respondents : SRI A'V'K'S'PRASAD' Advocate I'

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI M.A.C.M,A. No.250 of 2015 JUDGMENT Being not satisfied w.ith the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree, dated 31.05.2012 passed in O.P.No.1281 of 2008 on the fite of the principat District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderarbad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appettants/claimants preferred the present appeaI seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties wilt hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunat. 3. The claimants, who are the wife and chitdren of one Dr.Gorla Bheemaiah (hereinafter referred to as ,,the deceased,,) fited a petition, cta'iming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicte accident that took ptace on 14.05.200g. lt is stated thar on 14.05.2008 at about 11.00 a.m., white the deceased was proceeding in Quatis bearing No.AP 28 AX 7045 from Agricutture University, Rajendranagar to Aswaraopeta to attend Agricutture Cottege Annuat Day Cetebrations and when the vehicte reached the

2- GSD, J Macma 296 20'15 outskirts of Ramachandranagar, Kethepatty, the driver of the said Quatis, drove it in a rash and negtigent manner at high speed and unabte to control over the same, due to which' the vehicte went out of the road and turned, turtte' As a resutt of which,thedeceasedandthedriverofthesaidvehiclesustained severe injuries and they were shifted to Government Hospital' Suryapet, where the deceased succumbed to injuries' On a comptaint, a case in Crime No.4'1 of 2008 has been registered against the driver of the Quatis. lt is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hate and heatthy and was working as Professor in Agricutture University and earning Rs'60,000/- per month. On account of the death of the deceased, the ctaimants tost their source of income. The 1't respondent being the owner of the vehicte and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the vehicte are jointty and severatty tiabte to pay compensation' 4. Before the Tribunal, the 1't respondent remained ex parte. The Znd respondent fited counter denying the averments in the petition and catting upon the ctaimants to prove each and every aspect inctuding the vatidity of the insurance poticy and driving licence of the driver of the crime \ I

J / ,/,, GSO. J N,lacma_296_2015 vehicle. lt is further stated that the compensation ctaimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5 Basing on the above pteadings, the Tribunat framed the fottowing issues: 1) Whether the pteaded accident occurred resulting in the death of the deceased Dr.Gorta Bheemaiah due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the euatis bearing No.AP 28 M7045 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, and if so, what quantum and what is the tiabitity of the respondents? 3) To what retief? 6. During triat, on behatf of the ctaimants, p.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to A7 were marked. On behatf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.81 was marked. 7. After anatyzing the ev.idence avaitabte on record, the Tribunal hetd that the accident occurred due to rash and negtigent driv.ing of the driver of the euatis vehicte and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.11,05,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition titt the date of reatization to be paid by the respondents. , I

4 GSD, J l,4acma_296_2015 8. The onty contention raised by the tearned Counsel for the ctaimants is that as per the principtes taid down by the Apex Court in Nationol lnsurance Company Limited Vs' Pronoy Sethi ond othersl , the ctaimants are also entitted to future prospects and atso Rs.77,000/' under conventionat heads' 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent woutd submit that the issue with regard to the future prospects has been cons'idered by the Apex Court in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pronay Sethi and others (1 supra) and as per that judgment, the ctaimants are entitted 10% amount towards future prospects. lt is further submitted that the compensation towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightty granted by the Tribunat and the same need not be enhanced' 10. The finding of the Tribunat with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not chatlenged by the respondents. 11 . lnsofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased was working as Professor and ' ?017 AcJ 27oo

\.- ) GSD, J Macma_296_2015 getting gross satary of Rs.66,6.1g/- per month. After deducting the statutory deductions i.e., income tax and professional tax, the Tribunat has rightty taken the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the c(aimants are entitted to addition of 10% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon,bte Supreme Court in pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, monthty income of the deceased comes to Rs.66,000/- (Rs.60,000/- + Rs.6,000/-). From the above, 1/3d is to be deducted towards personal and tiving expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/3,d amount, the contribution of the deceased to the famity woutd be Rs.44,000/-. Since the age of the deceased was 58 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate muttiptier is ,9' as per the decision reported in Sorla Verma v. Dethi Transport Corporotion and anothel. Adopting muttiptier 9, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.44,0Q0/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.47,52,000/-. The ctaimants are atso entitted to Rs.77,000/- under conventiona[ heads as per pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in att the ctaimants are entitted to Rs.48,29,000/-. ' (zoos) o scc r zr

6 GSD' J Macma-296-2015 12. At this stage, the learned Counset for the lnsurance submits that the ctaimants ctaimed onty a sum of compensation which is now awarded woutd go beyond the ctaim made which is impermissibte under law' 13. ln Loxmon @ Loxman hlourya Vs' Divisional hlonager' oriental rnsurance company Limited and another, the Apex court white referring to Nogoppo vs. Gurudayol singha hetd as company Rs.25,00,000/ - AS under: has been ctaimed' beneficiai Piece of compensation and the quantum of Further, the Motor Vehictes Act being a Legistation, where the interest of the .,ltistruethatinthepetitionfiiedbyhimunderSection 166 of the Act' the appeitant had ciaimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- onty' but as hetd in Nagappa vs' Gurudayat Singh (2003) 7SCC774' in the absence of any bar in the Act' the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitted to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident"' 14. ln view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the ctaimants are entitted to get more amount than what 'rzott) to scc 7s6 '2003 ACJ l2 (sc)

7 GSD, J Macma 296 2015 claimants is a paramount cons'ideration the Courts shoutd atways endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent. 15. Accordingty, the M.A.C.M.A, is atlowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1'l ,05,000/- to Rs.48,29,000/-. The enhanced amount witI carry interest al 7.57o p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal titt the date of reatization, payabte by respondents '1 and 2 jointty and severatty. The enhanced amount shalt be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the TribunaL. 16. However, the ctaimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shatl be no order as to costs. To 17. Miscettaneous petitions, if any, pending shatt stand ctosed. Sd/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I A ,\ /^ secrrdffirrrcEn The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. One CC to Smt K.Rajitha, Advocate (OPUC) One CC to Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies One Spare Copy 1 ) 2 4. 5. Kj I

HIGH COURT DATeOt2'110412022 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.250 of 2015 19 AUl zw R'f c Jc MACMA IS ALTOWED. b f- D--

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI M.A.C.M,A. No :250 0F 2015 Between: 1. Smt Gorla Tara Devi, W/o Late Bheemaiah, Occ:- Hosehold' z. kumari Gorla Manjula, D/o Late Bheemaiah' Occ:- Student, 3. Smt l/adhavi, D/o'Late Bheemaiah, Occ:- Student' All are R/o Rajendranagar, R.R.Dist. AND 1. The Registrar, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture ^Univers-ity,.Raje^ndra Nagr' nuJeiaEaO. (Owner df the Qualis leep- bearing No.AP-28-AX-7045) z. ifr"-Oiil.irt'tnJurince Co. Ltd , Rep by its Divisional Manager,. Divisional - otii.J-i,-it.t No.302, III Froor, oasid Prbza, rt3[$ftBt^33i[P3$o*o=*r, ...APPELLANTS Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgmenv order and decree maie in MVoP No.1281 of 2008 dated 31/05/2012 on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, at Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad' 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 suit and upon hearing the arguments of smt K.Rajitha, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent No 2 and of the Respondent No.1 not appeared either in person or by Advocate' This Court doth Order and decree as follows :- 1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed. 2. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.1'1,05,0001 to Rs48,29,000/- (Rupees forty eight lakhs twenty nine thousand only) 3. That the enhanced amount i.e., Rs.37,24,000/- (Rupees thirty seven lakhs twenty four thousand only) will carry interest at 7.5o/o p'a. from the date of

, a; passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization' payable by Respondents 1 and 2 iointly and severally' That the enhanced amount shal be apportioned in the manner is ordered by the Tribunal 5. That the claimants be and hereby are directed to pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount' 6. That save as aforesaid' the decree of the Lower Court holds good in all other 4 To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District i;g;, fusa Reddv District at L'B Nasar' respects. 7. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY' 2. Two CD CoPies 3. One SPare CoPY Kj Sd/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sectroliffircen I

HIGH COURT DATEDi21l0412022 DECREE MACMA.No.250 of 2015 MACMA IS ALLOWED. WD--'