The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Neuland Laboratories Ltd

13217l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI M.A.C.M.A.No 83 of 2013 Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Judgment/Decree in OP No. 213 ot 2OOQ dated 02-03-20'12 on the file of the Court of the Chainnan, MACT Cum Addl. District Judge Cum Special Judge for SC & STs (POA) Cases, at Nalgonda. Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., DO Xl, Rep. by its Manager, Motor TP HUB, Ramkote, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONOENT No.2 AND ',l. Siramoni Kistaiah, S/o Narsimha, aged 53 years, 2. Siramoni Laxmamma, Wo Kistaiah, aged 45 yea Both are Fl/o Nasarlapalli (V) Chinthapally (M) Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 3. R. Buggemma, Wo Anjanayulu, aged 38 years, # 1-49,I. Gowraram (V) Dindi (M) Ndgonda District (Owner of Tractor & Trolley AP 24-1-994A & 9941) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V. KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 2: SRI P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT I I I

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI The insurer/2nd respondent disputing the quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and order dated 22.03.2012 in O.P.No.213 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SC/STs preferred this appeal. The parents of Siramoni Venkataiah/deceased, who died in the motor vehicular accident dated 15.01.2019 filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- for the loss of dependency. The case of the petitioners, in brief is that, on 15.01.2009 while Siramoni Venkataiah/deceased along with his friend were proceeding on Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing Registration No.AP-29-F-8925 at Kurmedu ) gate, one Tractor and Trailor bearing registration No.AP-) / / '1 MACMA.No.83 of 2O13 JUDGMENT: (POA) Act Cases, Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal'),

NIR,J Macma_81-2013 24-L-9940 came in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle, as a result, the riders of the motor cycle were slumped and received severe head injuries and died on the spot. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record placed by the petitioners held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailor, thus awarded Rs.9,20,000/- with 7.5o/o interest as compensation against the owner and insurer/respondents of the Tractor and Trailor/1st and 2nd respondents. In appeal, the Znd respondent/insurer (hereinafter 'respondent'), has contended that the Tribunal should have considered that the incorne of the deceased was not established. That apart, the Income Tax Returns/Exs.A8 and 49 are also not proved. Thus, the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. Further, the multiplier applied for computing the compensation and the interest 2 I j1 i I I

Nr&.i Macma_83_2013 amount awarded are improper. Hence, prayed for re_ assessment. Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners (hereinafter 'the petitioners,) pleaded that though the material evidence is placed on record to prove the income of the deceased, the same was not taken into account by the Tribunal and on lack of advise the petitioners could not file appeal. However, prayed for considering the material and to grant just compensation. I have carefully perused the pleadings of the learned counsel and the material on record. The petitioners pleaded that Siramoni Venkataiah/deceased was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.3,04,100/- per annum. To substantiate these aspects, the petitioners filed pan cardlEx.A_6 and Original Warranty Certificate of JCBIEx.A_7, Income Tax Returns/Ex.A-8, Original challan of income tax/Ex.A_9, copy of Registration Certificate/Ex.A-10. lt is their ctaik 3 ,,

NTR,J Macma-83 2013 that the deceased was earning by working on civil contracts on his ICB Machine and also having agricultural income. consideration is made out. Further, having regard to fact that the machinery and the agricultural land remains with the petitioners and the entries in the tax returns, the finding of the tribunal as to the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- is found reasonable, thus affirmed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National fnsurance Company Ltd. vs. pranay Sethi and others.l held that in computing the loss of dependency the future prospects of income of a self-employed shall be taken into account. Thus considering the age and occupation of the deceased 4Oo/o of the income is added towards future prospects. Further as Siramoni 4 I lzoru; t6 scc s6o Though, the respondent disputed the documents filed by the petitioners, no material aspect for /

// NTR,J Macma_83_2013 I' Venkataiah/deceased was bachelor, SOo/o of the income is deducted towards personal expenses as per the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr 2. Resultantly the annual contribution of the deceased to the petitioners would be Rs.84,000/-. This number if multiplied with the relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased i.e., 18, the total comes to Rs.75,12,OOO/- (Rs.g4,000/_ x 18). The petitioners are entitled to this amount towards for the 'loss of dependency,. This apart, as per the dictum of pranay Sethi (2 supra), the petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the conventional heads, viz., Rs.15,000 towards Loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/_ towards funeral charges. Furthermore, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, reiterating the comprehensive interpretation to \ 'consoi-tium' given in the author-it.y of Ir4agma Genera! .\\.,_ - ACI 2013 Page 1409 5

NTR,] Macma_83_20 13 Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors.3, in the decision between United India fnsurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and othersa consolidated that the amount of consortium shall be awarded to the parents towards 'filial consortium' tor the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children. Correspondingly, the petitioners 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium, Thus, in total, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation under various heads is as follows : TOTAL 6 r (zors) rs scc ro 1 Civil Appeal No.27O5 of2020, dr.30.06.2020 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.) Loss of Dependency 15,12,000.00 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 Funeral Charqes 15,000.00 Filial Consortium petitioners 1 and 2 to 80,000.00 16,22,OOO.OO

7 NTR,J Macma_83_2013 are It is pertinent to note that the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and otherf held that higher compensation than the craimed can be awarded, without there being any cross appeal or objection, owing to the statutory duty under Section 168 of the M.V.Act in awarding the just compensation. Consequenfly, the appeal IS disposed of in the following terms: (i) The appeat filed by the appeilant/insurer is dismissed; (ii) However, the respondents/petitioners awarded compensation of Rs. 16,22,000/_, (Rupees sixteen lakhs twenty two thousand only) with interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization; (iii) the appellant/insurer and insured/owner are jointly and severallv liable to oay the compensation s 2o2o Ac: 2tso , I

B and they afe directed to deposit the enhanced amounts with interest by setting of the amounts paid, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment; (iv) on deposit of enhanced amount with interest, the respondent/claim petitioners are per6itted to withdraw entire amount as per the apportionment. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY //TRUE COpy// ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR t'- To, sEcTtoN oFF|CER 1. The chairman, MACT (Additionar District Judge) (Speciar sessions Judge for SC/SI (POA) Act Castjs at Natgonda. 2. One CC to Sri V. Krishna Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sd p. S. p. Suresh Kumar, Advocate tOpUCj 4. Two CD Copies gbr \ \*-- J, MaqrB_83_2013 \ i i I i i I I I I I

HIGH COURT DATED: 0810712022 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.83 of 2013 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITH SAME TERM ,o {\c S-!ATt tt stl 1"11 ;> I + \)1;>l )1-' ///

13217 | Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., DO Xl, Rep. by its Manager, Motor TP HUB' Ramkote, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1 . Siramoni Kistaiah, S/o Narsimha, aged 53 years, 2. Siramoni Laxmamma, Wio Kistaiah, aged 45 years, Both are Rl/o Nasarlapalli (V) Chinthapally (M) Nalgonda District. ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 3. R. Bug,gamma, W/o Anjanayulu, aged 3B years, # 1-49,T. Gowraram (V) Dindi (M) Naloonda District lOwneir 6f traictor & Trolley AP 24-1-9940 & 9941 ) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Jr-rdgmenUDecree in OP No. 213 of 2OOg dated 02-03-2012 on the file of the Court of the Chairman' MACT Cum Addl. District Judge Cum Special Judge for SC & STs (POA) Cases' at Nalgonda. 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 Sri V' Krishna Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. I I i IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STAT€ OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI M.A.C.M.A.No.83 of 201 3

This Court doth Order and Decree that the Appeal filed by the appellanUinsurer is be and hereby is dismissed on the following terms. 1. That the respondents/petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.16,22,0001 (Rupees Sixteen lakhs twenty two thousand only) with interest at7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. That the appellanUinsurer and insured/owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and they are directed to deposit the enhanced amounts with interest by setting of the amounts paid, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. 3. That on deposit of enhanced amount with interest, the respondenUclaim petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire amount as per the apportionment. 4. This Court doth further order and decree that there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTIO FFICER 1. The_cfrairman, MACT (Additronal District Judge) (special sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases at Natgonda. 2. Two CD Copies gbr "P

HIGH COURT DATED: 0810712022 DECREE MACMA.No.83 of 2013 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITH SAME TERM ..f,s\ :+-. (j^- '.-, tt$tt''I:t l-' I tL:.:3? g l/t/' /4.ffi