PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S ADP PVT LTD., HYD

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 564 OF 2017 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, against the order and Decree passed in O.P.No. 361 of 2013, dated 26.02.2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: '1 . Madhu Dugar, W/o. Surendra Kumar Dugar, Aged: 47 years, Occ: Household, 2. Surendra Kumar Dugar, S/o. Bachraj Dugar, Aged: 51 yrs, Occ: Nil, 3. Vaibhav Dugar, S/o. Surendra Kumar Dugar, Aged: 23 yrs, Occ: Student, 4. Amrao Devi Dugar, W/o. Bachraj Dugar, Aged: 7'1 yrs, Occ: Household, 5. Bachraj Dugar, S/o. Late. Jeevan Mall Dugar, (died) Aged: 78 years, Occ: Nil, All are R/o. H.No. 3-6-4291407, Street No. 4, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS AND 1. Arthi Aganval, Age: Major, Occ: Business, Rl"/o. H.No. 13-1-8411341204, Gomthi Homes, Motinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 2. lclcl Lombard General lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Rep.by its Branch fVanager, D.No.6-3-352/ 1, lll Floor, Osman Plaza, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. ...RESPONOENTS .i Counsel for the Appellants 1 to 4 : Sri T. VISWARUPA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri RAMA CHANDRA REDDY GADI The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I

HON 'I}I,E SN,IT. J US'I'ICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.564 of 2017 Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chiel Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, IN M.V.O.P.No.36l of 20ll dated 26.02.2016, the claimants have filed the present appeal. 2. For the sake ofconvenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the 'Iribunal. 3. According to the petitioners, on 08-07-2012 the deceased Varun Dugar and his lriends have started from Basheerbagh in a car bearing No. AP 09 BX 5292 and when they reached near Ohris I{otel, Basheerbagh at about l- l5 A.M., the driver of the said car drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and rlashed three pedestrians, one Mahindra car and also one Nano car. As a result of which, the inmates of the said car including the deceased Varun Dugar sustained grievous inji.rries on vital parts of the body and immediately a while shifting to thc hospital, thc deceased succumbed to injur;- . t 7' JUI)GMENT: il I I L-

2 According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 22 years, and rvas a Director of his business fiffn and used to earn more than Rs.5.00,000/- per annum. Thus, the petitioners clairned compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- under various heads against the respondents 1 and 2, who are owner and insurer jointly and severally. 4. Respondent No. I filed counter denying the petition averrnents. It is submitted that the car involved in the accident was insured with the respondent No.2 covering the date of accident and the driver of the car was having valid driving license as on the date ofaccident. 5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred and the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the car along with his fi'iends had Hukka and consumed liquor on the date of accident and at mid night while retuming home, the driver was under the influence ol Hukka and liquor, lost his control over the said car and caused the said accident and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.

-l 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.24,79,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the respondent Nos.l and 2, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 8Yo per annum lrom the date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6ok per annum till realization 7. Heard the learned counsel tbr the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-ICICI Lornbard General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on 8. The leamed counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted . that although the claimants established the lact that the death of the deceased-Varun Dugar was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount. 9. The leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal, alter appreciating I I I u n record. I I I I

.1 However, after evaluating thc evidence ol PWs.l to 3 coupled with al the documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal rightlyTthat the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the the evidence on record, has rightly awardcd adequaLe compensation and the sarne nceds no interfercnce bv this Court. 10. With regard to the manner ol accident, there is no dispute. driver of the ollending car which resulted the death of the deceased Varun Dugar. I I . With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 22 years, and was a Director of his business firm and used to eam more than Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. To prove the eamings of the deceased, the Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad was examined as PW-4 and he brought the certified copies of income tax retums verification forms relating to the deceased for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13. He admitted that Exs.X2 and X3 i.e., income tax retums for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were filed subsequent to the date of death of the deceased. As per Ex.Xl, the income of the deceased was at Rs.2,07,856/- and income tax paid was shown as Rs.2,990/-. Therefore, the tribunal \

rightly rejected Exs.X2 and X3 rvhich rvere filed afler the death ol'the deceased and by considering Ex.Xl, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,74,000i-, which appears to be less. Hence, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.2,04,866/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.2,05,000/- per annum. Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs, Pranay Sethi and otherst, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his income, since the deceased was aged 22 years. Then it comes to Rs.2,87,000/- (2,05,000 + 82,000 =2,87,000/-). From this,50% olthe actual income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the deceased was a bachelor. After deducting 50o/o of the amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.1,43,500/- per annum (2,87,000 - 1,43,500 : 1,43,500/-). Since the deceased was 22 years by the tirne of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision reported in Sula Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.1,43,500/- x l8 : Rs.25,83,000/-. In t 0 tzoql acl 2too ' 2001ACJ 1298 (SC) i I I

addition thereto. the clairnants arc also cntitled to Iis.33.000/- undcr' the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Furlher the petitioner Nos. I and 2 are also entitled to filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per the Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ramr. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.26,96,000/-. 12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal lrom Rs.24,79,0001- to Rs.26,96,000/-. 'lhe enhanced amount shall cary interest at 7.5Yo p.a. fi-on the date ol petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. Since it is reported that the petitioner No.5/appellant No.5 is died, the compensation awarded to him shall be distributed among the other petitioners in the ratio as ordered by the tribunal. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'. On such deposit of compensation amount by the respondents, the I 20 18 Law Suir (SC) 904 / \ L__

claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same withoul 1.urnishing any security. lhere shall be no order as to costs. Pending rniscellaneous applications, ilany, shall starld closed. Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTAN/ REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// L !:) SECTION OFFICER To, Njb kam 1- The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri RAMA CHANDRA REDDY GADI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ,(S / I

,:?

HIGH COURT DATED:1310412023 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.564 of 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA (. 6 t' to?ra5 i rt tu\ lm g siArS k 1- + Ilr:cr.,"ii_- l I L \ , \&ou' I I tl

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIV|L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 564 OF 2017 Between: 1. Madhu Dugar, W/o. Surendra Kumar Dugar, Aged: 47 years, Occ: Household, 2. Surendra Kumar Dugar, S/o. Bachraj Dugar, Aged: 51 yrs, Occ: Nil, 3. Vaibhav Dugar, S/o. Surendra Kumar Dugar, Aged: 23 yrs, Occ: Student, 4. Amrao Devi Dugar, W/o, Bachraj Dugar, Aged:71 yrs, Occ: Household, 5. Bachraj Dugar, S/o. Late. Jeevan Mall Dugar, (died)Aged: 78 years, Occ: Nil, All are Rl/o. H.No. 3-6-4291407, Street No. 4, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS AND ''l . Arthi Agarwal, Age: Major, Occ: Business, F|/o. H.No. 13-1-8411341204, Gomthi Homes, Motinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 2. lclCl Lombard General lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Rep.by its Branch Manager, D.No.6-3-352/ 1, lll Floor, Osman Plaza, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 't 73 of M.V. Act, against the order and Decree passed in O.P.No. 361 of 2013, daled 26.02.2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate forthe Appellants '1 to 4 and Sri RAMA CHANDRA REDDY GADI, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and None appeared for Respondent No.1 . t l I I l l

,// : I This Court doth Judgment and Decree as follows:- 1. That the lvlACMA No. 564 of 2017 be and hereby is partly allowed 2. fhat the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.24,79,0001 to Rs. 26,96,O00/-. 3. That the enhanced amount be and hereby shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization , to be payable by the respondents jointly and severally. 4. That the amount of compensation shall be and hereby be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 5. That the amount be and hereby shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. That, on such deposit of compensation amount by the respondents, the claimantS are at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security; . and 7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I,I c1D To, SE:CTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, l\ilotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XX'y' Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. fwo CD Copies ^s Njb kan.r I I

HIGH COURT DATED:1310412023 DECREE MACMA.No.564 of 2O17 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA I.I (o * 1o Tttj s\b\*"ar