The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri K.S.V.Raja

[ 3253 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.AC.M.A.NO: s3/.OF 2017 Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment / order and decree made in MVoP.No.17B5 of 2o1o dated 17-01-201+ on iheiile of the court of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunat - cum - ll Additional chief, city civil courts, Hyderabad. Between: 1 Smt.S.Laxmi Shoba, W/o. Late S.Mahender, Aged about: 43 years, Occ: House-wife, 2. S-Shravani, D/o. Late S.Mahender, Aged about: 17 years, Occ: Student, 3. S.Srikrupa, D/o. Late S.Mahender, Aged about: 16 years, Occ: Student, 4. S.Bavith @ Babu, Sio. Late S.Mahender, Aged about: 1O years, Occ: Student, 5. Smt.S.Satyamma, Wo. Late S.Sadanandam, Aged aboul: 72 years, Occ: House-hold , (Petitioner No.2 !o- 4 being minor represented by their natural mother and guardian i.e., Smt.S.Laxmi Shoba, Appellant No.1 ) All are_ Rt/o. H.No.9-141127, Sri Sai Nivas Apartments, prashanth Nagar, Lungerhouse, Hyderabad. J....PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND 1. Mglrd, Ghouse, S/o.Md.Osman, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, Fl/o.H.No.7_1-1 1312, Kathalgadi, Mkarabad, Rang-a Reddy District. 2. The Reliance General lnsl,r2n6" co Ltd., Rep by its Branch Manager, Office situated at 1st Floor,6-4-8, Musheerabad, Hyddrabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants : SRI.JAGATHPAL REODY KAS| REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI.HARINATH REDDY SOMA The Court made the following judgment : -

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.534 of 2017 JUDGMENT: Dissatisfied u.ith the (lr,rantum of compensation awarded in the order and decrec, dated IZ .01.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1785 of 2010 or-r the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accid6nt Claims Tr.ibunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, H_vdcrabad (for short .,the Tribunal,), the appellants/clarmants prcferred the present appeal seeking enhanccmenl ol the compctrsr rt ion. 2. For the sake of conr.cnit'nce, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal. 3. Brief lacts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition unde- Secrion 166 of . M.V.Act., ctaiming compensation of Rs.30,00,0O0/ for the death of one Saqgam Mahender, husband of claimant No. 1, lather of claimant Nos. 2 to 4, son ol claimant No. 5 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.05.20 10. According to the claimaats, on the fatefui day, r,r,hile the deceasccl was proceeding in his Maruti Van bearing No. Ap 13 N 689 l, from Ramdevguda to Lungerhouse and at about 09:30 p.m., one auto bearing No.

-:?*SS 2 [,4GP J l,le.fna 534 2417 AP 28 X 9051, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver, came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the car of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Care Hospita'l, Hyderabad, wherein he succumbed to the injuries on 16.05.2010 while undergoing treatment' According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 42 j/ears an'd earning Rs.2,00,O00/- per annum by doing business of selling stainless home needs. The deceased used to contribute his earnings for the welfare of his family, but due to the suCden and untimely death of the deceased, the claimants lost their. bread winner, love and affection . besicies losing future earnings and dependency on the deceased' Therefore' they frled the claim petition against the respondent Nos' 1 & 2 claiming compensation of Rs.3O'OQ- lakhs towards compensation under different heads. 4. Before the tribunal, while resporedent No' 1 remained ex parte, tine respondent No. 2 filed counter filed counter denying themannerinwhichtheaccid'enttookplace,includingthe age, avocation ald income of the deceased' It is also stated l.-,

MGP, J lvlacma 534 2017 that the quantum of cornpensation claimed is excessive, baseless and praved to drsrniss the petition 5. Considering the clainr t>f the appellants, counter filed by the respondent No.2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary r:vidence, thc 'lribunal allowed the O.p. in part, awarding a total compensation of Rs. IS,8S,T2Sl- along with costs and interest (!9 7 .Soti, pe' r annum from the date of petition till the date of rhe realization, to be deposited by the respondent Nos. I & 2, jointll, and severally. Challenging the same, the claimants have ltled this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the . Iearned Standing Counsel lor the respondent No. 2. perused the materiai available on rccord. 7 . Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal erroneously concluded that the Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects to the established income of the deceased arrd that the amount awarded under the conventional hr:ads is meagrc and needs to be cnhalced. It is lastly contended that since the deceased was 43 years old, the I

4 i\4GP, J Mac(r,a 534 2C17 Tribunal should have applied the multiplier '14' instead of '1.r'. 8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No.2 herein has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court 9. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribuna-l after evaluating the evidence of PW.2, who is eye'"ldtness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence avajlable on record i.e., Ex.A. 1 , First Information Report, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No. AP 28 X 9051. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispr-rte in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 10. In so far as the quant-um of compensation is concerned, according to the claimants, the deceased was aged 43 years and earning Rs.2,O0,0OO/- per annum by cioing business of l

,/, ) I\,4cP, J l\racma 534 2017 seiling stainless steel home needs. In support of their claim, they filed Exs.A.3 & A.4, copies of the income tax returns of the deceased, u,,hich discloses that the deceased was getting income of Rs. 1,81,300/- lor the year 2OOg_09. Considering the avocation of the deceased and evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rigl-rtly fixed the annual income of the deceased ar Rs.1,81,300/-. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the ciaimants, the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the established income of the deceased. Since the deceased was 43 years old at the time of the death, in ',riew of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. pranay Sethi and othersr, 25% towards future prospects can duly be added to the estabiished income of the deceased. Thus, the future annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,26,6251_ (Rs.1,81,300/- + Rs.45,325/-). Since the dependents are five in number, after deducti ng l l4tt towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs. 1,69,96 9 I - and, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhl Transport Corporatloa I zov ecl 2zoo

6 l\,4GP, J N,4acma 534 2017 and another2, the appropriate multiplier is'i4'as the deceased was 43 ypars old at the time of the accident. Thus, applying the multiplier 't4', the total lcss of dependency comes to Rs.23,79,566/-. In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,0OO/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70, 00I- + 10% enhancement thereon). Further, the claim Nos.2 to 4, bcing the minor children of the deceased, are enti d co sortl to Rs.40,0O0/- um as per the d \ each under 'the head ecision of the Apex Court of parental in Magma Ge ral Insurance Comltang Limited o. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram d athersc. Thus, in ali, the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,76 6l- \ 11. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is .partlY / allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 15,85,725/- to Fts.2g,76,,5661-. The enhanced arnount shall carry interest at 7.5oh p.a. from the date of petition titl the date of realization to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severall5r. 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, the major ,20c9 (6) SCC 121 tr ' (20 r 8) t8 scc t:o

1 MGP, J [.4acma 534 2017 claimants are entitlecl to u ithdraw their respective share arnounts without furnishrng any security. The re shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed Sd/.T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 9/ OFFIC SECTION ER To 1. q 2 J 4 The MVACT-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, 9t!f9'.".i1 pgurt' UV!^egQ{ o"i,'cc i, snijnoArnpnl REDDY KAst RE-DDY, Ad,vocate [oPUC] il; dd i" 5iii.r-rnCrr.tniH REDDY SoMA, Advocate [oPUC] Two CD CoPies SA \\

, ,-li

I I j I H,GH COURT DATED:21 tO4t2O23 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.S34 of 2017 1t{E STAfer foo ? 1B IUL NA I nr.,, \.: . rTcP (.o C,l PARTLY ALLOW,NG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. @q,3 el L 3

[ 32s3 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.NO 534 oF 2017 Between: 1. Smt.S.Laxmi Shoba, W/o. Late S.Mahender, Aged about:43 Years, Occ House-wife, 2. S.Shravani, Dio. Late S.Mahender, Aged about: 17 years, Occ: Student, 3. S.Srikrupa, D/o. Late S.Mahender, Aged about: 16 years, Occ: Student, 4. S.Bavith @ Babu, S/o. Late S.Mahender, Aged about: 10 years, Occ Student, 5. Smt.S.Satyamma, Wio. Late S.Sadanandam, Aged aboul: 72 years, Occ House-hold, (Petitioner No.2 to 4 being minor represented guardian i.e., Smt.S.Laxmi Shoba, Appellant No by their natural mother and 1) All are Rl/o. H.N}.S-1-41127, Sri Sai Nivas Apartments, Prashanth Nagar, Lungerhouse, Hyderabad. .....PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND 1. Mohd. Ghouse, S/o.Md.Osman, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.7- 1-1 1312, Kathalgadi, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy Districl. 2. The Reliance General lnsurance co Ltd-, Rep by its Branch Manager, Office situated at 'lst Floor, 6-4-8, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment / order and decree made in MVOP;No.'1785 of 2010 dated 17-01-2014 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - ll Additional Chief, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. 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 case and

upon hearing the arguments of SRI JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY, Advocate tor the Appellant ard of SRI HARINATH REDDY SOI/A, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court d rth Order and Decree as follows : '1. That the l\rlotor Accident Civil lrliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1 5,85,72{)/- to Rs.23,76,566/-. 2. That, the enranced amount shall carry interest al 7.Soh per annum from the date of petit on till the date of realization to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally, the amount shall be deposited with in a period of one monlh from the date of receipt of a copy of their order, on, such deposit, the major claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amount without furnishing any security. 3. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects , and 4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/.T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// v SECTION OFFICER To 1.The MVACT-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2.Two CD Copies SA q

HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412023 DECREE MACMA.No.534 of 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT GOSTS. g}a;a frtr