Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS, vs. M/s. A. P Power Generation Corporation Ltd.,

[ 32s3 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MACMA Nos. 126 & 692 of 2016 MACMA No. 126 of 20'16 Appeal under Section 173 of IvlV Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10-2015 made in OP NO.2256 of 2013 on the file of the Court of .the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Between: Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Regional Manager, Sagar Plaza, Near GPO, Abids, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondent No. 2 AND '1. Smt. Chandana Naga Sumalatha, W/o. Chandana Pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Age 32 years, Occ Housewife. 2. Master Chandana Raghu Ram, S/0. Chandana Pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Age 5 years, Occ Student (Minor). 3. Master Chandana Madhu, S/o. Chandana Pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Age '1 year (Minor). 4. Smt. Chandana Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo. Ch- Basavaiah, age 61 years, Occ Housewife. 5. Sri Chandana Basavaiah, S/o. Ch. Subba Rao, Age 67 years, Occ Nil. (The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being minors are rep by their molher and natural guardian, the respondent No. t herein) All are Rt/o. 49-28413, Padma Rao Nagar Phase-1, Near Krishnaveni High School, Chintal, Quthubullapur, Tirumalagiri, HMT Township, Hyderabad. ... Respondents/Petitioners

MACMAMP. NO: 2)0 OF 20'16 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order and the decree dated 26-'10-201 5 passed in OP No.2256 of 201 3 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-tl Addl. Chief Judge, City Civit Court at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri T Mahender Rao, SC for Appellanulnsurance Company Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 : ... M.A.C.M.A. NO: 692 OF 2016 Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.2015 made in O.P. No. 2256 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-tl Addl, Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Between: 6. Smt. V. Sridevi, W/o. V. Girish Kumar, Major, Occ Business, R/o. Door No. 5/482 SR Naik Nagar, IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad- 500 055. ...RespondenURespondent No.1 1. Smt. Chandana Naga Sumalatha, W/o. Late Chandana pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Aged 32 years, occ Housewife 2. Master Chandana Raghu Ram, S/o. Late Chandana pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Aged 8 years, occ student 3. Master Chandana Madhu, S/o. Late Chandana pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Aged 3 years, occ Nil 4. Pmt Chandana Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo Ch. Basavaiah, Aged 61 years, Occ Housewife 5. Chandana Basavaiah, S/o Ch. Subbarao, (Died ), Aged 67 years, Occ Nil -(App_ellants 2 and 3 being.minors rep by their natural Mother and guardian, Smt Chandana Naga Sumalatha, 1st App-ellant) All residents of H.No. 49-28413, padma Rao Nagar phase-1, Near Krishnaveni High School Chintat, Quthubullapur, Tirumal6giri HMT Township, Hyderabad ..Appel lants/Petitioners AND

THE H()NOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.126 OF 2016 COMMON J'JDGMENT: 1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.126 of 2016, filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the quantum of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.692 of 2O16, Iiled by the claim petitioners, seeking enhancement of compensation, both are directed against the very same order <tated 26.7O.2015 passed in O.P.No.225O of ZO1S, on the hle of tlre Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-tl Additional Chief Judge, Cif,v Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who are the wife, two sons and parents of Late Chandana Pavani Chandrasekhar (hereinafter referred as uthe deceased"), filed a petltlon claiming deceased undr-'r Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 compensation of Rs.5O,00,OOO/- for the death of the 24.02.2013 a motor vehicle accident that took place on It is stated by the petitioners that on 24.02.2013 at P.M., when the deceased was proceeding into ln about 5.OO AND M.A.C.M.A.No.692 OF 2OL6

) MGP,J MACMA.NoS.126 ond 692 of 2016 M/s.Venkateshwara Industries Company located at Plot No.53, Phase-I, IDA Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District, after supervising the works, the driver of Crane Bearing No.AP-28-BL-3399, when trying to lift the iron sheets, drove the said Crane in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. As a result, there occurred breakage in the chain link of the Crane and the deceased sustained crush injuries to his waist and also bleeding injuries all over the body and was shifted to Raln Hospital and then to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda for Medical treatment and while undergoing treatment, he died. 4. Based on a complaint, Police of Jeedimetla, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered a case in Crime No.166 of 2013 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the said Crane. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged 33 years and was hale and healthy, hardworking and used to earn income of Rs.3S,OOO/-per month by working in M/s.Venkateshwara Industries and had chances of enhancement of his monthly income upto Rs.SO,0OO/-. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their bread winner, his love and affection and were put to mental shock. Therefore, they filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,OO0/- against the Respondent Nos. 1 &

.1 M6P,) MACMA.Nos.126 ond 692 ol 2016 2, who are the owner and the insurer of the crime vehicle involved in the accident i.e. Crane Bearing No'AP-28BL-3399' Before ttre Tribunal, Respondent No' l/owner o[ the crime 5 vehicle, remained ex-Parte 6. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company hled its counter denying the contents of the claim petition including' insurance coverage, modc of accident, age and earnings of the deceased' It also contended that there was no rashness or negligence on patt of the driver of tl-re vehicle and that the conditions stipulated under Section 158(6) of M.V.Act have not been complied and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same against it' 7 . Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had lramed the following issues for conducting trial:- O Whether the deceased-Chandana Pauani Chondra Shekara Rao died' in the motor accident uith Crane beaing No.AP-28-BL-3399 due to rash and negligenet dnuing bY its diuer? (ii) Wether *Le compensation? petitioners o.re entitled fo' If so, to what ertent and from uthom? (iiil To uthat relief 3 I

4 MGP,J MACMA.N,S.126 ond 592 ol 2016 8. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, pWs I to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to Al0 were marked. As respondent No.1 remained ex-parte, on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1_Copy of Insurance policy was marked with consent. 9. Based on the evidence adduced and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly_allowed the claim petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.24,g5,000/- along with interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 60/o per annum from the date of decree till payment payable by both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be fiied by the Insurance Company and claim petitioners vide M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 126 and 692 of 2016 respectively. i0. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.l26 of 2016 and Sri Jagathpal Reddy KasiReddy, learned counsel for the claim petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.No.692 of 2016. perused the record. 11. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No. 126 of 2O16 are ': that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased @ Rs.2,OO,OO0/- by relying upon the income tax returns ,i _.1 I

5 MGP,I MACMA.Nos.126 ond 692 of 2016 filed under Ex.A9; erred in applying multipiier 17 instead of applying 16 zLnd also erred in awarding interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree and therefore requested to allow the Appeai by setting aside the order of the liarned Tribunal. 12. On the other hand, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the respondents/claim petitioners/Appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.692 of 2016 are that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.2,21,722/-by perusing the Income Tax returns of the deceased; ought to have awarded future prospects to the established income of the deceased and also ought to have awarded Rs. I Lakh each towards loss of estate, love and affection, Transport and Hospital charges and hence requested for enhancement of compensation amount 13. Now the points that emerges for determination are, WLether the order passed bg the Tribunal suffers from ang inegularitg? Whether the appellants/ claim petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation? POINTS:- 14. Since there is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and death of th,: deceased, which finding arrived at by the learned 1 2.

6 MGP,] MACMA-NoS.126 dnd 692 of 2016 Tribunal is not challenged, there is no necessity to again decide the said aspects. 15. The point that has to be dealt with in the present Appeals filed by the Insurance Company as well as claim petitioners is with regard to quantum of compensation. 16. A perusal of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shows that the learned Tribunal, taking into account Ex.A9-lncome Tax returns, considered the earnings of the deceased @ Rs.2,00,O00/- per annum, deducted l/3ra towards pefsonal expenses and applied relevant multiplier and calculated loss of dependency which arrived at Rs.22,6Z,O0O/-. Aparr from this, the Tribunal had also awarded an amount of Rs. 1 ,00,OOO/ - towards loss of consortium; an amount of Rs.1,0O,OO0/- towards Medical bills; Rs.5,000/-, Rs.3,000 l- and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of love and affection which arrived at a total compensation of Rs.24,85,000/- . 17. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant/lnsurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No. 126 of 2016 is that the leamed Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased @ Rs.2,0O,O0O/- by relying upon the income tax returns irled under Ex.A9. I

7 MGP,] MA.MA.Nos 126 ond 692 ol2016 18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between MEENAKSHI Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTDI wherein, while arriving at the annual income of the deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the income tax returns submitted by the family members of the deceased which shows that the deceased was a PAN card holdcr and was capable of earning an amount as referred in Income tax returns. 19. Hence, this Court, by relying upon the above referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further considering the fact that the deceased being one of the partners in M/ s.Venkatesr;r,ara Industries and that there is no guarantee that he would get the same profits regularly, is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal had rightly rounded off the annual income of the cleceased to Rs.2,O0,0O0/- .per annum based on the income tax retlrrns which require no interference of the same. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners in M.A.C.M.A.No.692 of 2O16 contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have granted future prospects to the income of the deceased. J..., Eo?rrNsc srr

MGP,) MACMA Nos.126 and 692 ol2016 21. A perusai Ex.A8- Provisional National Trade Certihcate issued by the Department of Employment and Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh discloses that the Date of Birth of the deceased was O1.08.1980. Therefore, the deceased was 33 years old by the date of accident. Since the deceased was below 40 years, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi2, is inclined to add. 4Oo/o towards future prospects to the established income of the deceased. Since the annual income of the deceased was rounded to Rs.2,OO,000/-, then his net monthly income would be Rs. 16,667/- lf 4Oo/o is added towards future prospects as per the above referred decision, then the future monthly income would be Rs.23,333/-. Since the number of dependents are hve, if 1/4ti, is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then his net monthly income would be Rs. 17,5OO/- and the annual income would be Rs.2,1O,OOO/- . 22. Since the age of the deceased was 33 years, the relevant multiplier as per the decision of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, is '16'and after apptying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.33,6O,000/-. ' (20 17 (6) l 70 sc) 8

9 MGP,J MACMA-N1'.126 ond 692 ol 2016 23. Apart from this, the claim petitioners were also awarded with an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,0O0/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. i0,O0O/- towards loss of love and affection which this Court linds it to be on higher side and is inclined to reduce the same by awarding an amount of Rs.77,0O0/- towards conventional heads i.e. krss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses based on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natlonal Insurance Co. Ltd. VsPranay Sethi & others (2O77 ACJ 27OO). Further, considering the fact that the petitionei Nos.2 & 3 being minor chiidren of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.4O,OOO/- each under the head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court jn Mdgna General Insurance Compang Ltmited. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. 24. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioners were also awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,O0O/- towards Medical Bills which this Court is not inclined to meddle with the same as it is evident from Ex.A6-Final Bill issued by Yashoda Hospital showing that the deceased had incurred a total sum of Rs. 1,54,823/- towards Hospital expenses. Since loss of love and affection is r 1zots1 ta scc no l I

10 MGP,J MACMA.No'126 ond 692 of 2016 comprehended under loss of consortium, this Court is not inclined to consider the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the said Head. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation which is calculated as under:- S.No. Name of the Head Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded this Court. by Annual income of the deceased 2,0o,00o/- (as per tax returns) 2 Amount arrived after addition of future prospects Rs.233s3/ - Income arrived after deduction of ll4th towards personal expenses Rs.2,10,000/- 4 Loss of earnings alter applying relevant multiplier. Rs.22,67,OOO /- 5 Conventional heads Parental consortium Rs. 1,18,OOO/- Rs.77,OO0/- 6 Rs.80,000/ - 7 M ed ical incurred bills Rs. 1,0O,000 7 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.24,85,O00/- Rs.36, 17,000/- 25. It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company that the Tribunal erred in awarding I I r. I I I l' I | *"..,uo,ooor ]

l1 MGP,I MACMA.Nos.126 ond 692 of 2016 interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree. This Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersa, interfere with the linding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award interest @ 7.5o/o per annum amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. 26. As far as liability is concerned, since Ex.Bl-Copy of Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident and in the absence of rebuttal evidence on behalf of respondents, this Court is. of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly fixed the liability upon respondt:nts 1 & 2 in paying the compensation amount. 27. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No. 126 0f 2076 filed by Appellant/ Insurance Company is partly-allowed by reducing the rate of interest awardcd by the Tribunal from 12 ok to 7.5o/o per annum and M.A.C.M.A.No.692 of 2016 filed by the claim petitioners is partly -allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.24,85,00O/- to Rs.36,17,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nr>s. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the claim pe titioners are entitled to withdraw the same as per I I 4 20t3 ACJ 1403 = 2013 {4) ALT 35 I

t2 MGp,.t MACMA-N1,.726 ond 692 of 2016 the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The tvlotor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.(With records) 2. One CC to Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate [oPUCl 3. One CC to Sri T. Mahender Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies DL I

HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2(]2s COMMON JUDGI\4ENT MACMA.Nos.126 of 2016 AND MACMA.Nos.692 of 2016 PARTLY ALLOWING THE BOTH MACMAS P s .k o ', iATE ()A f * 7,y!f . \t \\\ w W- All,c

MACMA Between: AND Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Regional Managgr, Sagar Plaza, Near GpO, Abids, Hyderabad. ' J THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MACMA Nos. 126 & 692 ol 2016 No. 126 of 0't 6 ...AppellanURespondent No. 2 Smt. Chandana Naga Sumalatha, W/o. Chandana pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Age 32 years,-Occ Housewife. 2. Master Chandana Raohu Ram, S/0. Chandana pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Age 5 years, Occ Student fivfinbr). 3. Master Chandana Madhu S/o. Chandana pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Age 1 year (Minor). . illj;;.,iflll"na Vijaya Lakshmi, wo. ch. Basavaiah, age 6t years, occ 5. Sri Chandana Basavaiah, S/o. Ch. Subba Rao, Age 67 years, Occ Nil. (The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being minors are rep by their mother and natural guardian, the respondent ru6. I nerlinl- 4ll are R/o. 49-28413, padma Rao Nagar phase_1, Near Krishnaveni Hiqh Schoot, chintat, eurhubu,apur, rirumiLgiii,l;i/i' i"#"Jrip;, riv;;;;;E:' ers . .. Respondents/petition 6. Smt._V. Sridevi, Wo. V. Girish Kumar, Major, Occ Business, R/o. Door No. s/482 SR Naik Nagar, ron leeoimeri, Hvi"ir-oii:loo oss ...RespondenURespondent No. 1 Appear under Section 173 0f It/V Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 26'10'2015 made in op No.2256 of 201ion tne rire-or the court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents craims Tribunat-cum-tt RJot. cnill irog", city civir court at 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 base and upon hearin(r the arguments of sri r Mahender Rao, Advocate for the Appellant, and Sri Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy for RRs. 1 to 5. M.A.C.M.A. NO: 692 oF 2016 Appeal under section 173 of MV Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.2015 mad, in o.P. No. 22s6 ot 2013 on the fire of the court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad. Between: 1 9It Chandana Naga Sumalatha, Wo. Late Chandana pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Aged 32 yeas, occ Housewife 2 Master chandana Raghu Ram, sio. Late chandana pavani chaniirasekhar Hao, Aged i years, occ student 3. Master Chandana Madhu, S/o. Late Chandana pavani Chandrasekhar Rao, Aged 3 years, occ Nil 4. Smt Chandana Vrjaya Lakshmi, Wo Ch. Basavaiah, Aged 6i years, Occ Housewife 5. Chandana Elasavaiah, S/o Ch. Subbarao, (Died ), Aged 67 years, Occ Nil _(App-ellants 2 and 3 being.minors rep by their natural Mother and guardian, Smt Chandana Naga Sumalatha, 1st App'ellant) All residenrs of H.No. 49-29413, padma Rao Nagar phase_1, Near Krishnaveni High schoor chintar, euthubuflapur, Tirumarigiri F{Mi lo*ns-h-ip, Hyderabad ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1 . Smt. V Sridevi, W/o V. Girish Kumar Aged major, occ Business, Ryo Door No. 5/482, SR Naik Nagar tDA, Jeedimefla,HyderdbaA_5OOO5S 2. The Reliance, General lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Regional Manager Off Sagar Plaza' Near GPo' Abids Hyderabao-50.1iH"'.ronoents/Respondents This appeal coming on for h^earing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and ihe maGriar papers in the tase and.upon. hearing the arguments of sri Jagathpar Reddy Kasi nbaby, novocate ror the Appellants and Siri T lr/ahender Rao, Advocate for the Respond"nt No. Z. This Court doth Or,Cer and decree as follows:- 7

HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.126 of 2016 AND MACMA.Nos.692 of 2O'|'6 PARTLY ALLOWING THE BOTH MACMAS () 2 :: I