Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. Hyderabad Race Club,

[ 32s31 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M,G.PRIYADARSINI MACMA Nos.: 892 & 652 OF 2015 M.A.C.M.A. NO I920F 2015: Appeal Under Section .l 73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.670 ot 2013 dated 27-01-2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dlstrict at L.B-Nagar. Between: The Reliance General lnsurance Co Ltd., Rep. by its Manager (Claitns) lV Floor, Sagar Plaza Abids Road, Hyderabad - 500 001 ...APPELLANT AND 1. 2. Dubba Simmappa, W/o. late D. Dali Raji Aged 44 years, Occ: House Wife Lakshman Rao, S/o Late D. Dali Raju, Aged 22 yearc, Occ: Student Both are R/o. H.No.9-1 17 11, Plot No.32, Shivanarayanapuram Colony, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 3. Kiran Kumar Gandu, S/o. G. Bikshapathi Aged: Major, Occ: Business Fyo H.No.4-12-411, Plot No.30 High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram Ranga Reddy District - 500 070 ...RESPONDENTS I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015 IMACMAMP. NO: 2318 OF 201s) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the judgment and decree d1.27.01.2015 made in O.P.No.670 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy Dlst at L.B.Nagar. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Courtsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI VENKAT REDDY THIPPARTHI Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: NONE APPEARED

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 652 OF 2015:, Aooeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and o""r"J,';'il:i.lti. N".oio or 2013 dated 27'01'2015 on the file of the court of ,h;';;i;;; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum -Prl' District Judse' ;;s;;;;Jy-District, at L B'Nagar' Hvderabad' Between: 1. Dubba Simmappa, W/o' late D'Dali Raju' Age 44 years' Occ: House 2.D.LakshmanRao,S/o'lateD'DaliRaju'Age:22years'Occ:Studen B:U"a;?,,9:,5'#,.",;,i;iiJll;,,'A""'"#?"1',+shivanaravanapuram wife, t, Colony, ...APPELLANTS ,...RESPONDENTS AND; [l'nl ivu:l,".i iiii R'": S,'li[ [: 81',lk 88id,ry :{ii "?."3"8 x::L",' "' */" ning'rieOty District - 500 070' 2. M/s. Reliance General lnsurance.Co- Ltq ' BeP;!y^its Manager(Claims)' 4th ' Fffii 5;H Plaza, Abids Road' Hvderabad- 500 001' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKAT REDDY THIPPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent No'2: SRI A' RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSTNI M.A.C.M.A. Nos.892 and652 of 2OLS COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment since MACMA No'892 of 2015 is filed by Insurance Company and MACMA No'652 of 2O 15 is file by the claimants assailing the claim of compensation which directed against the very same order and decree dated 27'01'2O15 in O.P.No.67O of 2013 on the file of The Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principle District Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short the Tribunal)' 2- For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be refer as alleged before the Tribunal' 3. Brief facts of the case are that claimants have filed claim petition under section 166 read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for short 'MV Act') against respondents for the death of one Dubba Dali Raju' The deceased was a resident of Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal' Ranga Reddy District, aged 48 years and was earning Rs'35'275/ - per month by working as Roneo Operator in A'P' Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd', Musheerabad, Hyderabad' The

2 MGP. J Macnta 892_652 20i5 petitioners further stated that on 16.02.2013 the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.Ap 29M 9469 from Balapur to his house along with one Nageswar Rao and when they reached Sy.No. 1g5, Sainagar Colony, Badangpet, at about 3_OO p.M, the driver of the Lorry Tipper bearing No.Ap 2gU 3550, while reversing the vehicle, came in high speed, in a rash arrd negligent manner without any precautions and dashed their motorcycle, as such, the deceased DaIi Raju fell down on the road and died on the spot' while the pillion rider Nagesivar Rao received fracture injuries and the motorcycle was also completely damaged. As a result of his untimely death, the petitioners suffered loss of Iinancial, social, moral and ethical support, being the wife and son of said Dati Raju and hence, contended that they are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 4O,OO,OOO / _. 4 Respondent No.1 is the owner and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the crime vehicle. 5. Before the tribunal, while the respondent No.1 remained exparte, the respondent No.2, insurance company, resisted the claim by filing counter and denying the manner of j l I I

3 MCP. J Macma 892 652 2015 accident, age and reasons for the death of the deceased' They also contended that the lorry bearing No'AP 2BU 3550 was not validly insured with them and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition' 6. After considering the claim, counter and the evidence' both oral and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part by awarding a sum of Rs.2O,77,128/- with interest @7.5% per annum in favour of petitionersagainstRlandR2,fromthedateofpetitiontillthe date of realization. Challenging the same the present appeal is f,rled by the claimants and Insurance Company respectively' 7. Heard both sides and perused the material on record' 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that even though the claimants have adduced evidence and also hled documents to prove the income of the deceased, the tribunal has assessed the claim of the appellants to Rs.2O,77 ,128 / - by taking income of the deceased as Rs. 19,857/ - per month and further prayed to

4 MGP, J Macma 892 652 2015 consider all the aspects ald award just and reasonable compensatlon 9. On the other hand the learned standing counsel for the insurance company argued that the tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record and has awarded reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is not necessa-ry. He further argued that there is contributory negligence axd the Tribunal ought to have deducted 5O% towards contributory negligence 1O. In view of the rival submissions made by the both sides, this Court has perused the evidence. PWs I and 2 reiterated that the accident was entirely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry Tipper bearing No.AP 28U 3550, while reversing the said lorry Tipper. The Learned stalding Counsel for the Insurance Company except stating that there is contributory negligence, respondent - Insurance company did not adduced any evidence to that effect, further the police after thorough investigation laid chargesheet that

5 MCP. J Macrna 892 652 2015 the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 I 1. Coming to the quantum of compensation the tribunalhastakenthenetmonthlysalaryofthedeceasedas Rs.19,857/- as per the Ex.A6 and the annual income would be Rs.2,38,2a4/-, applied multiplier '13'to the annual income and deducte d' Il3 towards his personal expenses and has arrivedatRs.20,65,l28/-andinadditiontothatthetribunal has awarded Rs.10,OO0/- towards transportation charges, Rs.2,OOO/- towards damages to clothing and apart from that Rs.50,OOO/- towards loss of consortium' Considering all these circumstances this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under all the heads' 12. Therefore, the gross monthly salary of the deceased has to be taken, which is Rs.35,275/-. As per the principles laid down in National Insutance Compang Limited Vs' Pranag Sethi and othersr future prospects are taken as 3O% as the '20fi ncJ2Too

6 MGP, J Macnra 892 652 2015 deceased was 48 years which amounts to Rs'45,858 l-G5'275 + 3Oo/o of 35,2751 out of which Rs'2OO/- is deducted towards professional tax and the annual income would come to Rs.5,47,896/-(45,658 x l2l. Out of this annual income Rs.2,00,000/- is exempted for tax calculation' So, the taxable income would come to .Rs.3,47,896/-' Net amount after subjecting to Income Tax(1O%) comes to Rs'3,13,106/- and the total income would come to Rs.S, 13,106/- out of which 1/3 amount is deducted towards personal expenses which would come to Rs.3,42,O71 /-(Rs.S, 13, 106/- minus 1,71,035/-). Since the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarlc Verrna u' Delhi Transpora Corporationz would be "13". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.44,46,923 l- (Rs.3,42,071/- x l3l' In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.45,23,923 l- ' zoog ACI 1298 (sc)

lf 7 MCP, J Macrra 892 652 7015 Accordingly, MACMA No.892 of 20 15 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the MACMA No.652 of 2015 filed by the claimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation arnount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2O,77,128/- to Rs.45,23,9231 -. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7 .5o/o p.a. from the date of the judgment passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointty and -severally. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion as was ordered by the tribunal. However, the claimants are directed to pay delicit court fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPYII ' L[:-tirll'an' MACr-cum- Prr 2. One CC to SRt A. RAMAKRTSHNA REDD 3. One CC to SRI VENKAT REDDY THIPPA ' o^ ";S$BYfilf R EA, !i"Ri" .t lJ SECTION OFFICER District Judge, Rangareddy District, at Y, Advocate tOpUCl RTHI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. BN Two CD Copies 8t'.4^,

HIGH COURT DATED:2411112022 COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.892 & 652 of 2015 .E s *& =o* l i, ;,' t. t: (.) * (1 i'/ i' . "/./ \t 4.. DISMISSING THE MACMA. 89212015 & ALLOWING THE MACMA. 65212015 f^4. i

[ 32s3 J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENW FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MACMA Nos.: 892 & 652 OF 2015 M.A.C.M.A. NO: 892 OF 2015: Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P.No.670 ot 2013 dated 27-O1-2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Mot6r Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Between: The Reliance General lnsurance Co Ltd., Rep. by its Manager (Claims) lV Floor, Sagar Plaza Abids Road, Hyderabad - 500 001 ...APPELLANT AND 1 2 Dubba Simmappa, W/o. late D. Dali Raji Aged 44 yearc, Occ: House Wife Lakshman Rao, S/o Late D. Dali Raju, Aged 22 years, Occ: Student Both are R/o. H.No.9-1 1711 , Plot No.32, Shivanarayanapuram Colony, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Kiran Kumar Gandu, S/o. G. Bikshapathi Aged: Major, Occ: Business Rl/o H.No.4-12-411, Plot No.30 High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram Ranga Reddy District - 500 070 3 ...RESPONDENTS The Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material appears in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri T. Venkat Reddy, Advocate forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and None Appeared for Respondent No.3 M.A.C.M.A. NO: 652 OF 2O15: Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P. No.670 of 2013 dated 27.O1 .2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum -Prl. District Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

Between: 1. Dubba Simmappa, W/o. late D.Dali Raju, Age44 years, Occ: House wife, 2. D. Lakshman Rao, S/o. late D.Dali Raju, Age: 22 years, Occ: Student, Both are R/o.H.No. 9-11711, Plot No.32, Shivanarayanapuram Colony, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. AND ...APPELLANTS 1. Kiran Kumar Gandu, S/o. G.Bikshapathi, Age: Major, Occ: Business, Rl/o. H.No.4-12-411, Plot No. 30, High. Court Cotony, Vanastalipuram, Rangareddy District - 500 070. 2. M/s. Reliance General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manaqer (Claims). 4th Floor, Sagar Ptaza, Abids Road, Hyderabbo- 5OO boi. ...RESPONDENTS The Appeal corhing on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material appears in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI T. VENKAT REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and None Appeared either in person or by Advocate for Respondent No.1 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the.Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.892/201S be and hereby is dismissed and MACMA.No.6S2\201S fited by the Claimants is allowed by enhancing the Compensation amount amended by the Tribunal from Rs.20,77,1281- to 45,23,5231- The enhanced amount shall cany in time al 7.5o/o per annum from the date of the Judgment passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization payable by Respondent Nos..l &2 joinfly and severally. 2. That the lnsurance company is amended the deposit the entire compensation award within a period of Two Months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 3. That the enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the save proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal. However, the claimants are directed to pay deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. 4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and 5. That there be no order as to costs in this MACNIAs. SO/- P. PADMANABHA RE DY ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPYII To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, MACT -cum- Prl. District Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar 2. Two CD Copies BN Pntq,

HIGH COURT DATED:2411112022 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.892 & 652 of 2015 DISMISSING THE MACMA. 89212015 & ALLOWING THE MACMA. 65212015 ?m4. ',) ; . --r-) tt,t ) AE