The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri. P.Krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 301 OF 2010 AND CROSS OBJECTTONS NO.47 OF 20 MACMA No.301 of2010: Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the order and decree dated.7.8.2007, in OP.No.3203 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Between: National lnsurance Company Limited,, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Twin Cities Complex, HYD. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ,| Baby Kandula Vinitha, D/o late Veeranjaenyulu Minor, rep. by her grand father K.Devaiah, Retd. Employee Ryo H.No.16-14-20 K, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 is declared as Major,vide Court Order dated 15.02.2023, vide l.A-No.2 of 2022, in Cross Obejcetion No. 47 of 2022 ....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 A.Dayakar Reddy, S/o A.Yadi Reddy, age: major Rl/o H.No.18-245, Pragathi Nagar, Uppal Road, Ramanthapur, R.R. District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2OF 2OOB (MACMAMP. NO: 7551 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order and decree in OP. No.3203/2004,dated 07.08.2OO7, on the file of the MACT -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010 (MACMAMP . NO: 563 OF 2010) Between: AND Baby Kandula Vinitha, D/o late Veeranjaenyulu,Age:16 years Occ:Student, rep. by her guardian grand father K.Devaiah, S/o Amruthaiah,Age:63 years, Retd. Employee R.ro H No.16-14-20 K, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 1 1. National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional [Vlanager, D.O.lV,M.J.Irlarket Twin Cities Complex, Hyderabad. 2. A.Dayakar Reddy, S/o A.Yadi Reddy, age: major Fyo H.No.18-245, Pragathi Nagar, Uppal Road, Rama nthapu r, R. R. District. Petition under Section 15'1 of C P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim stay order, passed in MACMAMP No.7551/2008,in MACMASR No.30621/2008 dated'14. 1 1.2008. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. T.RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : ANNAPURNA SREERAM Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : None Appeared cRoss oBJEcTtoNS No.47 0F 2022 Cross Objections filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.08.2007,passed in O.P.No.3203 of 2004, on the file of the MACT -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. BETWEEN: Baby Kandula Vinitha, D/o late Veeranjaenyulu,Age '.22 yearc Occ: Student, F/o H.No.16-14-20 K, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. CROSS OBJEGTOR/RESPONDENT AND

// THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MA CMA No.301 of 2010 and Cross-Obiecti on No.47 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: MA CNIA No.301 of 2010 is preferred by the appellant-lnsurance Company aggneved by the award and decree dated 07-08-2007 in O. P.No 3203 of 2004 on the file of the Motorj Accident Claims Tribu nal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Cross Objections are filed by the claimant seeking enhancement ol the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the said OP, 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-lnsurance Company Mr. T. Ramulu and learned counsel for the claimant Smt S. Annapurna and perused the record. 3. The brief facts are that on lhe intervening night of 25126-08-2004, while the parenls of the claimant were travelling from Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, to Hyderabad, after attending a marriage, in their lndica Car bearing No.AP 09 AP 9937 driven by her father and when they reached near Gollagudem on Addanki- Hyderabad road, a DCM van bearing No.AP 28V 325 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed in opposite direction dashed against the car, due to which both the parents died on the spot. The ctarmant under thc guardianship of her grandfather filed lr

') MA CI\,I LK. J A No 301 of 2010 & Cross Obpction No 47 ol 2022 O.P.No.3203 of 2004 claiming compensation of Rs.19,00,0001 for the death of her father in the accident. 4. Respondent No.2-lnsurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the death of the deceased in the accident. lt is stated that the amount claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. 5. The Tribunal on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence has granted compensation of Rs.12,97,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the daie of deposit. 6. The claimant has filed cross-objections in the year 2O22 and the lnsurance Company has filed counter stating that as the appeal is of the year 2010, on the ground of delay, the said objections cannot be considered. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that being a beneficial legislation, on the ground of delay, the claimant cannot be non-suited. She relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mehmood and others vs. United lndia lnsurance Company Limitedl, wherein the Apex Court has condoned the delay in filing cross-ob.jections. . She further submits that the claimant has lost her parents in the accident and the compensation that was granted by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. She further submits that though the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.18,000/- per month as per the salary certificate-Ex.A9, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased only at ' 2006(4) AcJ 2825

, LKJ .rl.1^ No 30r of 2010 & Cross Obteclron Na 1t ot 2022 Rs.10,000/- anJ it failed to add 40% future prospects and as such, compensahon may be enhan ced B. Learned Standing Counsel lnsurance Company submits that the . Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the cross-objeclions which are filed belatedly took a vrew that the claimants are entifled for interest from the date oI the order passed by this Court. He submits that if this Court comes to a conclusion that the said delay can be condoned, the claimant can only be enti ed for interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of the order passed by this Court. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that there is conkibutory negligence on the part of the driver of the car i.e., deceased. He further submits that the compensation that was granted by the Tribunal is excessive. 9. ln this factual backdrop, the point that arises for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is just and proper. 10. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- even though salary certificate-Ex.Ag shows that he was earning a sum of Rs.18,000/-per month and held that as the amount of Rs.8,0001 are shown as other allowances, the same cannot be taken into consideration. As per the settled law, except the income tax, on the other heads, there cannot be any deduction. ln this case, this Court has perused the salary certificate, as per which there are no Statutory I

J LK, J No 301 o12010 & Cross Ot4ectton Na.47 ot 2022 deductions, as such this Court is inclined to take a sum of Rs.18,0001 per month as salary of the deceased. 11. Learned counsel for the lnsurance Company submits that if the income is above Rs.1,60,000/-, tax has to be deducted. ln that case, he submits that as per the Rules, if the income is above Rs.1,60,000i-, il is amenable to tax and on the first Rs.50,0001, there cannot be tax and on the remaining amount, 10% has to be deducted towards tax. lf it is applied, as the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.18,000/-, annually it comes to Rs.2,16,000/- and if first 50,000t is deducted, it would come to Rs.1 ,66,0001, out of which 10% i.e., Rs.16,6001 is deducted and then it would come. to Rs. 1 ,49,400t and if initially exempted Rs.50,000/- is added, it would come to Rs.1,99,400/-, out of which 1/3'd amount i..e, Rs.66,4661, is deduced towards personal expenses of the deceased and then it would come to Rs.1,32,934t and as the multiplier applicable is '15', the compensation towards loss of dependency would come to Rs.1 ,32,934/-x15=19,94,0101. Apart from that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.44,0001 towards consortium and Rs.1O,Ooo/{owards legal expenses. Thus in total, the claimant is entifled for mmpensation of Rs.2O,81,O1O/- for the death of the deceased in the accident. 12. Then, coming to the cross-objections filed by the claimant, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the lnsurance Company that the claimant has filed cross-objections almost ader 12 years from the date of filing of the appeal filed by the lnsurance Company and those cross-objections are numbered on 21-10-2022. This being a I I

LKJ i.'r,"r"1A No 3U1 c{ 2010 & Cro:s Obl..lioq No Jl of 2022 beneficial leqrslation and in thrs case, quantum is also questioned by the lnsurance C:ompany, this Court deems it appropriate to condone the delay in filinq the cross-objections on condition that the claimant is entitled for rnlerest on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the cross-objecttons. 13. ln the light of the above discussion, the cross-objecto/claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads; 1. Loss of dependency 2. Consortium 3. Funeral expenses 4. Legal expenses. Rs. 19,94,010/- Rs. 44,OOO|- Rs. 33,000/- Rs 10,000/- , I Total: Rs. 20,81,010/- 14. ln the result. MA CMA No 301 of 2010 is dismissed and the Cross-objections are allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.12,97,0001 to Rs.20,81 ,010/-' (a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7 -5o/o pd annum from the date of flling of the cross-objections till realization. (b) The claimant shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amount' (c) The respondent- lnsurance Company shall deposit the compensation within a period of B weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit and on payment of Court fee,

,o fro LK' J No 301 of 2010 & C ross O bqclon No.47 o( 2022 the claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation without furnishing anY secu!-itY. 15. Miscellaneous petations, if any pending in the appeal and the cross-obiections shall stand closed Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Chairman, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRI T.RAMULU, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRI S.ANNAPURNA Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies qD \ To, pcsd kam V \

HIGH COURT DATED:1610312023 JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA.No.301 of 2010 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS No.47 OF 2022 DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A AND ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS $ E JUL 2$8 it I J +tt ) ,.! t t:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 301 OF 2010 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.47 OF 2022 MACMA No.30't of 2010: Between: National lnsurance Company Limited,, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Twin Cities Complex, HYD. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.47 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. Bqby Kandula Vinitha, D/o late Veeranjaenyulu Minor, rep. by her grand father K.Devaiah, Retd. Employee R/o H.No.16-14-20 K, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 is declared as Major,vide Court Order dated 15.02.2023, vide t.A.No.2 of 2022, in Cross Obeicetion No. 47 of 2022 ....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. A.Dayakar ReQdy, Slo A.Yadi Reddy, age: major Fl/o H.No.18-245, pragathi Nagar, Uppal Road,Ramanthapur,R.R.District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Baby.Kandula Vinitha, D/o late Veeranjaenyulu,Age :22 years Occ: Student, R/o H.No.16-14-20 K, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. - CROSS OBJECTOFYRESPONDENT AND 1. National lnsurancd Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, D.o.lV,M.J.Market, Twin Cities Complex, Hyderabad. RE''oNDENT/A,'ELLANT :\

A.Dayakar Redd y, S/o A.Yadr R,-'rldy, R/o H.No 18-245, Pragathi Nagar' 2 Uppal Road,Ranranthapur, R Fl t)istrict RE SPO N DENT/RE S PON DEN T Appeal Under Section 173 ot 1\'4 V'Act and Cross Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 07 08 2007'passed ino.P.No,3203of2004,onthefilerlftheMotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Courls, Hyderabad ' This Appeal and Cross Objections are coming on for hearing' upon peruslnq the memorandum of gnrunds filed in the Appeal and Cross Ob'lections' the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Ramulu' Advocate for the Appellant in M A C M'A'' and for Resopondent No.1 in Cross Objerctions and of Sri Annapurna Sriram for Respondent No.1 in [VI.A.C L4 A and for Cross Objector in Cross Obiections and this Court doth Judgment and Decree as follows: 1. That the appoal MACI\4A No 301 of 2010 is be and here by dismissed' 2. That the Cross Objections are allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs 12'97'000/- to Rs. 20,81 ,010/-,with interesl at the rate of 7 '5% per annum from the date of filing the Cross Objections till realization' 3. The claimants shall be and hereby pay the court fee on the enhan'ced amount Therespondent-lnsuranceCompanyShallbeandherebydepositthe compensatiot.t within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit the claimant is be and hereby permitted to withdraw the compensation without furnishing any security' That save as aforesaid, the decree of Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other resPects 4 Sd/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR dD To, '1. The Chairman. t City Civil Courts lITRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER n?-r[1:j4"." oents claims Tribunar -cum- chief Judse, \-+-- 2. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:1610312023 DECREE MACMA.No.301 of 2010 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS No.47 OF ZO22 DISMISS!NG THE M.A.C.M.A AND ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS u