The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Sree Sree Wines

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN M.A.C.M.A. NOs:1I 6 AND 353 0F 2010 Appeal Under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in o.P.No.1407 0f 2006 dated 05-02-2009 0n the file of the court of the lV Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge -cum- XVlll Additional chief Judge, Hyderabad. M.A.C.M.A. NOs: 186 0F 2010 Between: The oriental lnsurance co Ltd, Represented by its Senior Divisional Manager O/o.Divisional Office-lV, 6-2-976, CAPITOL, Khairatabad, Hyderabad' ..AppellanUResPondent No.2 AND 1 Y.Venkateswarulu, S/o. late Y.Venkaiah, Occ- Labour, R:io. H. No 2-2- 11OOl2t1, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad - 500044 Smt. Pramilamma, Wo.Y.Venkateswarlu, Occ- Household, R/o.H'No'2-2- 11\Otzt1, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad - 500044 3. VSN Malleswara Rao, S/o.Rama Rao, Occ- Business, F/o'56-10-3/1' P & T Colony No.3, Patamata, VijaYawada. '...Respondents/Petitioner 1 &2/Respondent No.1 V.S.N. Malleshwar Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Occ- Business, R/o 56-10-3/1 , PandT Colony No. 3, Patamata, The Oriental insrrance Co Ltd, Represented by its Senior Divisional Manager O/o.Divisional Office-lV, 6-2-976, CAPITOL, Khairatabad, Hyderabad' '..ResPondents/ResPondents 2 M.A.C.M.A. NOs: 353 0F 2010 Between: 1. Y. Venkateshwarlu, S/o.late Y.Venkaiah, Occ- Labour, R/o H'No'2-2- 1 1 OOl21 1, Tilaknagar, HYderabad. 2.Smt.Pramilamma,W/o.Y.Venkateswarlu,Occ-HouseholdRl/o'H'No'2-2- 11O01211 , Tilaknagar, HYderabad. ...Appe lla nts/C liam ants AND 1 2

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2O1O(MACMAM P. NO: 549 OF 2010) Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High court may be pleased stay the orders passed in oP No.1407/2006 dated 05-02-2009 on the file of the lv Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge -cum- XVlll Additional chief Judge, Hyderabad. Couniel for the Appellant in MACMA No.186 of 2010 and Respondent No.2 in MACMA No'353 of 2010 : Sri. R. SHEETAL KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1&2 in MACMA No.l86 of2010 and Appellants in MACMA No.353 of 2010 : Sri. C.M. PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No'3 in MACMA No.186 of 2010 and Respondent No.1 in MACMA No'353 of 2010 : None Appeared The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE M. LAXMAN M.A.C.M.A.NOS.186 AND3 s3 0F 2010 COMMON UDGMENT: Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 05'02'2009 passed in Originat Petition No'1407 of 2006 by the lV Additionat Metropotitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVlll Additionat Chief Judge' Hyderabad, the lnsurance Company fited M'A'C'M'A'No'186 of 2010 and the Ctaimants fited M'A'C'M'A'No'353 of 2010' 2. Since both the appeats are arising out of same original petition, both the appeats are taken up for common disposat' 3. The cLaim petition was fited by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of the deceased namety Y.Madhav in a motor vehicte accident' 4. The evidence on record shows that on 02'09'2005 at 02.45 AM (night) white the deceased was riding the motor cycte' nearRai[NitayamRoad,secunderabad,heattegedtyhittothe stationed vehicLe owned by VSN Matteshwar Rao who is the 1't respondent in MACMA No.353 of 2010 and insured by the Orientat lnsurance Company Limited, who fited MACMA No'186 of 2010' The evidence also shows that such a parking was done in negtigent J

z manner without indicating the tights with regard to the parking, as a result, the deceased hit to the tanker and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. 5. The ctaimants retied upon Exs.A'l to A8 to prove the accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker to which the deceased hit with the motor cycte. PWI is the father of the deceased and PW2 is the constabte who witnessed the accident. The evidence of eye witness shows that the vehicle was parked in the middte of the road without parking tights. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that the negtigence cannot be attributable sotety on the driver of the tanker/truck. There is atso negtigence on the part of the deceased in riding the motor cycle with high speed and hitting the tanker/truck without observing the stationed vehicle. It is atso his contention that there is no evidence to show that the place of parking vehicle is invisible or there were no other street tights to indicate the presence of the vehicle. Without such evidence, it can be assumed that even though parking tights are not exhibited it cannot be said that such a lapse is the

3 contributing factor for the accident. According to him, the negtigence is on both sides, therefore, the negtigence should be apportioned. 7. The contention of tearned counsel for the ctaimants is that as per the eye witness account, there is ctear evidence that the accident occurred on account of non exhibition of parking tights white the statio.ned vehicte is in the middte of the road' Therefore, according to him accident is onty due to sote negtigence of driver of the tanker/truck and there is no negtigence on the part of rider of the motor cycte' 8. Firstty coming to the contributory negtigence aspect raised by the insurance company, this Court looked into the evidence of PW2-eye witness which shows that the vehicte was parked in the middte of the road without exhibition of parking tights. There is no evidence that there are no street tights and the vehicte was parked in the busy area of Secunderabad near Raitway Nitayam. However, it is not a case of the ctaimants that the vehicte was invisibte and there were no street lights' When such is the evidence merety because of the parking lights were not exhibited, that itsetf cannot be a ground to show that the

4 accident is on account of sote neg[igence of the tanker/truck driver. The presumption is that there are street tights in the busy area of Secunderabad and the vehicte is normalty visible and the accident occurred in the early hours. The suggEstion to PW1 by the respondenti show that the vehicle was stationed in order to take reverse, as the vehicle could not proceed forward on account of the obstruction from the underground pass. The above evidence ctearty demonstrates that the negtigence is on the part of both the deceased as we[[ as the tanker/truck driver. Therefore, considering the above evidence, this Court feets that 60% negtigence can be attributabte to the driver of the tanker/truck and 4Q% negtigence can be attributabte to the deceased. 9. Secondly, coming to the fixation of quantum of compensation as chatlenged by the claimants, the Court betow has not considered the net satary of the deceased that he was drawing; and also not considered the lncome Tax Form-16 which ctearty shows that the income of the deceased as we[[ as the various deductions. According to the ctaimants, the monthty income of the deceased has to be enhanced. rt'r,€-.1.

5 10. According to learned counsel for the insurance company, theCourtbetowhasnotconsideredtheincentives,onaccountof that there was a variation in drawing the incentives for various months. Basic and HRA was onty taken into consideration for fixing the monthty satary, which according to him justified' 11. The income tax form for the year 2005-06/Ex'X2 shows that the deceased gross salary is shown as Rs.56234/- and basing on the sald satary, the amounts were deducted at source' The bank statementsweresoughttobeproducedbytheclaimantsbutthe samecouldnotbebroughtonrecordonaccountofforvarious rea50ns. 17. On perusal of the bank statement, it shows that there is a variation in drawing the monthty satary by the deceased inctuding incentives and hence the average satary was not less than Rs.24,000/-. Therefore, this Court feets that monthty income of the deceased shatt be fixed at Rs.24,000/-. 13. ln view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.24,000/- can be taken as income of the deceased, 40% fuLure prospects can be added as per

6 the taw taid by the Hon'bte Apex Court in National lnsurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and othersl, then, it would come to Rs.33,400/- (Rs.24,000 l- + 9,400/-). The deceased being a bachetor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.33,400/- X 50% Rs.16,700/-. As the deceased was aged 23 years at the time of accident, the muttiptier that is appticabte to the age of the deceased is'18'as per the taw taid by the Hon'bte Apex Court in Sarla Varma. (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, then it comes to Rs.36,07,2OOl- (16,700/- x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency. As there are two dependants i.e. parents of the deceased, they are entitted an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards consortium and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 14. Thus, in total, the ctaimants are entitted for compensation of Rs.37,17,200/ - for the death of the deceased in the accident, under the fottowing heads: 1 [2017) 16 SCC 680 , (2009) 6 SCC 121

7 1. Loss of dePendencY Rs. 36,07,2001' 2. Consortium Rs. 80,000/- 3. Loss of estate & funeral expenses : Rs' 30'000/- TOTAL Rs. 37,17,2OO1- 15. As the contributory negtigence is apportioned at 60% on the driver of tanker/truck and 40% on the deceased, the insurance company which insured the tanker/truck is tiabte to pay an amount of Rs.22,30,32O1- to the ctaimants' 16. ln the resutt, the appeat fited by the lnsurance Company i.e., M.A.C.M.A.No.'186 of 2010 and the appeat fited by the ctaimants i.e, M'A.C.M.A.No.353 of 2010 are partty attowed as indicated above and the compensation amount awarded by the Court betow is enhanced from 16,86,000/- to Rs'37,17'200/- and the insurance company is tiabte to pay 60% of the enhanced amount which comes to Rs.22,30,320/-' (a) The enhanced amount sha[[ carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of fiting of the petition I I titt the date of reatization.

(b) The respondent-lnsurance Company shatt deposit the enhanced compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit the ctaimants are permitted .to withdraw the entire compensation in the proportions, as fixed by the Court betow. There shatt be no order as to costs. Misce(taneous apptications, pending if any, shatt stand ctosed. .ri JJ 11..: irl ,. i //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^""'-'^''il)'""' ./ 4/ \ To, SECTION OFFICER 1.:The lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge -+um- XVlll Additionat Chief Judge, Hyderabad (with records) 2. One CC to SRl. R. SHEETAL KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. C.M. PRAKASH, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies PSR dc) i:rir,t i; ri

t I I I HIGH COURT Mlj,J DATED:2710712023 I '; T * t:i !t ,* ! t ii (1 :1 $1 tts ",fi\ L!" 51ATE 9 { () ,o I l ,i .lr i COMMON JUDGMENT t.il MACMA.Nos.186 AND 353 of 2010 PARTLY ALLOWING BOTH MAGMAs WITHOUT COSTS. 6q*r Iro IIF tii r ,$+$i :r! .fi '.1' $-l: , Es,; :. : 1a

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN M.A.C.M.A. NOs: 186 AND 353 OF 2010 M.A.G.M.A. NOs:1 86 0F 2010 Between: The Oriental lnsurance Co Ltd, Represented by its Senior Divisional Manager O/o.Divisional Office-lV, 6-2-976, CAPITOL, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. AppellanURespondent No.2 AND 1. Y.Venkateswarulu, Sio.late Y.Venkaiah, Occ- Labour, Rl/o.H.No.2-2- 11001211 , Tilaknagar, Hyderabad - 500044 2. Smt. Pramilamma, W/o.Y.Venkateswarlu, Occ- Household, Rl/o.H.No.2-2- 11o0l2l'l , Tilaknagar, Hyderabad - 500044 3. VSN Malleswara Rao, S/o.Rama Rao, Occ- Business, R/o.56-10-3/1 , P & T Colony No.3, Patamata, Vijayawada. ...Respondents/Petitioner 1 &2/Respondent No.1 M.A.C.M.A. NOs: 353 OF 2010 Between: 1. Y. Venkateshwarlu, S/o.late Y.Venkaiah, Occ- 1 1 O0l2l'1, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad. Labour, R/o.H.No.2-2- 2. Smt.Pramilamma, W/o.Y.Venkateswarlu, Occ- Household R/o.H.No.2-2- 1 1OOl2l 1, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/Cliamants AND 1 . V.S.N. Malleshwar Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Occ- Business, F/o 56-10-3/1 , P&T Colony No. 3, Patamata, 2. The Oriental lnsurance Co Ltd, Represented by its Senior Divisional Manager O/o. Divisional Office-lV, 6-2-97 6, CAPITOL, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Respondents/Respondents

Appeal under section 173 of Motor vehicles Act against the order and decree in o.P.No.1407 of 2006 dated 05-02-2009 on the fite of the court of the lv Additionat Metropolitan sessions Judge --cum- xvilr Additionar chief Judge, Hyderabad ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri. R. SHEETAL KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA No.186 of 2O1O and Respondent No.2 in MACMA No.353 of 2010 and of M/s. c.M. PRAKASH, Advocate lor the Respondent Nos.1&2 MACMA No..l86 of 2O1O and Appellants in MACMA No.353 of 2010 and for the Respondent No.3 in MACMA No.'186 of 2010 and Respondent No.1 in MACMA No.3s3 of 2010 Not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2B6 of 20 10 filed by the lnsurance Company be and hereby is Partly allowed, 2. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.353 of 2010 filed by the Claimants be and hereby is partly allowed; 3. That the Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.16,86,000i- to Rs.37,17,200/-; 4. That the lnsurance Company be and hereby is liable to pay 60% of the enhanced amount which comes to Rs.22,30,3201', 5. That the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum form the date of filing of the petition_ till the date of realization, 6. That the respondents lnsurance company shall deposited the enhanced Compensation mount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of ac Copy of this Judgment; 7. That on such deposit the Claimants be and hereby are permitted tow thdraw the entire Compensation in the proportions, as fixed by the Tribunal. 8. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and 9. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \-,2r To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge -+um- XVlll Additional chief Judge, Hyderabad (with records) 2. Two CD Copies PSR g

HIGH COURT M J DATED:2710712023 COMMON DEGREE MACMA.Nos.186 AND 353 of 2010 PARTLY ALLOWING BOTH MACMAs WITHOUT COSTS. @,4d L 9o t