Iesharid, Ibdi Kornurauta und others v. Garshe Bucho

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA lu.A.C.M.A.N o.29 OF 2o23 JUDGMENT:- Heard Sri V.Satyzun Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Venkatarami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by tlre order, dated 08.08.2O13 passed in O.P.No. 1O23 of 2OO7 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, 'the TribunalJ.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants fJed claim petition seeking com re nsation of Rs.7,00,0OO/- from the respondents jointly and severally rvith interest on account of death of one S.Srinivas in a road trafhc accirlent which occurred on O3.08.2OO7 at e-bout 8:3O P.M. On the said date, the deceased was driving car bearing No.AP 9F 3577, which was orvned by respondent No.3, and while the de<:eased was travelling from Toopran to Hyderabad and on reaching the outskirts of Imampur Village on I,lH7, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AI'2ST 5346, which was owned by respondent No.l and insured by respor:.dent No.2, came in opposite direction at high speed and dashed the :ar due to \ \\ I 2 \ which the deceased died on the spot. Due to the death of the deceased, the appellants frled the claim petition.

4. The appellants got examined P.Ws.l and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A6. The respondents got examined R.Ws.l and 2 and got marked Exs.Bl to 84. The Tribunal examined the oral and documentary evidence and awarded compensation of Rs.S,OO,OOO/- with interest at 7 .5o/o per annum frxing the liability on respondent No. I alone. The claim petition is dismissed against respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

5. In grounds of appeal, the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in not l-rxing the liability on respondent No.2-insurance company, by ordering pay and recovery from the owner of the offending vehicle. Further, it is alleged that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate. As such, prayed that the compensation be enhanced.

6. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the ratio laid down in the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India in Natlonal Insurance Company u- Sutoran Singhr is squarely applicable to the present case in fixing liability on the owner of the crime vehicle, while ordering the insurance company to pay the compensation at the hrst instance and then recover the same from the 'zooolzleto:e / 3 owner. In addition, the learned counsel emphasized that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects, loss of consortium and loss of estate ,/ i/ // ( etc. 7 . In response, lerrrned counsel for the insurance compally argued that the Tribunal has considered the issue of pay and recover] and then proceeded to ltx liabi ify on the owner alone. As such, prayeC that the order passed by the Tribunal be confirmed.

8. Firstly, coming to the issue of liability to pay compen:;ation, the Tribunal considered the legal ratio laid down by the Horrbl: Supreme Court of India and various High Courts in Suara,n Singh (supra 1), I{ational Insurdnce Compang Limited o. Annappa Irappa l;Iesharid, Ibdi Kornurauta und others v. Garshe Bucho:iaht, ,Iayaprakash Agarual and othcts v. Mohd. Kaleemtlla and othersa, Itlew India Assurance Compan.y Linlted a. Siddarapu Gio;ngoic,h (died) per LRs. and. otherss, Natlonal Insuranlce Compang Limlted. fri.ntpathi u. M.A.Annapunto.tlnur and othersF, I{eut Indla Assurance Compang Limited v. Bolalcrishnan and otherd and Oriental Insurance Compang Linlted u. Puran and other#, and concluded that pay and recovery is an exceptional jurisdiction exercised by the superior Courts ' 2oo8(rlaLo 1+2 'zEr:i+iaLr:zz o zorli:i arr aga 'zotz(+)aro oo u zotz(s) aLo tza ' 2ot2 Aa zqqt 'zolz ao a51 4 and declined to exercise such jurisdiction and therefore, ordered the owner alone to pay t}le compensation. When there is valid insurance policy which was in force at the time of accident, as per judgment of the Hon'lrle Supreme Court in Sua,ra:n Singh's case (supra l), the insurance company has to satisfy the decree at lirst instance and recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the crime vehicle by following due process of law. The instant case is no exception and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is to be modified to the said extent.

9. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the appellants did not challenge the monthly income taken into consideration by the Tribunal at Rs.3,OOO/-. Therefore, the same need not be interfered with.

10. The age of the deceased is 26 years as on the date of the accident. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ltk,tiondl Insurance Company Ltd. a. Pranag Sethl ond other9, if future prospects at 4OYo is added to the annual income, the net annual income comes to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.36,000/- + t4,4OOl-].. Since there are four dependents on the deceased, if 1/4th of the income is deducted towards personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.37,8OO/-. If the said amount is .multiplied by the apBropriate multiplier '17', as per Scrlc Verma o. Delhi Transport '/ 'zorz (e) rzo (sc) f / I 5 Corporationro, th,: total compensation under ttre head of 'loss of dependency' would be Rs.6,42,600 I -. / /

11. The Tribunal arvarded Rs.25,OO0/- towards loss of estate, the same need not be interfe:-ed with. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium rLnd the same is enhanced to Rs.4o,000/-. Further, a sum of Rs.6,000/ - was awarded towards transportation and funeral expenses and the said amount is increased to Rs.25,OOO/-. In addition, appellant Nos.2 anC 3 are entitled to payment of filial consortium of Rs.44,00O/- each ancl appellant Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to payment of parental consortiunr of Rs.44,000/- each. In total, the ap cellants are entitled to Rs.9,O8,60O/- towards compensation.

12. [n the result, \4.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is her,:by enhanced from Rs.5,O0,00O/- to Rs.9,08,600/- with interest @ 7.59', per zrnnum from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the appellants are not entitled for interest for ttre delray period in pref,:rring the appeal as per order dated 1t.O4.2O25 in I.A.No.2 of 2023. The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by respon<tent Nos. I and 2 jointly and severally wittrin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of ttris .Iud1;ment. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount as apportioned by the Tribunal, without furnishing an1. securigr. 'o1zoos1 o s.c.c. tzt l I I 6 \ However, the appellants are directed to pay tJle deficit Court-fee on the enhanced compensation. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand I closed Sd/- T- JAYASREE DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Principal Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. One CC to SRl. V SATYAM REDDY Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. V. VENKATARAMI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BA M. HIGH COURT RY,J DATED:14lATt2t025 JUDGMENT :-: 1A .) ') tI0|.2 ?lf6 MACMA.No,29 of 2023 t z I * l I M.A.C.M.A. IS; ALLOWED ( \ L 134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 29 OF 20?3 Between: ('CT Vide Separate Sheet attached) '1. S.Malleshwari and 4 others, W/o. Late Srinivas, Aged about 38 Years, Occ- Household,

2. S.Mahesh, S/o. Late Srinivas, Aged about 17 years, Minor, Occ- Student, 3. S.Kiran, S/o. Late Srinivas, Aged about 16 years, Minor, Occ- Student, (Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are being minors, They are represented by their mother and Natural guardian Appellant No.1 herein.

4. S.Laxmaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Aged about 75 Years, Ocrc- Labour, 5. S.Yadamma, Wo. S.Lakshmaiah, Aged about 63 years, Occ- Household, (All are Rl/o. Plot No.51, Lalitha Nagar, Ward No.6, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.) ...APPELLANTS/PETITtONERS AND

1. M.Manohar and another, S/o. M. Rajaiah, Aged- Major, Occ- Owner of Vehicle No. AP 25T 5346, C/o. M.Sudarshan and Company, 3-100, HPC Kerosene Dealer, Balionda Mllage and Mandal, Nizamabad District. 2. The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, T.P, Claims Cell, Dr.No. 5-2-17412,2nd Floor, Madan Mohan Buildings, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. .,..RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 1023 ol 2007 dated 08/08/2013, on the file of Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Principal Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. ORDER: This Appee I coming on for hearing and upon perusinll the grounds of appeal, the Judgmerrt and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon lrearing the arguments of Sri. V. Satyam Reddy Advocate for Appellant and of Sri. \t. Venkatarami Reddy Advocate for Respondent No.2. This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs,. 9,08,800/- with interest @ 7.5(/o from the date of petition till the date of realrzation. However, the Appellants a'e not entitled for interest for the delay pa:;sed in preferring the appeal as ;rer under order dated. 11.O4.2O25 in l.A. No. 2 of 2023.

2. That the enharrced compensation amount shall be deposited by respondent's No. 1 and 2 jo ntly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Judgment.

3. That on suctr deposit the appellants are entitled to withdraw :he entire amount as apportioned by the tribunal without fumishing any security. However, the appellants are directed to pay the deficit court fee, orr the enhanced compensation.

4. That save as afo'esaid the decree of the lower Court shall stirnds confirmed in all other respe<;ts; and

5. That there shall [re no order as to costs in this appeal. Srl/- T. JAYASREE DEPIITY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// becrtou oFFrcER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Principa Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. Two CD Copie; BA W HIGH COURT DATED:14107 i2025 DECREE MACMA.No,29 of 2023 M.A.C.M.A. IS; ALLOWED \D (,