Sri Giri Nilayam, Public School, Karmanghat, Hyderabad v. Homes, Besides Dilsukhnagar

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. T MAHENDER RAO COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENT NO.1 tO 3: JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Cross Obiecti on NO: 3 20F 2022: Between:

1. U.Shashidhar, S/o late Anjaiah Aged about. 50 years, Occ. Service, 2. U. Tejasvi, D/o U.shashidhar Aged 25 years, Occ. Student 3. U.Pavan, S/o U Shashidhar.. Aged 22 years, Occ. Student All are R/o Flat s v Homes' l]esides oilsuinnig]i'pu6fu'5i6;:: No. 102, Sri Giri Nilavar Karmanghat. Hydera5adn AND

1. 2 J ...Cross Objectors/Respondents K.Anjaiah. S/o K.Hanumanthu. Aged about. Major, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 1 I - 1 -8Be/s/0/3/A, sttaramoZsi Ifr ij.,lt?i'.' """ 33i'g:?^"r",r.",.fl i?'iFT:ir?'##HLimited,RepbvitsRegionarManaser, U.Vijaya (died) Hyderabad ... Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following : SRI T.MAHENDER RAo : COMMON JUDGMENT ./ THE HON'BLE SMT. JU TICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No 636 of 2Ol9 Cross Ob ectio No.32 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri T. Mahender o learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Compaly and ri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent os.1 to 3/claimants. Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/ Insurance Company aggrieved by 'the award assed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal c m-X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, (for short the Tribunal') 1n M.V.O.P.No.1135 of 2011, dated 3 .O7.2Ol4,wherein, the claim petition filed by the respondent Nos granting compensation of Rs. 17,48, I to 4 /cla:mants was allowed 1 1 / - as against the claim of Rs.15,00,0oo/-.

3. The claim petition was filed by the claimants following death of one U. Sridevi in an accident w ich occurred on 01. l2.2O7O at 4 a.m., when the claimants along th the deceased Sridevi were travelling in Tata Qualis bearing No. 09 AJ 3132 from Tirupati to Hyderabad, near the limits of Addak la Village of Mahaboobnagar ) ) 2 District. At that time, the driver of the Qualis has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bridge on NH 7 to avoid collision with another vehicle and thereby, the accident took place resulting in death o[ U. Sridevi

4. The appeliant/ lnsurance Company challenged the award on the ground that driver of the vehicle in order to avoid head on collision with alother vehicle dashed the bridge on NH-7 and therefore, there is no negligence on his part, consequently, the Insuralce Company is not liable to pay compensation. The second ground urged is that the' income of the deceased was taken as Rs.6,OOO/- per month in the absence of evidence and there is error in gralting bills for Rs.6,59,511/ under Exs.AlO, A11 and A13 on the basis of oral evidence of PW4 who deposed that Ex.A13 final bili was issued for a sum of Rs.5,41, 17 l.97ps. after deducting Rs. l,85,OOO/- which was paid by Star Health Pvt. Ltd. Further, the appellant urged that applying multiplier '16' by taking age of the deceased as 32 years is erroneous and the same has to be ,l4,on the basis of age of claimant No. I who is the husband of the deceased. Lastly, it is claimed that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.17,48,511/-, which is more than the compensation claimed and awarding interest (tt) 7.5% per annum when the Hon,b1e Supreme / \/ \ - *"#*.ii.i': i 3 Court awarded only 60/o per annum in its judgment in Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corpo tion and anotherl.

5. Respondent Nos. I to 3/clai ant Nos. 1 to 3 filed Cross Objections challenging the award fo taking income of the deceased at Rs.6,O00/- per month when she was running Beauty Parlor at Karmanghat, Hvderabad and was e ning Rs. 12,OOO/ per month as per Ex.A 18 certificate. Further, it is urged that the Tribuna-l failed to consider future prospects a 4Ook. Lastly, it is claimed that interest ought to have been Awarded at 97o instead of 7.5%. In the cause title ol Cross Ob.jections, th claimant No.4 is shown as respondent No.3 - U. Vijaya (died).

6. During arguments ln appeal, it is fairly conceded by the learneci counsel for the claimants th t Rs.1,85,000/- has been paid by Star Healrh Pvt. Ltd. and to such xtent, the said amount has to be deducted from the compensati n awarded. The factum of payment of Rs. 1,85,O00/- is proven by the oral evidence of PW4 who is examined by the claimants emselves. Therefore, the said amount has to be deducted from the ompensation arnount granted bv the Tribunal. ' lzooq no rzsa 4 7 . According to the appellart, there is no negligence on the part '.i of the driver of the Qualis as he has dashed the vehicle to the bridge in order to avoid head on collision with another vehicle. Claimant No.1 as PWI does not reveal any such occasion about the driver dashing the Qualis to the bridge in order to avoid head on collision with another vehicle. While so, FIR registered by the police marked under Ex.Al clearly shows that the driver of the car has driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bridge. The said manner of occurrence . of acciden t is also reflected in the charge sheet marked under Ex.A2. ln the absence of oral and documentary evidence to support the contention of the appellant about there being no rash anrl negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Qualis, the said contention cannot be countenalced. Hence, no interference can be made urith the finding of the Tribunal on that ground.

8. With respect to multiplier on the basis of the surviving dependents 15 nO longer good law and the same has to be determined on the basis of age of the deceased. As such, no \ interference can be made with the award on said ground. Lastly, there is po precedent about fixing the interest payable on the compensation awarded. It is for the Tribunal to decide the 5 percentage of interest as per the ci cumstances of each case ald therefore, grant o[ interest at 7.5 o per annum also cannot be interfered with . Accordingly, the gr unds raised by the appellant are answered

9. Coming to the Cross Objectio s, the main ground raised is about the income of the deceased as whether it is Rs.6,OOO/- per month or is to be taken as Rs. 12,OOO - per month. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, th income taken is appropriate as the avocation ol the decdased cording to inquest report is shown to be that of a house wife w o has no income. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respon ents/claimants wouid argue that the details in the inquest report e filled up randomly without any verification and that Exs A18, A19/certificates and trx.A2O/Photographs shorn that t e deceased was a skilled beautician. Referring the said exhi its, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that any'body an produce such certificates without authentication and the photo aphs cannot be proven to be those of the beauty parlor run by the eceased. Further, the details of inquest report were filled up by th concerned police officials by making enquiry u,ith the family members of the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be readily rul d out that the contents of I 'l 6 inquest report are false as compared to the contents of Ex.AlB, A19 and A20. The inquest report filed by the claimants clearly shows that the family members of the deceased u'ho r,r.ere examined before the police stated the avocation of the deceased as a house wife. Therefore, the notional income that was taken bv the Tribunal at Rs.6,OOO/ per month as a house wife is reasonable.

10. In view'of the above discussion, the MACMA No.636 of 2Ol9 Itled by the appellant/Insurance company is allorved in part by reducing the compensation ar.l,arded b,r. the Tribunal from Rs.17,48,5i1/- to Rs.15,63,511/- (Rs.l7,z+8,511/- minus Rs. 1,85,000/-, maintaining the rate of interesr aL T.sok p.a as granted by the Tribunal. The Cross Objecrions No.32 of 2022 flled, by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants is dismissed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay the compensation amount within a period of (B) weeks from the date of receipt of cop1. of judgment by deducting the amount, if any, paid. On such deposit, claimants are entitled to rnithdraw the same without furnishing any security. Insofar as entitlement of claimalt No.4 is concerned. the same shall be disbursed among claimant Nos. 1 to 3 equaliy. Il the deficit Court fee is already deposited b1. the claimants for the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal, the difference 1 \ l Court fee shall be refunded to the claimants, after proper I calculation and under proper ackno ledgement. Miscellaneous Petitions, if an , pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no orcle as to costs \ To, SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE C PYII l CTION OFFICER

1. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims T City Civll Court at Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRI T MAHENDER RAO 3. One CC to SRI JAGATFiPAL REDDY 4. Two CD Copies ibunal -cum-X Additional Chief Judge, dvocate [OPUC] Sl REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Svs/PSL 4!" HIGH COURT DATED:1 310312025 ATE OF \\t 6)> FJ + I L q 811 c/'\ t DESE f, COMMON JUDGMENT + COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.636 ot 2019 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.32 OF 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.636 OF 2019 AND DISMISSING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.32 OF 2022 6 \1 134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TH STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE BAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTE NTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AN TWENW FIVE PRESE T THE HONOURABLE SMT J STICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL EOUS APPEAL NO: 636 OF 2019 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.320F 2022 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO S APPEAL NO: 636 OF 2019 : Between : Reliance General lnsruance Co Ltd., Hyd ...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. U. Shashidhar S/o. Late Anjaiah, aged 4 years, Occ: Service.

2. U. Tejasvi D/o. U, Shashidhar. aged abo t24 years, Occ: Student.

3. U. Pavan S/o. U, Shashidhar. aged abou 21 yearc, Occ: Student. RR2 and 3 are declared as majors their natural guardian from their guardians in lA No.2 of 2021 y discharged their father R1 who is ip vide court order dated 0110912021

4. U. Vijaya Wo. Late anjaiah, aged about 2 years, Occ: Housewife. All are R/o. Flat No. 102, Sri Giri Nilayam, Public School, Karmanghat, Hyderabad. V. Homes, Besides Dilsukhnagar

5. K. Anjaiah Sio. K Hanumanthu, aged Maj 889/S/0/3/A, Sitarambagh, Hyderabad. r, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 11-1- Appeal filed Under Section 173 of M tor Vehicles Act and Memorandum of C., against the Judgment and decree Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 C in O.P.No.1135 of 2011 dated 31-7-2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-X Additional Chief Ju ge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad ...RespondenURespondent No.1 Cross Ob ection NO: 32 OF 2O22: Between: 1 2 J 1 2 AND U.Shashidhar, S/o late Anjaiah Aged about. 50 Years, Occ. Service, U. Tejasvi, D/o U.Shashidhar Aged 25 years, Occ. Student U.Pavan, S/o U.Shashidhar, Aged 22 years, Occ. Student All are R/o Flat No.102, Sri Giri Nilayam, S.V.Homes, Besides Dilsukhnagar Public School. Karmanghat, Hyderabad ...Cross Objectors/Respondents K.Anjaiah, S/o K.Hanumanthu, Aged about. Major, Occ Business, R/o H. No. 1'1 - 1 -889 ISl0I3l A, Sitarambagh, Hyderabad. Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Regional Manager, Office at Abids near GPO, Hyderabad. U.Vijaya (died), Hyderabad ... Res po n d e nts/Res po ndents These appeals coming on'for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Mahender Rao, Counsel for the appellant in MACMA No.636/2019 and Respondent No.2 in Cross Objections No.3212O22 and Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 to 3 in MACMA No.636/2019 and for the Petitioner in Cross Objections No.3212022. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 636 of 2019 filed by the appellanUlnsurance company be and hereby is parfly allowed and the Cross-objections No.32 of 2022 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants is dismissed;

2. That by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.'17,48,511/- to Rs.'15,63,511/- (Rs. 17,48,511/- minus Rs. l,85,000t, maintaining the rate of interest al7.5o/o p.a as granted by the Tribunal;

3. That the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay the compensation amount within a period of (B) weeks from the date of receipt of copy ofjudgment by deducting the amount, if any, paid;

4. That On such deposit, claimants are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security;

5. That lnsofar as entitlement of claimant o.4 is concerned, the same shall be disbursed among claimant Nos. 1 to 3 6. That lf the deficit Court fee is alread compensation amount granted by the T be refunded to the claimants, after ually; deposited by the claimants for the bunal, the difference Court fee shall roper calculation and under proper a ckn owled ge ment. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE CO CTION OFFICER '1 . The Motor Vehicle Accidents Clai Judge, City Civil Court at Hydera s Tribunal - d. m-X Additional Chief

2. Two CD Copies 4/ To, SvsiPSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 310312025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.636 of 2019 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.32 OF 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA NO,636 OF 2019 AND DISMISSING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.32 OF 2022 1 ( x L