The High Court · 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI,, INGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUI HAIII RAO MACMA.No.1L97 of 2Ol2 DATED: 17th DECEMBER 2021 Bclween: L Pittala Mangamma and others ... Appellants I Clain. )etitioners And I . ( i. Siva Vara Prasad and another . .. Rcspondents / Re :;t ondents JUDGMET{T I . This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous I ppeal is flled under Section I 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198ti (for short .MV Act') assaiiing the award passed by the Motor Ar r idents Claims Tribunal (t Additional District Judge), Khammam for short ,the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.583 of 2009 dated 16.09.20 O.

2. Appellants are the petitioners and respor< ents are the respondents before the Tribunal.

3. Notice issued to respondent Nos.l and 2 ir the appeal is served but none appeared for them.

4.1 Appellants - petitioners have tiled petition unrl r Section 166 of the MV Act claiming cornpensation of Rs.5.( C,OOO/_ with "-'' 2lE BRMR, J MACMA.No.1197 of 2012 interest at the rate of 18olo per annum towards the death of pittala Venkanna.

4.2 Appellant No.1 - petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3 - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the Iate Pittala Venkanna.

4.3 It is stated in the petition that on the intervening night of 14 I 15.1O.2OO8 while Pittala Venkanna was going towards Gopalapuram viilage on his motor cycle in search o[ work in a granite factory, when he reached near T.Junction on the R & B road between Khammam and Wyra near Relish Dhaba, a lorry bearing No.AP- 16-Y-78 L7 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in opposite direction and dashed thi: motor cycle of Pittala Venkana, due to which he received multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. On the complaint lodged, police Khanapuram Haveli has registered a case in Crime No.25B/2008 against the driver of the lorry for the offence under Section 3O4 (A) of IPC. The deceased was aged about 38 years as on the date of accident, was earning an amount of Rs. 1,O0,00O/- per alnum by doing granite business and he is the only earning member of the family.

5.1 Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte before the Tribgnal. 318 BRT,IR, J IvLr ( ,,lA_No.1197 of 2012

5.2 Respondent No.2 fi1ed counter and denied rl e manner in which the accrdent has taken place and further conle eded that the claim made by the appeilants - petitioners is excessi r

6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following i .sues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash arr( negligent driving b1' the driver of lorry bearing No.n '] 16-Y-7818 resulting in the death of Pittala Venkanna on th€ ltervening night oi 14,/ 15.10.2008?

2. Whether the petitioners are Iegal heirs of the der:r rsed, if so are thev entitled to compensation as prayed, at wlri ! rate?

3. To r,".hat relieP

7. Appellant No.l is examined as PWl, exar ined PW2 P.Sivarama Krishna and got marked Exs.A1 to 44. No witnesses are examined on behalf of the respondent No.:2 Insurance Company, but got marked Ex.Bl- copy of polic1 of the crime vehicle

8. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evi,1 rnce adduced by the parties has partly allowed the petition ar < awarded an amount of Rs.1,75,OOO/- towards compensation ',r,i .h interest at the rate of 7 .SVo per annum from the date of filing of 1 re petition tilI the date of realization payable by respondent Nos. t and 2 jointly z ?'""" u,.d ".r..Jf) 4la BRMR' J MACMA.No ll97 of 2Ol2

9.1 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal failed to assess the income of the deceased in proper perspective, erred in taking notional income of the deceased as Rs.l5,00O/- per annum instead of taking it as claimed in the petition and also erred in awarding the compensation under various heads in proper perspective. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Othersl, (ii) Adam Indur Mutlemma and others Vs. Rathod Reddia and oLhers2 and (iii) Anjali and others Vs- Lokendra Rathod and others3.

9.2 Learned counsel for the appellants has hled calculation

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellanls and perused the material 1 1. Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether the appellants are entitled for just compensation, if so?

2. Whether t.I:e award passed by the learned Tribuna-l in M.V.O.P.No.583 of 2OO9 dated 16.O9.2O10 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requke interferrnce of this Court? -/ t l2oo3) 2 scc 271 , 2015 (,1t ALT 77s (1.8.) I2023 (l)ALD I07 (SC) = 2022 SCC Online SC 1683 s/8 B]tMR, J NI. n VA No. I 197 of 2012

12. Appellants have challenged the quantum a,^,rrded by the Tribunal and there is no dispute ri,ith regard to L -e manner in u,hich the accident has occurred.

13. In Nagappar the Suprcmc Court observed tlr.t there is no restriction about the Tribunal - Court cannot awar(l rlompensation amount exceeding the claim amount. The same v r u, is taken in Adam Indur Muttemma2.

14. The learnecl Tribunal observed in the ord: that as the appellants - petitioners did not file any proof to sho,, the income of the deceased, taken the income of the deceased at ll r.15,O00/- per annum, deducted I / 3.a towards his personal ex I rnses, applied multiplier '16' and arrived at Rs.1,60,O00/-. Furthe- ?s.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and Rs..5 ( 00/ - towards transportation and luneral expenses. In all award :s passed for an amount of Rs. 1,75.000/ -.

15. 1 It is the case of the appellants - petitioners ir he MVOP that the deceased Pittala Vellkanna was doing granit,: business, self employed and u,as earning an amount of Rs.I ,00,0O0/- per annum. This Court is of the view that as the accide r i has occurred in the year 2008, the deceased being a business r ran in granite, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.6,O( t / - per month which will qgeg! the ends of justice. .,,,_- BRMR, J MACMA.No.1197 of 2012 f-1 .:

15.2 The age of the deceased is mentioned as 38 years in the O.p. and as per Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2 - charge sheet and Ex.A3 - PME report, the age of the deceased is shown as 38 years. Therefore the age of [he deceased is taken as 38 years.

15.3. As per Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporationa (i) as the dependants are three in number, personal expenses of the deceased to be deducted at 1/3ra and (ii) as the age of the deceased is taken at 38 years which falls in the age group of 36 - 40 years appropriate multiplier is'15'.

15.4 As per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethis (i) the deceased is entitled for future prospects at the rate of 4Oolo as the deceased was below the age of 40 years, (ii) the alpeliant No.l - petitioner No.1 is entitle for spousai consortium and appellant Nos.2 and 3 - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for parental consortium and (ii) further appellants - petitioners are entitled for funeral expenses and loss of estate.

16. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: S1.No. Name of the head Compensation awarded by this Court 1 2 Income Add 400k prospects Rs.6,O00/- towards future Rs.8,400/- 6,000 + 2,400 4@/o of 6 =2 400 qpcqgl t o scc rzr lzotzl re scc oso BR\rIR' J MAa 1A.No.1197 ot 2012 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deduct 1/ 3ra towards personal expenses Annual income Multiplier '15' Consortium Rs.48,400 / - to each claimant Loss of estate F uneral ex CNSCS Total . Rs.5,6{- .)/ - 8,4OO-2r )0 lO=2 800 3.d oI 8 l0 Rs.67. Rs.1O, 3,0o0/- a 67 ,2OA : 15 Rs.1,4: ,2OOl- (48,400 x i rt0 Rs.18 Rs.18 150 Rs. 11 )a 500

17. The learned Tribunal has arvarded interest z i the rate of

7.5ok per annum, which has to be cnhanced to () 6 as per the decision in the case of Anjalis Hcnce points i re answered accordingly.

18. In the result, MACMA.No.ll97 of 2Ol2 ts all ,rved and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced a I under \ a) The impugned award dated 16 .O9 .2OlO , p I rsed in M.V.O.P.No.583 of 2009, stands modified. b) The compensation au,arded by the Tribu t aI i.e., Rs.1,75,OO0/- is enhanced to Rs.11,89,500/- ogether with interest at the rate of 9'Yo per annum f om the date of hling the petition till payment. c) Appellants - petitioners are directed to pay cor.i t fee on the enhanced amounl. d) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed tc deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with Lnterest BRMR, J MACMA No.l 197 of 2012 O1 and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 da_v''s from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. e) Appellant No.1 - petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.7,13,7OO/ and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing securiry. f) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.2,37,9O0/- each and they are permitted to withdra\.r, their entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application / s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs, SD/. A. JAYASREE SSIS NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC ION OFFICF-R To, The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal cum I Additional District jrJg. ,t Khammam( with records) One CC to Sri Nageswara Rao Repat<ula' Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPies

2. J, 5al Ys HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 I ,d STA () () I s g [[B ?06 C)\ * JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1197 of 2012 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTI;

6.,P?UA \+ [ 3448 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE . PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1197 OF 2 012 B,r)tween: 1 Pittala [Vlangamma, W/o.late Venkanna, aged about 37 years, R/o H No 4- 1-92. Rotary Nagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District 2 Pittala Koteswara Rao, S/o.late Venkanna, aged about 22yearc, R/o. H. No.4- 1-92, Rrtary Nagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban [vlandal, Khammam Drstrict 3 Pittala Chiranjeevi, S/o.late Venkanna, aged about 21 years, R/o.H.No.4-1 92 Rotary Nagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District ...Appellants/Claim Petitioners AND 1 G.Siva Vara Prasad, S/o Siva Rama Krishna, Age Major, Occ: Owner of Lo;'ry Bearing No.AP-16-Y-7817, R/o.D.No.3/140, Machilipatnam Road, Bommuluru Post, Gudivara lVlandal, Krishna District. 2 The National lnsurance Co Ltd, Branch office - 1, Vijayawada rep by its Local Respondents/Respondents Branch Manager, Khammam, Khammam District. Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Order and Decree dated'16-09-20'1 0 passed in OP.No.583 of 2009 on thefileof the court of the Chairman, ft/lotor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge at Khammam This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, thejudgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri Nageshwara Rao Repakula, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed;

2. That the impugned award dated 16.09.2010, passed in M.V O.P. No.5B3 of 2009, stands modified; .t* T -

3. That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal enhanced to Rs. 11,89,5001 together with interest .r., Rs. 1,75,0001 rs lt the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment, 4- Ihat the Appellants-Petitioners be and hereby are di 3cted to pay court fee on the enhanced amountl

5. That the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directetl amountjointly and severally with interest and costs le paid if any within a period of 60 days from thb date : o deposit the awardea is the amount alread5,, 'recerpt of a copy this judgment;

6. That the Appellant No 1 - petitioner No 1 be anc Rs.7,13,7001 and she is permitted to withdraw her er hereby is entitled for lire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security; 7. That the AppellanfuNos.2 and 3 - Petitioner Nos.2 ar entirled for Rs.2,37,9001 each and they are permittec i 3 be and hereby are o withdraw their entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without I 8. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal s-r rnishing security; rll stands confirmed in all other respects, and

9. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/.A. JAYASREE - AS.S STANT REGISPR-AR -u. //TRUE COPY// I l\ \ ' sEcnoN oFFrcER Tr:,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Ll lditional District Judge at Khammam

2. Two CD Copies Sa./Sa YL' F{IGH COURT DATED:1 7 11212025 DECREE MIACMA.No.1197 ot 2012 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTI; -t ecP\et u a tr'6'