The New India Assurance Company Limited, v. Chintapatla Prasanna Laxmi , Manjula

[ 33ol ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK M.A.C.M.A.NO: 1574 OF 2007 AND 3955 OF 2012 M.A.C.M.A.No.1 57 4 ot 2007 Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in OP.No.1799 of 2004 dated 01-05-2007 on the file of the Court of the XXll Additional Chief Judge - cum - before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad.

Between:

The New lndia Assurance Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, [Policy No.558/62093/61603, dated 05-09-2003 issued by Narasaraopet Branch Office, valid from 06-09-2003 to 05-09-20041 .....APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND

1. Chintapatla Prasanna Laxmi @ Ivlanjula, Wo Late Chintapatla Srnivaschary, aged 22 years, Occ : House hold

2. Ch. Sushma, D/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, aged 2 years

3. Ch. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Chintapatle Srinivaschary, Age 30 days (Res. 2 and 3 are being minors rep. by their natural guardian and mother i.e 1'' Respondent) Rl to R3 Rl/o C/o Sri Sai Deepa Rock Drills [P] Limited, Cherlapally, Hyderabad.

....RESPONOENT/PETITIONERS

4. K. Shankar Yadav, S/o K.Ashaiah, age major Business, Owner of Lorry no AAP 7 W 2149 No H.No.27-16118/6/1, Srikrishna nagar, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy District. (Owner of the Lorry bearing No.AAP7W2149)

,7

5. G.Satyanaraya na, S/o Seshagiri Rao, age major R/o 9th Ward, Park Bazar, Sattenapalli, Guntur District.

(Amended as per Order No.l.A.No 3271O5, dated 01-06-2006) .....RESPONDENTS/R]:SPONDENTS M.A.C.M.A.No.3955 OF 2012 Between

1. Chintapatla Prasanna Laxmi @ Manjula, W/o Late Chintapatla tlrnivaschary, ' aged 22 years, Occ : House hold

2. Ch. Sushma, D/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, aged 2 years

3. Ch. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, Age 30 days C/o.Sri Sai Deepa Rock Drills [P] Limited, Cherlapally, Hyderabad. ....PETITIONERS'\PPELLANTS AND 1 . K- Shankar Yadav, S/o K,Ashaiah, age major Business, Owner of Lorry no. AAP 7 W 2149 Rlo H.No.27-16118/6/1 , Srikrishna nagar, Malkajr;iri, Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy District. (Owner of the Lorry beari rg No.AAP7W2149)

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

3. G.Satyanarayana, S/o Seshagiri Rao, age major R/o 9th Ward, l>atk Bazat, Sattenapalli, Guntur District.

(Amended as per Order No.l.A.No.327105, dated 01-06-2006) ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA.1574lO7 lor Respondent No.2 in 395512012:

Sri.B.Devanand Counsel for the Appellants in MACMA.395512012 for Respondents .2 to 5 in MACMA1574/07 : Sri.P.Rama Krishna Reddy The Court made the following Common Judgment : -

..#-*,,.-*--7 THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK M.A.C.MA. Nos.1574 of 2OO7 and 3955 of 2Ol2 COMMON JUDGMENT These tu'o appeals a-re being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No. i 574 of 2007 filed by the lnsurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.3955 of 2012 ftled by claimants are directed against the very same judgment and decree, dated 1.8.05.2017 made in O.P.No.l799 of 2OO4 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-XXiI Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"). 2.

The case of the claim petitioner in brief:

On 15.01 .2OO4 in the midnight at about 12.00 p.M. Chinthapatla Srinivasa Chary (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No. AP-28Q 4552 lrom Hyderabad towards Alair slowly on extreme left side of the road and when he reached near the viliage limits of Tallagudem, one lorry bearing No.Ap-7W2149 driven by its driver with high speed in rash and

\t \( \l\ \(r r i 'r )i o xrl l\ri<,)flrrll negligent manner and dashed the motorcvcle of the deceased from behind and as a result, the deceirsed fell down, sust.ained fatal injuries and died on the slrot 3.

It is pleaded that the deceased \\ias aged alout 25 years at the time of accident and he '"r'as halt:, healthy, young alld energetic. It is further pleaded that pric'r to his death, the deceased u'as sorking as Turner rn Sri Sai Deepa Rock Drills (P) Ltd., Chertapally, H,vderaLad and getting salary of Rs.6,O00/ pcr month ar-rd rtsed to contribute his earnings lor the mairltenanc:e of the claimants. Due to sudden demisc of the dcceas;ed, the claimants lost their dependency, love and affection and their source of income. Therefore, the claimants laid the claim against respondent Nos.1 to 3, claiming compensation of Rs.12,0O,000/- under various hearls' 4 .

Respondent No. 1 filed counter before the T'ribunal opposing the claim of claimants and contended that the lorry driver was having valid driving licence at the time of accident and the said vehicle was having valid inr;urance

- .,i;*, q l,k.

y,\( \T\ \o | 57.1 ol :r)ir7 and 39ji ri tlrll -'t policy as on the date of accident, therefore, respondent No.2, insurance company alone is liable to pay the compensation 5.

Respondent No.2/New India Assurance company filed its counter before the Tribunal and opposed the claim petition inter alia contending that the claim petition is not maintainable and is liable to dismissed. It is pleaded that the claimants are put to strict proof regarding manner of occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further pleaded that the deceased had no proper and valid licence and the deceased without observing the following tralfic rules drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby contributed for the accident. Respondent No.2 filed petition in I.A.No. 327 of 2OO5 under order 1 rule 10 of C.p.C to implead one G. Satyanarayana, who is the owner of vehicle bearing No. Ap_ 7W-2L49 and respondent No.3 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

\l \( \l \ \,,1i L 'i lrr ir'Ll r,r: ,' r,)ll I 6.

On behalf of the claimants P.Ws. 1 to 3 u'ere examined. trxs.Al to A19 and trxs.Xi to X5 s'ere marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 u'as examinecl. Ex.Bl pohcy u,as marked.

7 .

On considering the material and evidencc on re cord, the Tribunal had allowed the O.P. in part by a'r'arding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- together u'ith int'rrest at 7 .Sok per arnum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, payable by respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointlv and severally as under:

1.

Loss of income Rs.2,72,000 2.

Funeral expenses Rs.2,00O 3.

Loss ofestate Rs.i0,0O0 4.

Loss of consortium Rs.15,0OO Total Rs.2,99,O00/ Rounded of to Rs.3,OO,00O/ - 8.

Heard both sides and perused the record'

PK. J ivl,\('\1,\ \o I :7 I ol 2tl0l and 1955 ol l{)ll 9.

Learned counsel appearing for the claimalts contends that the Tribunal had rvrongly taken the earnings ol the deceased on lou.er side and awarded less compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal lailed to take in to consideration the future prospects and increase in the salary. As per Ex.A8 to Ex.A1O, the deceased was skilled worker having passed National Trade Certificate (ITI), National Apprentice Ship and Trade Apprentice Ship. It is further conLended that the Tribunal erred in awarding less compensation tou,ards consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

i0. In contra, the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that there was contributory negiigence on the part of the deceased as he drove the motorcycle without observing the vehicles. It is further contended that the Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier 17 for the age group of 33 years old deceased u,hich is on higher side. It is further contended that the Tribunat grossly erred in awarding excessive compensation under

t,\ I \t\(\l\\,:-I,it l0 )'r|.1 r.riiL) -irtdifferent heads. It is lurther contended thar the Triltunal failed to appreciate the specific plea of the insurer Ll-rat insurarce policy was issued in the name of 3,,1 resporrdent ar-rd 1"1 respondent is no way concerned and that he is not the owner of the lorry involved in the accident as alleged by the claimants 1 1 . This court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective parties

12. A perusal of the record would show that the l'ribr-rnal had framed Issue No.1 as to whether the :rc<:id,:nt took place on 15.01.2005 at midnight due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AP O7 W 2149 by its crivcr, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence tl P.W.2 coupled with the documentaqz evidence i.e., trx.Al- F.l.R. and Ex.A2-charge sheet, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. Therefore, this Court hoids that the Tribunal had justified in holding that the

I PN. J \lr\a \1 \ \o lj rt ot lrrL,_ . r!i lgj5 ot t ltl accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of iorry bearing No.AP 07 W 2149.

13. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was norking as Turner (skilled worker) and earning Rs.6,0O0/- per month, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/ per annum. In vier.r, of the decision of the Apex Court in Minu Rout Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatral, this Courr is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.6,0OO l- pe, month by treating the deceased as skilled worker. The claimants are also entitled to an addition of 4Ooh towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in National fnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2.Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.8,40O/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,aOO/-). As the dependants are 3 in number, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. ' (zor) to scc oqs z to17 AcJ 27cf

l'\.1 NI\( \tr\.Noii-tt,atolrl .rra r.ri<Lrl l) -'w After deducting 1/3rd amourlt towards his pers,rnal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceascd to Lhe family works out to Rs.5,600/- per month. As p,:r S.S.C. Certificate, the age of the deceased was 33 yr:at s al thc time of the accident, hence the appropriate multiplrer is '16'. Adopting multiplier '16', the total loss of dep,en6ign6y' comes to Rs.5,6OO/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 10,75,200/. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,OO0/- under the conventional heads i.e., loss of consortium, loss rrf estale and funeral expenses as per Pranay Sethi's case (sr-t pra). Apart from the above, as per the decision of the Apr:x Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3, considering the fact that the claimant Nos.2 ald 3, who. are the chilclren of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,0OO/- each under the head of parental consortium Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 12,32,200/- as under:

1.

Loss of income Rs.10,75,200 r (2018) t8 scc r3Q- _

,7 l)K. I trlA( \l \ \(' t5;.1 ol l0r)' r,)J rrj i ()l l,, il 2.

conventional heads Rs.77,000 3.

Loss of consortium Rs.80,000 Total Rs.l2,32,2OO /-

14. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.l2,OO,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the ciaim made which is impermissibie under law.

15. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman (@ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another4 and Nagappa Vs, Gurudayal Singh5, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. The Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficia-l piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always o (2o n ) lo scc 7i6 5 zoo: ,rcL ru 1sc1

,\] ;9 ::

\1\-\1\\olill"fI)llr nJ rqir rl lrrll endeavour lo extend the benefit to the claimant s .:o a just and reasonable extent

16. Accordingly, M.A.C.M'A No'1574 of 2OO7 fileC bv tl-ie Insurance Company is dismissed and M'A'C M'A'No 3955 of 2012 filed by the claimarlts is allowed The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is herebv enhanced from Rs.3,0O,OOO/- to Rs' 12,32,2OO1-' The enhanced amount will carry interest (a-1, 7 '5o/' per annrrnl liom the date of petition till the date of realization The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimanl's in the sarne proportion in which original compensatio n emounts were directed by the Tribuna'l' Time to deposit the compensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit' th e maj or claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security' subject to payment of deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount' There shall be no order as to costs'

')'

r t,|....] \lA( N1A \o I5r- l ol 1007 3|J r,)ii (il lUIl ll '

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these appeals shall stand closed.

Sd/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Xll Additional Chief Judge - cum - Before the MACT - City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri.P.Bhanu Prakash, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri.B.Devanand, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri.V.Krishna Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies SA ?onq.

HIGH COURT DATED:3011212022 STAT€ Op NB () 'i.., \() \'L ttt ;tl -n :,, COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.1574 of 2007 Ap> zlss/ MACMA.1574IO7 IS DISMISSED AND MACMA.3955/I2 IS ALLOWED.

@e^q 2-..L&\D'

[ 3301 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK M.AC.M.A.NO:157 4 0F 2007 AND 39ss OF 2012 M.A.C.M.A.No.1574 of 2007 Between:

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

[P-olicy No.558/62093/61603, dated 05-09-2003 issued by Narasaraopet Branch Office, valid from 06-09-2003 to 05-09-20041- .....AppELLANT/RESpONDENT No.2 AND 1 . Chintapatla Prasanna^Laxmi @ Manjula, Wo Late Chintapatla Srnivaschary, aged ZZ years,bcc : House hold

2. Ch. Sushma, D/o Late Chintapafla Srinivaschary, aged 2 years

3. Ch. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Chintapafla Srinivaschary, Age 30 days ([e9. 2 and 3 are being minors rep. by their natural guardian and mother i.e 1" Respondent) R1 to R3 Fi./o C/o Sri Sai Deepa Rock Drills [p] Limited, Cherlapally, Hyderabad.

....RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS

4. K. Shankar Yadav, S/o K.Ash_aiah, age major Business, Owner of Lorry no. AAP 7 W 2149 Ryo H. No.27-1611-816/1,'srikrishna naoar. Matkaioiri lecy1{gqU.qO, Ranga Reddy District. (Owner oiti,e-f_oir-y-U'eiiing-'"" " No.AAP7W2149)

5. G.Satyanarayana,..S/o Seshagiri Rao, age major Fyo gth Ward, park tsazar, Sattenapalli, Guntur District.

(Amended as per Order No.l.A.No.32Zl05, dated O1{6_2006) .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

M.A.C.M.A.No.3955 OF 2012 Between 1 .Chintapatla Prasanna Laxmi @ Manjula, Wo Late Chintapa.la Srnivaschary, aged 22 years, Occ : House hold

2. Ch. Sushma, D/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, aged 2 y,lars 3.Ch. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Late Chintapatla Srinivaschary, Age 30 days C/o.Sri Sai Deepa Rock Drills [P] Limited, Cherlapally, Hyderalrad. ....PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND 1.K. Shankar Yadav, S/o K.Ashaiah, age major Business, Owner of Lorry no. AAP 7 W 2149Rlo H.No.27-16118/6/1, Srikrishna nagar, Malkz.lgiri, Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy District. (Owner of the Lorry bearing No.AAP7W2149) 2.The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

3.G. Satyanarayana, S/o Seshagiri Rao, age major Rl/o gth WarC, Park Bazar, Sattenapalli, Guntur District.

(Amended as per Order No.l.A.No.327105, dated 01-06-2006) ....RESPONDENTS/RI:SPONDENTS Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the o(Jer and decree in OP.No.1799 of 2004 dated 01-05-2007 on the file of the Court of the XXlt Additional Chief Judge - cum - before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Criminat Court at Hyderabad.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material pap€rs in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.B.Devanand, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA-1574/07 for Respondent No.2 in 395512012 and ol Sri.P.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents 3 to 5 in MACiMA.1174l1l and Appellant MACMA.3955/1 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 compensation awarded by the XXll Additional Chief Judge - cum - Before the MACT, City Criminal Court, Hvderabad is enhanced from Rs.3,00,0001 to Rs.12,32,2001-.

3. That the enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. That the enhanced amounl shall be apportioned amount the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the tribunal time to deposit the compensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

5. On such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdrawn therr respective share amounts without furnishing any security, subject to payment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced amounts.

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects ; and

7. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. B. MACMA.No.1574lO7 : - This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : - That the MACMA.No.1574|07 filed by the lnsurance Company is d ism issed.

Sd/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To ,3<rt l.TheXll Additional Chief Judge - cum - Before the MCT - City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.

2.Two CD Copies SA Pnu..

HIGH COURT DATED:3011212022 COMMON DECREE l)- MACMA.N o.1574 of 2007 A t! D Botss MACMA.1574IO7 IS DISMISSED AND MACMA.3955/12 IS ALLOWED.

,,b