[3281 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MACMA.Nos.796 AND 883 ot 2o17 MACMA.Nos.796 AND 883 of 2017 These Appeals are Under Section '1 73 of ftrlotor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.NO.2353 of 2013 dated 24.01 .2017 onthe file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

MACMA.No.796 ol 2017 i Between:

The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by Divisional Officer, 3-8- 41811, 2nd Floor, Above SB Road No.4, Suryodaya Colony, Mansoorabad, LB Nagar, Hyderabad.

.

...APPELLANT/2NO RESPONDENT AND

1. Smt. K. Kalavathi, W/o. Late K.Rajaiah. Aged 38 years, Occ: Housewife, Fl/o

1-2-6081NE1127, DER Milk Lower Tank Bund, Motilal Nagar Nehru Hyderabad

2. K. Karan Kumar, Sio. Late K.Rajaiah. Aged 21 years, Occ: Student No. 1-2-

608lNEl127, DBR Mills Lower Tank Bond, Motilal Nagar Nehru Hyderabad

3. K. Hari Kumar, S/o. Late K.Ra.iaiah. Aged 19 years, Occ: Student, No. 1-2-

608lNEl127, DBR Mills Lower Tank Bund, Motilal Nagar Nehru Hyderabad ....CLAIM PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

4. DH. Dayananda Rani, Wo. Not Known Aged major, Occ: Business, R/o.

H.No.1-7-510i7l6 Hari Nagar, Musheeranad, Hyderabad.

...1ST RESPONDENT

5 T Shiva Kumar. Sio. Harinath, R/o Rlio. H'No 1-7-510/7i6' Hari Nagar'

Zamistanpur, Musheerabad Hyderabad ...3RD RESPoNDENT r.A. NO 1 0F 2017(MACMAMP NO: 1697 OF 2017\

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of execution of the award and decree made in MVOP No 2353 of 2013 dated

24.o1-2olTonthefileoftheMACT-cum.XXVAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCivil Court, Hyderabad, pending MACMA No Tg6 of 2017 on the file of the High Court'

MACMA.No.883 ot 2017 B'-e tween:

i.-( krtrurthi, w/o Late K.Raiaiah Aged 42 y-ears' occ; House wife'

i ii.G;;i;'niir, slo Late K-Ralaia-h nspg?a vears' occ; Emplovee

5" . k.l-i;ri krrar, S/o Late K.Rajaiah Aggd 2z years' occ; Student nii nyo H.r'lo r-z-ooeyNell'zt, DB;R Mill;, Lower Tankbund, lr'4otilalNager Nehru , HYderabad ...APPELLANTS/CLAIM PETITIONERS A""NiD on Davananda Rani, s/o Not known Aged Major, occ; Business R/o H.No.

\-t sritlta, Hari Nager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

2- . The orientat tnsuran6e bompany Limited,'Re^presented by.Divisional officer, z-a-iail,2nd floor, Above SB, il,oad N-o 4' Suryodaya Colony'

Mansoorabad, LB Naqer, Hyderabad- 68

3--. i.Shi;; K;;ir, slo HZiinatn, aged 20 vears , No 1-7-51017i6' Hari Naser'

Zamisthanpur, musheerabad' Hyderabad, ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the APPellant in MACMA.No.796 I2O'17 and Respondent No.2 in MACMA.No.883/2017 : SRI R. SHEETAL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in MACMA.No.796/2017 and Appellants in MACMA.No.883l2O17 : SRI SRINIVASA RAO VEERAMACHANENI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 in MACMA.No.79612017 and Appellant Nos.'l to 3 in MACMA.No.883t2O17 : NONE APPEAERD The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE I,i\.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.Nos.796 and 883 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice G' Sridevi)

These two appeats are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.796 of 2017 fited by the lnsurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.8B3 of 2017 fited by the of mants seeking enhancement the petitioners/ ctai compensaticn, are directed against the very same award and decree, dated 24.01 .2017 passed in IA.V'O'P'No'2353 of 201 3 on the fite of the Motor Vehicte Accidents Ctaims Tribunat-cum-XXV .Additionat Chief Judge, City CiviL Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunat").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties witt hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunat'

3" Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the wife and sons of one K.Rajaiah (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), fited a petiticn against the respondents' ctaiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicte accident that occurred

l

( iS D. .l and N I(iP. .l lvlacnra 796 and liliI 201 7 on 04.0'l .2013. tt is stated thar on

04.01.?.o13 white the deceased was proceeding on his Scooter bearing No.Ap 09 By

5489 to his office at Chertapatty, Hyderabad and when he reached Senior Section Office, Electricat Raitway, South Lalaguda, Secunderabad, one Hero Honda Sptendar bearing No.AP 09 AK 9166 came from opposite direction, driven by its rider i.e., respondent No.3 in a rash and negtigent manner at high speed and dashed the scooter of the deceased, due to which he fetl down and sustained grievous head injury and other muttipte injuries att over his body. lmmediatety after the accident, the deceased was shifted to KIMS Hospitat, Secunderabad, where he took treatment titt

12.0g.2013.

Subsequentty, the deceased died on Zg.Og.ZO13. post mortem examination was conducted on 29.09.2013 at Gandhi Hospitat, Secunderabad. lt is atso stated that the prior to his death, the deceased was working as Assistant Mistry in Security printing and Minting Corporation of lndia L.imited, Centrat Government of lndia, Chertapatty and was drawing Rs.44,774/ _ per month.

Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners tost their source of income. Since the accident was occurred due to the GSD. J and M(il). .i Macrna 796 and 8tl.i 2017 rash and negtigent driving of the rider of Hero Honda Sptendar, the petitioners filed the aforesaid O.P against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the owner, insurer and rider of the said motor cycle..

4.

The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex parte and the respondent No. 2 fil.ed its cou|lter denying the atlegations in the ctaim petition. The TribunaI considering the oraI and documentary evidence brought on record, altowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.36,79,800/- towards compensation with interest at 8% per annum, to be paid by the respondents jointty and severatly. Chattenging the same, the insurance company as we[[ as the petitioners fited the present appeats, respectivety.

5.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners woutd submit that the Tribunal erred in deducting 30% towards professionat tax and income tax. lt is atso submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each to the sons towards tove and affection.

.+

(jSD, .l and IvlGl:'.

.l Macnra 796 and gSi 2017

7.

Learned Standing Counsel appear.ing for the lnsurance Company submits that rhe Tribunat erred in deducting

1/4th towards personal and tiving expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3'd as the dependents are three in number. lt is further submitted that the Tribunat has awarded abnormat amounts of Rs.1,25,000/- under conventional heads and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Nationol lnsuronce Compony Limited Vs. pronay Sethi and othersl it shoutd be reduced to Rs.77,000/-. lt is tastty contended that the Tribunat has awarded interest at B% which is on higher side and it shoutd be reduced to

6%. 8.

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribuna[ has framed lssue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negtigent driving of Hero Honda sptendar No.Ap 09 AK 9166, to which the Tribunat after considering the orat and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, has categoricatty observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negtigent driving of the rider of ' zo17 AcJ 27oo f (iSD. J and l\.4G l'' J Macma 79(r and tiSi 20 1 7 the Hero Honda Splendar Motor Cycle and has answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunat that the accident occurred due to the rash and negtigent driving of respondent No.3, rider of the motor cycle.

9.

lnsofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as per Ex.A1 1, the deceased was drawing monthty salary of Rs.44,274/- per month an(l his annua[ income woutd be Rs.5,31 ,2881-. As per the inc'rme tax slab prevaiting in the year

3 upto Rs.2,50,000/- there was no tax and from

201 Rs.2,51,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- the income tax was'10% and from Rs"5,01 ,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- the income tax was 20% and thereafter 30%. As the annual income of the deceased was Rs.5,31,288/-, a sum of Rs.2,400/- towards professionat and Rs.31 ,757 l- towards income tax have to be deducted therefrom but the Tribunal erred in deducting 30% towards income tax and professiona[ tax. After deducting Rs.31,257l- towards income tax and professiona[ tax, the estabtished annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,00,031/-. Apart from the same, the petitioners are entitted to addition of 15% towards future (iS I). .l and \,lGP..l Nlacma 7,)6 and 883 20i7 prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in Pronoy Sefhi (supra). For the purpose of catcutating the loss of dependency, the annual income would be Rs.5,75,035/-. ln view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport corporationl 1/3'd is to be deducted instead of 1l4th as deducted by the Tribunat. After deducting 1/3'd amount towards his personaI and tiving expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the famity woutd be Rs.3,83,357/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged about 55 years, in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) the suitable muttiptier would be'11'. Apptying multipLier '11' the total toss of dependency woutd be Rs.3,83,357/- x 11 = Rs.42|16,927.0Q. With regard to the conventional heads is concerned, as per the taw laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the petitioners are entitted to onty Rs.77,000/- towards toss of consortium, [oss of estate and funerat expenses, therefore, the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards [oss of ' 2oo9 ACJ t298 (sc)

GSII. J anci MGP, J Macnra-796 and 883-20 17 consortium and funeral is hereby reduced to Rs.77,000/- onty.

Thus, in att the petitioners are entitted to Rs.42,93,927.00.

'10.

lnsofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is that the ctaimants are entitted to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition titt reatization, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and otherss. Hence, the interest granted by the Tribunat @ B% per annum is reduced to 7.5% per annum.

11. At this stage, the tearned Counse[ for the lnsurance company submits that the ctaimants ctaimed only a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded woutd go beyond the ctaim made which is impermissibte under [aw.

12. ln Loxman @ Laxman lvlouryo Vs. Divisional lvlanager, Oriental lnsuronce Company Limited and onothera, the Apex

3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

o (2o l t) to scc 7s6

ti CiSI). .l and i\4(il'..1 Macnra 796 :rnd 881 2017 Court whi[e referring to Nagappo Vs. Gurudayal Singhs hetd as nder:

u "lt is true that in the petition fited by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appettant had ctaimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- onty, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayat Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitted to award higher compensation to lhe victim of an accident. "

13.

ln view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehictes Act being a beneficiaI piece of legistation, where the interest of the ctaimants is a paramount consideration the Courts shoutd atways endeavour to extend the benefit to the cl.aimants to a just and reasonabIe extent.

14.

Accordingty, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.36,79,800/- to Rs.42,93,927/-. fhe enhanced amount wi[[ carry an interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award__oassed by the Tribunat i.e., from ' zoo: ecl rz 1sc;

GSD, J and ir4Gl', .l Nlacnra-796 and 883 201 7

24.01 .7017 titt the date of reatization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shatt be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunat. However, the ctaimants are directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation.

15. Both the appeats are attowed in part as indicated above'

There sha[[ be no order as to costs.

Miscettaneous petitions, if any, pending shat[ stand closed.

SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUW REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY//

I SECTION OFFICER t to", XXV Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court'

The Chairman, MACT -cum-

r*li{if;ii:,,*f :?xJ.,rpc

3. One CC to Sri Snnrve

4. Two CD CoPies 5. One SPare CoPY gbr \

HIGH COURT DATED:06/0912022 i iiE ij T4 \o'i. 7'