[ 3208 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No: 1842 ot 2OO8 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.648 of 2003 dated 19-01-2005 on the file of the Court of the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Fast Track Court at Hyderabad. Between: 1. B. Hanmanth, Sio. Late Narayana, aged about 53 years, Occ: Nil 2. Laxmibai, Wo. Hanmanth, aged 43 years, Occ: Household, Both Rr/o. H.No.18-7-771, Outside Gowlipura, Hyderabad. i ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. The lvlanaging Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. RTC 'X' Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Achampet Depot, Mahaboobnagar District ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants :SRl CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 'a J t THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A. No . la42 of 2OOa JIIDGMENT: This appeal is frled against the award and decree dated 19.01.2005 in O.P.No.648 of 2OO3 passed by the learned Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Fast Track Court at Hyderabad. (for short "the tribunal"-) 2. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 3. O.P.No.648 of 2OO3 rvas llled by the appellants/claimants, who are the parents of thc deceased, hled this application claiming compensation of Rs.3.OO lakhs for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.12.2OO2. After analvzing the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted only Rs.'),ot3,0OO/. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred. 4. As the present appe:rl is prelerred only for enhancement of compensation grantcd br thc trial Court, this Court is not going into other details- ' tacma'No rslzol2s;i 5. karned counsel for the appellants contended that deceased was travelling in an auto in which the auto driver was carrying five persons as against the permitted capacity of three passengers which is contributed to the accident. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and relying upon certain arguments, the tribunal observed that the deceased contributed for thc accident and deducted' ll4th towards the contributory negligence. 7. Insofar as the liabitity is concerned, there was hve persons travelling in thc auto and moreover, charge sheet was irled against thc driver of the RTC bus and the respondent No.1 is Managing Director and rcspondent No.2 is Depot Manager but the driver ancl ou.ncr and insurer were not added as parties. It is for thc rcsponclcnts to establish thc contributory negligence of the Auto drir.cr, thcl' havc cxamined RWl, driver of the RTC bus on behall o[ thc rcsponclents and automatically he will deposc in thcir lirvor:rn<l t.hat it will not prove the contributory negligence on tl)c par-t of thc drivcr of the auto. Even, if it is considcred that tl)c ncgligt'r-rcc is on thc part of the auto driver but not on th(' llilrt o[ thc clcccitscd, who was travelling in the I ; I I 3 II I ! PSS.J N.lac'ru No 1842 of2008 auto along with others. Therefore, the contributory negligence decided by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased was 22 years and unmarricd and was working in a banking company as a musician and earning Rs.4,OOO/- per month. Ex.X-1 is letter of autho rization of Mr. Babudas (PW-3) a companion worker who worked along with him. Thereforc, this Court hnd it reasonable to take his incomc as Rs.4,OOO/- and as the deceased was unmarried half of thc income is to be deducted towards his personal expcnses and as hc died at the age of 22 years, 4O% shall bc addcd tou'ards his future prospects and multiplier of '18'is to bc erpl:licd. 9. As per the guidelines of thc I [on'blc Apex Court in the dictum of Nqtional Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethir, held that the futurc prospccts ol irrcome oi the self- employed deceased shall also bt: inr:ltrdcd in dctcrmination of the compensation. Thus, consiclerirrg tht: :rgr: ol thc deceased, 4O%o of the income has to be aclrlt'rl rorr:rr<ls fLltLlrc prospects and thus the amount would contc to Rs.3,(r00/ per month (Rs.4,OOO/-+Rs. 1600/- being .10')1, thc|t'olJ. As per rhe guidelines of the Hon'ble Apcx Corrrt ir) (li('tr.lrtr ol-Sorla Verrna I lzotzy to scc oto 4 PSSJ Macrna.No.l842 of200E Vs. Delhi T?ansport Cotpordtion,2 if the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the contribution of the deceased to the appellants would be Rs.2,8OO/- per month. This sum if multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.18, it would come to Rs.2,8O0/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.6,O4,8O0 /-. Thus, the appellants/ petitioners are entitled to Rs.6,04,800 /- undcr the head 'Loss of Dependency'. Besides, the appellants also cntitled for compensation under tonventional heads' as prescribe<l in the dictum of Natlonal Insurance Comltang Limtted I/s. Pranag Sethi, i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss o[ Esta[e and Rs. 15,OO0/- towards funeral charges. 10. Further, the Hon'blr: Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive intcrprctation of tonsortium' given in the authority of Mogna General Insura'nce Cornpang Limited us. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhnt Rrr.rn & others3 , and in the authority between United India Insurance Comqtang Limited as. Satind.er Raur (a Sotutinder Kaur a.nd other{, fortified that the amounts for loss o[ consortium shall be awarded to the '1zoo9y r, scc r: r r (zot8) r8 scc r-rn o (zozo) g scc r,r+ 5 1 r I PSS.J Mac'na No 1E.12 of2008 children who lose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.4O,OOO/ - each to appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as fitial consortium(parents). 11. Therefore, the appellants/ petitioners are enrirled for the compensation in the following terms: Loss of dependency Its.6,O4,80O/ - Loss of Estate Rs. 15,O00/ Funeral expenses Rs. 15,0OO/- Filial Consortium to petitioners No. I Rs.80,0OO / - and 2 Rs.40 ooo - each TOTAI Rs.7,14,8OO/- 12- At this stage, the learned counscl lor rltc Respondents submits that the claimants claimed only:r slrnr ol Rs.3,00,0OO/- as compensation and the quantum o[ compt'rrsatiort rvhich is nou, awarded would go beyond thc claim nltclc rvlrich is impcrmissible under law. I 2 4 \) 6 PSS,J Macrra No 1842 of200E 13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court rn Laxman @ Laxman Mourya ys. Dinisiona.l Manage4 Oriental Insurance Compang Limited o.nd Vs.Gurudaga.l Singhe the claimants anotheF and Nagappa compensation even if it is more than claimed by the claimants. are entitled to get just the amount what was 14. In the result, the appe:rl is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount lrom Rs.2,08,OOO/- to Rs.7,14,8OO/- (Rupees seven lakhs fourtccn thousand eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5'Yo per annum from the date of hling the petition till date of realization. Both the respondents shall deposit the entire amount r.r'ithin a period of one rnonth frorn the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgrnent. The compensation is apportionccl to both the appellants equally. On such deposit, thc appellants are entitled to withdraw the said arnount. Thr: :rp pc llants / petitione rs are also directed to pay deficit ttre Court lcc on the enhanced amount. There shall be no or<lcr .rs to costs. 5 lzot ty to ssc zso o zoo: ecr tz 1sc.y 7 PSS.J Mac'na No 18.12 of2fil8 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// <4/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Fast Track Court at Hyderabad. (with records) 2. One CC to SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY, Advocate toPUCl 3. One CC to THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BGVr'liam I DATED:2810712023 Itt*+ii +Iliit tj : l HIGH COURT JUDGMENT tt MACMA.No.1842 of 2008 I( I + 4ItI I Ii 1, i ALLOWING THE APPEAL. WITHOUT COSTS o \g rEt $11 STATE oI 1 o 9' a .l> n- F c$ 'lx DE StrN ?/r)) c T I ?I; f II ; ,, [ 3208 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No: 1842 ol 2008 i iI Betweeir: 1. B; Hanmanth, S/o. Late Narayana, aged about 53 years, Occ: Nil 2. Lbxmibai, Wo. Hanmanth, aged 43 years, Occ: Household, B'oth Rl/o. H.No. 1 8-7-771, Outside Gowlipura, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. RTC 'X' Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Achampet Depot, Mahaboobnagar District. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of fvlotor Vehicles Act agarnst the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.648 of 2003 dated 19-01-2005 on the file of the Court of the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Fast Track Court at Hyderabad. I ORDER: -This.appeal coming on for hearing and upon . perusing the grounds of ? appeal, ihe Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material paper in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY, Advocate and SRI GADDAI/ SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) for the Respondents. * + : 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 amount from Rs.2,08,0001 to Rs'7,14,8001 (Rupees Seven Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred only) with interest at the rite of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of realization; 2. That the both the respondents be and hereby shall deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 3. That the compensation be and hereby is apportioned to both the appellants equally; 4. That on such deposit, the appellants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the said amount; 5. That the appellants/petitioners be and hereby are also directed to pay deficit the court fee on the enhanced amount' Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Et"' SECTION OFFICER 1. The Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Fast Track Courl at Hyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies BG\//kam To, I I I I HIG OURT iIt a it.=. H-'c * + DATED:2810712023 tI{ttt i I + DECREE. i t MACMA.No,1842 of 2008 ALLOWING THE,APPEAL. WITHOUT COSTS Ii 7 v 1A,_\