The High Court · 2025

HONOIURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.3449 OF 2009 JUDGMEN'I: A51g -il-r r d by the dismissal order datcd 2'I l)I.2OOg (hereinaltr:r r,, 11 be referred as ,impugned order,) p:rsserl by the Motor A:ci<1:nts Claims Tribunal - cum - III Acldititnal District and Sesr;iorLs ,ludge (FTC), Medak (hereinafter will tr,_. re1"r..O ." Tribunal" ir O.P.No.487 of 2006, the petition,:r/ r: lai rr,an t has filed tL e pr--scnt Appeal seeking enhanccment of the compens.a i,: r

2. For t i( sake of convenience, the partier; h,:reinr,Lfter be referred ts tht/ vvere arrayed before the Tribuna .

3. The brir:'lacts of the case as can be seen fronr th,: record are that ,he ,;,;6 petilioner has filed ciaim petition undcr Section i 66 of M rt o - Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming comp3n si tion of Rs.3,0O.O00 r lrom the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 for t he r leath of deceased Ll ri,me "Balakistaiah" (hereinafter u,i:I be rcfr rred as 'deceasec ') 1 lre reason assigned by the petitiorer, wh,; is the mother oI rLr: rleceased, for the death of the dece,aserl is lhat on

29.O3.2Ot)(' rhe deceased along with two others \vere pro(reeding from Merla k o Sangareddy on a motorcycle zLnd s,ht n they t t reached near Shishu Mandir School, Sangareddy, a lorry bearing registration No. UP 12 B 2520 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicleJ came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, as a result, the three persons died on the spot. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to tl.e rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, which belongs to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,O0,0O0/ against respondents jointly and severally.

4. The respondent No.1, who is the owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte and whereas, the respondent No'2 Insurance company ltled counter denying a1l the averments in the claim petition including age, avocation, income, manner of accident apart from denying its liability. It also contended that the accident occurred due to self negligence on part of the deceased. It was specihcaliy contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle. On these grounds the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim application. i l (

5. Bas,erl on the rival contentions, the Tribuna has framed the follr rvir: hree issues. i) llether the accident occuned. due to rasl and. rtegligent diuing of the uehicle beanng lto. Irp 12 1) 2520 of its driuer onlg? \LTtether the claimant (s) is/ are en.titleri for t c mpensation, if so, at uhat quantun? ii.) 'jit uthot reliep

6. DtrrLrL,3 :he course of trial, pWs 1 and 2 u,el.e e,ramined and got rr a:.]:,rd Exs.Al to Ag on behalf of the petitior,er. On behalf of r::;ccndent No.2, its Deputy Manager v,as t,xar:rincd as RWI anrl l:i() got marked trx.B1 copy of the insurtncc policy. The learnr:cl l'ribunal after considering the rival conr.entions awardecl cc,;rrl>ensation of Rs. 1,36,500/_. Agl3rier ect by the impugnc,i orc t r, the appellant/ petitioner preferred thc prcsent Appeal sce { t.t I er-rl-rancement of compensation.

7. Herrrl l,oth sides and perused the recorc[ inr:luding the grounds r>[ A p r:al.

8. The rr, i,; no dispute that the respondents ha i,e not preferred a:t.., \ppeal to set aside the impugned orde -. .I,here no disput-- ,r'itt regard to subsistence of Ex.B1 ir: surancc policy I I I MCPJ at the time of the accident. There is also no dispute with regard to the relalionship between the petitioner and the deceased.

9. The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 42 years.

10. In order to estaLrlish the age of the deceased, the petitioner relied upon Ex.A7 i.e., SSC Certificate of the deceased. As per Ex.A8, the date of birth of the deceased is

17.04.1983. Thus, by the daLe of accident i.e., on 29.03.2006, the age of the deceased would be 22 years. But the learned Tribunal considered the age of mother of the petitioner r.e.,42 years for arriving to the multiplier on the ground that the deceased was unmarried. But it is settled law that even in case of deceased, who is a bachelor, it is the age of the deceased bachelor that has to be considered for arriving to relevant multiplier but not the age of his parents. The appropriate multiplier for the persons, who are aged between 21 to 25 years would be "18", as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sorrla Venna v. Delhi I?q.nsport Corporationl. ' 2OO9 AC.J 1298 (SC) , ) l' t I j 1 1. No\x' (l(nning to the earning capacity, the petr tion er relied upon Ex.A(t to establish that the deceased us;ecl to earn Rs.4,00t)/ pe r month as vidya volunteer in Rt:sidcntit:,1 Bridge Course Ccnl -e. Shepherd Orgalization. Admittedlv, nc witness was exlrrr,ited lo prove the genuineness of E)x.Al:r, more particul lrl) ri,hen the respondents have raised ol4ecrron that trx.A6 i ; a la bricated document. In the cross exiLmit .ation of PW 1 , a s uelSlcstion was given to her that the sa lary of vidya volunte<,r v.'ould bc Rs.1,000/ but the same v.ras ,lenred. The learned 'I rirr- nal by considering the circular iss,ucd by the Governrrc r 1 in rcspe ct of salary of Vidya Volurntr'cr lixed the salary c1't-t deceased at Rs.1,5OO/- per motrth. 'lt:us, this Court is r c,t. i-rclined to interfere with the finding o- ti-re learned Tribunal sc, lar as the income of the deceased eLs er:'rive d by the learned Tl i;rLrral.

12. Sinr:< l>etit-ioner is the only depender-rt, the learned Tribunal rrrs rightly deducted 1/3rd of income of the ,leceased towards trers(,nal expenses. Thus, the month:-v ircon.e of the decease I :rf.t:r deducting his personal expense s u ould be Rs.1,00r)/ - (l?s 150O/- - Rs.500/-). The annu;r1 irLcon.Le of the decease,l rvc rrld be Rs.12,O00/- (Rs. 1,000/- x l2 :nonths). Therefore. Jte petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,l.6,00O/- I l I i 6 (Rs.12,OO0/- x 18) towards loss of dependency. Apart from the above, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,OOO/- towards cremation charges.

13. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of estate. Even the cremation charges of Rs.2,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal are appearing to be on lesser side. Thus, this Court is inclined to award Rs. 15,OOO/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,46,O00/-.

74. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 25"/o of the award amount towards contributory negligence out of the compensation even though there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased.

15. A perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the learned Tribunal arrived to conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part ofthe deceased as there was triple riding and not because of rash ald negligent driving. The eyewitness examined on behalf of the petitioner i.e., PW2 deposed in his chief examination that three persons were I t ,P ,/ I I I travelin;; ,rn .lre motorcycle at the time of the accident. Even as per the ve r;i,rt of the petitioner, three persons rl'ere tra"eling on the motrrc vcl: of the deceased and a1l the three personr'; died on the spol . !'rrLs, as rightly pointed by the learnr:d Tribunal rider of scooter ''r'i ! be discomforted by reason of alkrwin g tv.'o piilion riders rrr,c thereby it amoun[s to violation of terms and conditicns c I the insurance police, for whi,;h, con ributory negliger c,: r:rln be attributed against the decezrserl. I'lt'nce, the above corrlcr.rLion of the learned counsel lor the petitioner is untenatrlr.

16. S'n:c Jrere is contributory negligence on tlr,: part of the deceaseC i:r i evolving triple riding at the time of t he rccident, the peti:i()rr,r - has to forego 25o/o of the compensatirn cr.titled by her. "bu:;. the petitioner is entitled for <:ompens'ation of I , Rs. 1,84,51!, (Rs.2,46,000/- - Rs.61,500/-). 17 . I r r ier.,, of the above discussion, this Cor'rt is of the conside -e :1 'r ir:u, that the impugned order passed bv thr ' learned Tribunal r'e (l,lires some modihcation as stated suplzr

18. Ir rhc 'esult, the Appeal is partly aliow:d [--y er.rhancing the compr:nsation amount from Rs.1,36,500/- to R:;. 1,€i4,5OO/ -, which sh;rll :arry interest @ 7.5% per annum fronr th:: date of t a MACMA No.3449 042009 frling the claim application till the date of realization. The respondents being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire compensation awarded to her without furnishing any securit5r. There shali be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR A //TRUE COPY// To, '1 . The lVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- iltAd Judge (FTC) at tVledak (With Records) 2, One CC to Sri C. Pratap Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri P. Bhanu prakash, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies KVR/DL SECTION OFFICER District and Sessions I I HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/?:012li JUDGMENT MACMA.No.344(r of ii009 tn:$-:=.- " c a,'-i +.. r.1a\.\".. I lijt,l 2625 +:. ,t,'. I . ll: \, PARTLY ALLOWIN'(; THE MACMA q 6\'1 \ [ 3253 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3449 OF 2009 Between: Bobbidi Vijaya, Wo.Balakistaiah, Occ:Household, R/o. Tekmal Village and lVIandal, I\4edak District. ,..Appella nUCla ima nt AND

1. lmran Khan, S/o. Abdul Rawoof Owner of Lorry No UP 12-B 2520, Rlo. Butrala, lt/uzaffer Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep. by its Regional Office, Ranigunj, Secunderlabad. Respondents/Responde nts Appeal Under Section '173 of ltlotor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.487 of 2006 daled 27.O1 .2O0 9 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- lll Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at l\iledak. ORDER :This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 and of None appeared for Respondent No. 1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1, That the MACIIIA be and hereby is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 1,36,500/- to Rs. 1,84,5001; Which shall carry 7 interest GD. I lf /c per annum from the date of filing the claim application tlll the date of rea I zz t on

2. That the R,)sr l rndents being owner and insurer of the c .ime vehicle be and hereby are li.aL|: to deposit the compensation amourlt wilhin .>ne month from the date of -e,t;e pt of copy of this Judgment;

3. That on sL c* c eposit, the petitioner be and herebf is :ntit ed to withdraw entire corn5 erx;ation awarded by here without furnishing any s,')curity,

4. That save rs aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmeri ir zrl cther respects; and

5. That ther,: :;l-,a I be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P. PADMAI.IABHA REDDY ASSISTAT\IT REGISTRAR i\, l' .SEC TION OFFICER To, '1 . The [Vlotc r ,\r;cident Claims Tribunal-Cum- lll Addl. t)istr ct a,]d Sessions Judge (FTt)) at tr/edak.(with Records)

2. Two CD tlc pi,: s KVR/DL HIGH COURT DATED:1 1/03/20i]5 DECREE MACMA.No.34,49' of 2009 PARTLY ALLOWII\I(i THE MACMA &6IYlad