The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Respondents No. 1 & 3: SRI SUNIL B.GA NU The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE YI EADA M.A.C.M.A .No.22a oF 20.2t JUDGMENT: This appeal is lilcd by the claimants, aggrievr:, I by thc Order and Decree dzrtcd 11.1O.2019 in M.V.O.p.No.1279 c.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_prl. I,istrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad if rr short ,,the Tribunal").

2. For convcnience and clarity, the parties hereirr tre relcrred tct as they were arraycd before the Tribunal.

3. The casc of tht: petitioners before the Tribunal ras that on 3i.10.20i6 at about 1O:30 hours when the deceaserl was returning home from Cherlapally on motor bike bearing No..\ )_20_AN 7547 and u,hen hc rcachcd Ganesh Temple kaman, B.l,l Reddy Nagar, cherlapall,y, rhc driver o[ Nano car bearing wo. o J- t 1-AS 3976 proceeding liom IlcL to cherrapally. driven his cqr n a rash anci negligent m.rnner ancl dashed the deceased, ., . ,i., lt ol.which he sustained head injury and died on the spot. The ,. aimants have sought a compensation of Rs.25,0O,OOO/_. 4 The responclent No. 1 and 3 remained ex_pa rt I 2 ETD,] MACMA No.228_2021 {.

5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company opposed thc averments of the petitron with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is fur[her contended by the Insurance Company that the driver of Nano Car does not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident. He also contended that the accident has not occurrcd due Lo the negligence of the car drivcr, but it occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensalion. 6) Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: - 1 2 3 Whetller the accident that occufted on 31 .10.2016 ot obout 10:30 hours near Ganesh Tempte Kaman, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy Distict due to rash negligent and high speed diuing of Nano Car bearing NI.AP- I 1'A5'3976 bg its diuer? Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation atld if so, to uhat quantum and from uhom ? To uthat relieJ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWl to 3 and Exs.Al to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, n<; oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked with consent.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 17,20,000/- Aggrieved by the same, thc presen7ppcal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhanccmcnt of compensation. ,/ 3 EID,T t ACMA No.228 2021

9. Heard thc sr-rbmissions of Sri A.S. Narayana, lc: rned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned cc rnsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submi ted that the Tribunal has failerl to follow the principles laid dou r by the Apex Court in determining the compensation. He further ar;ueti that the Tribunal has not r:onsidered the future prospects o' lhe <Ieceased and has failed to au,ard 407o towards future pros )ects as the deceased u'as aged about 36 years. He further arl red that the Tribunal has granted meagre amount of compensat cn and thus prayed to enhance thc same- 1 1. Learned cotrnsel for the respondents has fa r tv submitted that the principles lzrid down by the Apex Court in Nationat Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Qthersl rnay be followed in au'arding future prospects. I 1. Based on the above submission, this Cou - frzrmes the follorving points for detcrmination:-

1. Wethet tlrc cleitlanls orc etlt led to enhancetnent of conpt,t satio,t)

2. Wlellet tlrc ()rcle'r ancl Decree of the.t.ibunat need ang |1t( r ?re/Lq,?

3. To uhat reli.'J2 ArR 2017 SCC 5157 4 ETD,] MACMA No.228 2O2 r t t2 Point No. l: a) The grievance of the claimants is that the compe nsation granted by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. It is their case that the deceased used to work as a Helper in Sai Teja Papers and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. In support of their claim tl'rey got examined PW3 and got marked Ex.A6/Salary Certificate. A perusal of Ex.A6 reveals that it is issued by the Managing Partner of Sai Teja Papers, certifying that the deceased Siyadri Prasacl worked as a helper in their godown for the past 13 years till his death in the motor vehicle accident on 31.10.20 16 and that he was paid wages of Rs. 12,500/- per month (without O.T). b) Thc cvidence of PW3 in chief examination is to the effect that he has issued Ex.A6 and that the deceased used to carn Rs. 12,500/- per month as a helper in their godown and that hc workecl for 13 years till his death. In his cross examination he t admittcd that labour laws are applicable to an employee who u,orks for 13 years and that he did not follow the labour laws. Ex.A7 is the Copy of Ccrtificate of registration of Sai Teja. Papers. Ex.A8 is the copy of VAT regis[ration certihcate issued by Commercial Tax Department. Ex.A9 is the Bank Statement of M/s. Sai Teja Papers dated 02.07.2018. Ex.A10 is the Attested Copy of Income Tax Statement of M/s. Sai Teja Papers. Ex.A11 is the Xerox Copies of I I I 5 ETD,] MACMA No 228 2021 regrsters. Ex.A7, Ag and A I 1 were marked af .t r venfication of originals by rhe Tribunal Thus, the petitioners :ould effectively prove bcfore the Tribunal that Sai Teja papers r dcalcr dealing r.r,ith wholesale waste paper busine-.s c) ,as a registered r ed by Sai Teja s :losing that the Ex.A 1 1 is the Attendance Register mainta Papers and it shows the name of the deceased di deceased uscd lo work in thcir godown. Thus, could be elicited from his cross examination evidence. Therefore, considcring the same, assessed the income of the deceased as whrch appears to be justified_ r ;thing material t I disbelieve his tl-rr: Tribunal has Rs.12,Sr) )/- per month d) As per thc dicta laid down in National fnsurc nce Compq.ng Limited Vs. pranag Sethi & Others2,4O%o ofthe rr :ome needs to be added towards future p165p".1". As the deceas:d is aged 36 years, adding 40yo towards future prospects i.e., l2,S0O+S000 would give Rs. 17,50O/_ per month, which comes tr: ts. 17,5O0/- x 12 = Rs.2,1O,O OO / _ per annum. e) The number of claiman ts herein are three a rd therefore I / 3',r cleduction need to be made to his income tor,.; rds personal 2 AtR 2017 Scc 5.157 6 ETD,] MACMA No.228 2021 ,4 expenses and this would comc up to Rs 1,4o,0o0/- (Rs 2,10,000/- (-) Rs.70,000/-). f) The Post Mortem Examinatiol] Report hled under Ex A4 revealstheageofthedeceascdas.36,years.Themultipliershould be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs' Delhi Transport Corporation3, the dcceased being aged '36'years, the appropriate multiplier is '15' Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.21,OO,OOO/- (Rs 1,a0'000 x 15)' In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs' 15O00/ - towards loss g) of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years' In Md.gma General Insurance Compang Li'lited a' Nanu h) Ram @ Chuhnt Ratn and. other*, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles taid down in Pranag Sethi's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs'48'40O/ - each towards loss ol consortium, hence, the compensation amount urfdr this head would be Rs 1,45,200/ instead of Rs 40'0OO/- ' 2oo9 (6) scc l2l '(lol8) l8 scc r30 \ l E70,j MACMA No.228 2021 Further an arnolln[ of Rs.18, 150/ towards funer: ] expenses and Rs. 18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarc :d. i) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1 3 4 i_l ompensation under the head oI loss of dependen c\ ,lornpensatton towards loss of consortiuln to I rotitroner Nos.l to 3 Compcnsation towards loss oI cstate Sompensation Lowards [uncral expenscs Rs.2 T,OO,OOO/- Rs.1,45,2OOl- Rs. 18,150/ - Rs, f 8,1SO/ - Rs.22,81,50o/- j) Thereforc, the compensation to which thc )etitloners are entitled is calc.ulatcd as Rs.22,g 1,50O/- rvhite rl r Tribunal has awarded Rs.17,20,00O/-. Therelorc, it is opined th: ( the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No. I is answered accordingly. \

17. POINT NO.2: It is held that the order and decree of the Trib rhal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensat on. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 22,g 1,50r) - from that of Rs.17,20,00O/ i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 18, POINT NO,3: In thc rcsult, the appeal is partly allou'er modifying the Order and Decree dated

17.7O.2O19 in M.V.O.P.iJ t.1279 of 2Ot6 8 ETO,) MACMA No.228 2021 passedbytheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal_cum.Prl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L'B Nagar, Hyderabad' enhancing the compensation from Rs.17,20,00O/- to 22,81,50O/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7 'Soh per annum from the date of claim petition till realization However' thc intcrest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited' The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipl of a copy of this Judgment aiter deducting the amount if any alrcady deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amolrnt without furnishing any security' Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal' shall stand closed. SD'-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTTON OFFICER 1 Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, R.R. District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderaba$t One CC to SRI A S NARAYANA Advocate [OPUCI - I One CC to SRI SUNIL B GANU Advocate [OPUCI Two CD Copies To, 2 J 4 BGS W HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: 1010612025 JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.228 ot 2021 rAiE \1E C) CJ llr-, \1. iir \:- t/., \\1 -i ' ':.. i I riit ?si5 !') il 'tn i PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (" .,\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACC IDENT CIViL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 228 OF 2021 Between:

1. Siyadri Param Jyothy, W/o.Late S. Prasad, Age. 34 years, Occ. Housewife, 2. Siyadri Manohar, S/o.Late S. Prasad, Age. 17 years, Occ. Nil, 3. Jumjuri Akkamma @ Siyadri Akkamma, W/o. Apparao, Age.55 years, Occ Household, All are Ryo. H.N0.19-13, Saroornagar, R.R.Dist Bhagatsingh Nagar, L.B.Nagar, ...PETITIONERS AND 1 Omkar S. Patwardhan, S/o.Suresh G. Patwardha, Age. Major, Occ. Business, Patwardhan, Flat No.40, Kalakrtiti Apartments, Lalaguda, Taranaka, Secunderabad. 500 017. The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd, Rep by. its Manager, Motor, Third Party Claims Cell, 6th Floor, Surya Towers, S.P Road, Secunderabad. Lele Shree Chintaman, S/o. Lele Chintaman, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Driver, Rl/o.2-'1-'181,01d Nallakuna, Hyderabad. 500 044 J Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 127912016 dated 11.10.20'19 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, R.R. District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS ! ORDER: The 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.S.NARAYANA, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri SUNIL B.GANU, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 & 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civit lvliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed modifying the order and decree dated 11.10.20 19 in tM.V.O.P.No. 127912016 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accldents Claims Tribunal-Cum- Principal District Judge, R.R. District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad enhancing the compensation from Rs.17,20,000/- to Rs.22,8'1 ,500/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.e irom the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

2. fhat however, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is fo'l :ited 3. That the Respondents are directed to deposit the compense:ion amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the da.: of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount, if any, alreil ly deposited. 4. That on such deposit, the claimants are be and hereby entitl: i to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security.

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stanc s confirmed in all other resPects; and

6. That there be no orders as to costs in this appeal. I i/TRUE COPY// Sd/- SRI M,I )SMAN ALI BAIG ASSIS'T \NT REGISTRAR \ sil bnoN oFFrcER \, { \, '1 . Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-C r n-Principal District Judge, R.R District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad

2. Two CD Copies To, BGS Nl a HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: lOtO6tZO2S \ DECREE MACMA.N o.228 of 2021 a PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS s-, \\ .,\