The High Court · 2025

(for short,the Ar:t, i9B8J aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated 05.09.2019, in M.V.O.P.No.2O3 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicie Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Adilabad (for short, lhe Tribunal').

2. Hearcl Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and Sri V.Venkatrami Reddy, Iearned Stalding Counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Compan1,. Perused the material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the dependants of the deceased Badikala Banaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,OO,O0O/- on account of death of the deceased in the road traffic accident occurred on 19.O3.2O16 at about 18:3O 2 NNR.J Macma 54 2020 hours near Krishnaveni Talent High School, Chennur' Petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner Nos'2 to 5 are sons arrd daughter of the deceased.

5. On 19.03.20 16 while the deceased was proceeding to his son's house situated at Chennur to drop his children and when they reached near Krishnaveni Talent High School, Chennur, all of a sudden, respondent No. 1 came on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-O1-AF- 1843 at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Chennur and after giving First Aid, he was referred to Sharanya Hospital, where he was treated as inpatient ald doctors conducted several tests, examination and also conducted surgery and implants were inserted and he was discharged on 07.04.2016 with an advice to take bed rest with follow up treatment' But the deceased was slrccumbed to injuries on 12.04.2016 while undergoing treatment in his house at Chennur.

6. Initially, the Police, Chennur registered a case in Crime No.45 of 2O 16 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC 3 \\R.J \'racma i{ 2lll0 against respondent No.1 arld subsequently aJter death of the deceased. police altered Section of law from 337 of IpC to Section 304 -A ol IPC and filed charge sheet against driver of the motorcycle.

7. It is stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 6O years, hale ald healthy and used to earn Rs.8,OOO / - per month by u,orking as a night watchman in Ginning Factory and also doing labour work and contributing the same for the welfare of the petitioners. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners were put to pain and mental agony and petitioner No.l also lost financial support. Hence, the petitioners filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,0O,0OO/ from the respond ents.

8. Respondent No. 1 filed counter_affidavit denying the averments made in the petition including the age, avocation, income of the deceased aLnd also manner of the accident. It is stated that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence respondent No.2 is only liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is further stated that the 4 NNR.J Macma_54 -2020 compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive arrd exorbitant and hence' he prayed to dismiss the petidon' 9' Respondent No'2 fried counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the petition including the age' avocation, income and a'lso manner of the accident' lt is claimed by the further stated that the compensation claimants is excessive and exorbitant and hence' he prayed to ! t I i I I :. dismiss the Petition' 10' On the basis of above pleadings' the following "1. issues have been framed by the Tribunal for trial: trIhether the accident took Place as alleged by the' Petitioners "" l'':"'::=::"::, :::*':;:"t; ffi H];H Talenr High school, crrerour' ^: _::;,--".. driving by the rider of Banaiah o[ accouat of rash and negligent dr motorcycle bearing tr*;;1-^"-'843 belonging to frrst respoadeat or whether th"tt *"t l" negligence on the part of the deceased? *"" any insurance coverage for the rootorcycle b""""g n":;-or'er-re+s and if so' does the policy u"*l="U and if so' was there any breach of policy cover the conaitioo alleged by the resPondent? and the earnings of 2' Whether '"O "' -tO"'" 3' What were the age' avocatio[ deceased? 4' Whethe comPeasatlon if so' 5 To srhat reUef? the Petitioners r to *n"t extent and against whom? are entitled to aoy NNR.J iuacma )1 2010

11. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioners, the wife of the deceased i.e, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and got examined an eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A. 1 to A. 11. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentar5r- evidence w,as adduced L2. The Tribunal, after considering the entire oral and documentary eviclence on record submissions of both the counsel, held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent drir.ing of driver of motorcycle bearing No.AP-O 1-AF- 1843 arrd accordingly granted compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with proportionate costs together with interest at 7 .5t% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos. I and 2 jointly and severally Further respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of said order Aggrieved by the sarne and being unsatisfied with compensation, the present appeal is Iiled by the claimants on the follo"r,ing grounds: (i) The learned Tribunal having held that the accident had occurred due to rash ad negligent driving of driver of 6 NNR," Macma-54-2020 - motorcycle erred in not granting compensation as claimed by the claimants. (ii) Though the dependents are [-tve in number' erroneously the Tribunal deducted living expenses of the deceased 1/3'a instead of I I 4\h' (iii) The learned Tribunal failed to grant just compensatton and erred in awarding low rate of interest'

13. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that though the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.l and examined PW'2 who is an eyewitness to the incident and marked Exs'A' 1 to A' 1 1 and proved that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, the respondents have not adduced either oral or documenta4r evidence even though the learned Learned counsel Tribunal granted meagre compensation' further submits that prior to the accident' the deceased used toearnaIIamountofRs.8,00o/-permonthbydoingnight watchmanatGinningFactorybesidesgoingforlabourwork, but the Court below did not consider the same and taken only an amount of Rs'4'500/ per month' which is against the evidence on record' Learned counsel also submits that due to the accident, claimalt No' 1 lost her conjugal life and 7 \\R.J claimant Nos.2 to 5 have lost their fatherhood and by considering the same the learned Tribunal ought to have granted more conlpensation as claimed by them and that the Tribunal awarded very meagre compensation under the head of dependency, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and hence, sought for enhancement of the compensation.

14. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal on considering the entire material on record rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the

15. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: 'Whether the appellants-claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?,'

16. The accident is not in dispute. In the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died subsequently is also not in dispute. To prove the same, the wife the deceased examined as P.W.1 and reiterated the 8 i- - NNR,I Macma 54 2020 -- ---.:i contents of the petition filed by her' She has not witnessed the incident. She also got examined P'W'2, who deposed that on 19.03.2016 while he was standing near Krishnaveni Talent School, Chennur, at that time, one motorcycle was proceeding along with children and at about 17:45 hours and when they reached near Krishnaveni Talent School' Chennur' a,ll of a sudden, respondent No ' 1 came on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-AF-1843 at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased Due to which thedeceasedfelldownontheroadandsustainedgrievous injuries all over the body. Apart from oral evidence of P'Ws' 1 and 2, the petitioners also relied on Ex'A' 1 FIR, Ex'A'3 charge sheet, which categorically discloses that based on report of the police, which reveals that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motorcyclist' To disprove the same, the respondents did not adduce any oral or documentar5r evidence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal answered.issueNo.linfavouroftheclaimarrtsandagainst the respondents. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court' the findings given by the learned Tribunal are based on the material available on record and considering the evidence 9 NNR.J !{acma 5a 2010 produced b.y the claimants and the sarne needs no interlerence b1' this Court.

17. As far as existence of poiicy is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that respondent No.2 did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. However, the petitioners hled trx.A6 copy of insurance policy liled by p.W. 1, which discloses that the policy issued in favour of respondent No.1 covering the period from 19.01.2O16 to lA.O1.2Ol7. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the policy is in force.

18. P.W. I is vgife of the deceased and according to her the deceased is aged about 6O years at the time of accident. But, as per Ex.A.2-inquest panchanama and Ex.A. 1 1_ postmortem certificate, age of the deceased was mentioned as 70 years. According to p.W. 1, prior to the accident, the deceased used to earn ar amount of Rs.g,00O/_ per month by working as night watchman in Ginning Factory and also doing labour rvork and contributing the same for the welfare of the claimants. Since the claimants have not produced any proof in support of their contention, the leamed Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/_ per month by pll"i:g reliance on the judgment of rhe Hon,ble Supreme I i ! i i ; ! i 10 !--' NNR.. Macma i,l 2020 -- "*i:l Court in the case of Ramachandrappa v' Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co'Ltdl, wherein it was observed as follows: "The appellant was *'orking as a collie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer \a'as between Rs.1OO/- to Rs.15O/- per day or Rs4'500/- per month. tn our view, the claim was honest and bona ltde and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the apPellant from Rs.4,500/- to Rs-3,000/- per month We' therefore' accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs 4'500/- "

19. As seen from the record, the Tribunal had taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs'4,5O0/- basing on the settled law as prevailed in RamachandraPPa's case and also considering the ground rea-lities and also considering the age of the deceased. Hence, in the opinion of this Court' the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased, which needs no interference by this Court' The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs 54'OO0/- (Rs.4,SOO X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of t1le deceased as the dependants are five in number' Then the actual annual ' zorr io; aro zs I NNR.I Vacma 54 2020 income the deceased would come to Rs.40,5OO/- (Rs.5a,OOO/- (') Rs.13,500/ ).

20. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Scrla Venna a. Delhi Transport Corporationz, ald considering the age of the deceased berween 66 7O years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '5'. Thus, the total loss of dependenc-v rvould come to Rs.2,O2,5OO/- (aO,5OO/- x S).

21. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15.OOO/- + LOoh + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,15O/ (Rs.15,000/- + loyo + lOo/o) towards funeral expenses, as per National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and others3

22. Appellant No.1 claimant No.1 is entitled for spousal consortium ol Rs.48,400/- under the head of loss of 'z 2oog nc: 1298 (sc) 3 2017 ACJ 2700 _ !- _.-rq t2 NN\. Macrna 54 2020 spouse, as per Magma General Insurance Compang Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhrtt Rama. -

29. In Sarlc Verntlr's case (cited aboue), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of Just compensation' observed as under: " Post compensation is adequote compensation uhich ts foir and eqtitoble on the focts and circumstances of the cose, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the uLrong' as far as moneg can do so, bg applying, tle Luell settled pinciples relating to auard. of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonnnza, largesse or source of profit " 24. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hontrle Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions, I am of the opinion that the claimarts are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference: 21o. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i F"rr .4,50 An Rs Income (of the deceased) Ol- X t).._- =.. Rs.54,0OO/- ' 2018 (18) scc 130 l3 NNR.J Macma 54 2020 ii) Allual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased i\ ) \) Rs.s4.0OO/ ( lRs I3.5OO/ Rs.40,500/ Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.4O,5O0/- x 5 Clarmarts' entrtlement towards conventiona.l heads = Loss of Estatr: + Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal Consorfuum = Rs. 18,150/- + Rs. 18,150/- + Rs.48,400 Total Rs 2,O2, 500 Rs.E4,700/- Rs.2,87,2OOt-

26. Thus, the appellants/claimants a-re entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,87.2OOt- as against the ai\rarded arnount of Rs.2,50,OOO I - by the learned Tribunal. 27 . Con sidering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at

7.5 oh per annum and the sarne needs no interference by this Court. Hence. this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/ claimants are entitled to interest @ Z.S % on the enhanced atnount. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,87,2OOl - \--.-= t4 \-: NN\ Macma 54 2020 2A. Accordingly, the M.A.C'M'A is allowed in part' enhancing the compensation from Rs'2,50'0OO/- to Rs.2,87,2OOl- with interest at the rate @ 7'5 % p'a' on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment' The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the sarne manner and ratio as ordered by the Iearned Tribunal' There shall be no order as to Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, sha1l stand closed. d,, M. JAWAHAR REDDY TSTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman' Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunal-cum-Principal 2 Adilabad. One CC to Sri S Surender Reddy' Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Sri V Venkata Rami Reddy' Advocate IOPUCI 3 4. Two CD CoPies District Judge' a: -.! . t_ i i,'\-rt . ,. :, S' 1fl l'iflfl I['6 t D6:SPAT z o ! i HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 2210712025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.54 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t6l'l

16. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTO R ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 54 oF 2020 Between: '1 . Badikala Laxmi W/o. Late Banaiah, Age 62 Years, Occ. Household, 2. Badikala Madunaiah, S/o. Late Banaiah, Age 46 Years, Occ. Labour, 3. Rasmalla Sammakka, W/o. Banaiah, Age 44 Years, Occ. Household, 4. B. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Banaiah, Age 42 Years, Occ. Labour, 5. B. Sateesh, Wo. Late Banaiah, Age 39 Years, Occ. Labour, All are R/o. ,Adarsha Nagar, Chennur, Presently Residing At Ramnagar, Adilabad ...APPELLANTS/PETITION ERS AND 1 2 Page Lingaiah, S/o. Sammaiah, Age. 45 Years, Occ. Owner - cum - Driver of Crime Vehicle motorcycle bearing No. AP. 01 .AF - 1843, Ryo. Sundarasala Village, Ri./M. Chennur, Adilabad District United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Gangareddy Road, Mancherial, Adilabad District ( Policy Valid From, 1910212016 to 1810112O17) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and Decree Dated. 05/09/2019 in M.V.O.P No. 203 of 2016, on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad. 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. S. Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs 2,50,000 to Rs 2,87,200 with interest at the rate @ 7.5o/o p.a on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization;

2. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to tne amount;i;;; deposited, If any, within a period of two months from the receipt of .opy o't this judgment; 3. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the a ppellants/cla imants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the rJarned Tribunal, 4 That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunar shaI stand confirmed in a 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. other aspects; and " Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDOY GISTRAR S i/TRUE COPYII OFFICER r\4otor Accidents Ctaims Tribunat-cum_principat District Judge, U' To, , I!frfr:Alrran, 2. fwo CD Copies 82 HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 2210712025 ir Tili 5 ) a. t 1E I,: fl ZU( 5 z t DECREE MACMA.No.54 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (9- KS rclflz-a ,