The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: Sri K. Venugopal Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Sri A. Ravi Babu The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NN{DIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.64 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is f-rled by the appellants-petitioners under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act, 1988') against the Award and decree, dated 23.08.2019,in O.P.No.253 of 2Ol7 passed by learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal')wherein the learned Tribunai awarded compensation of Rs.9,20,5O0/- with interest @7 .5"/" per annrlm to the petitioners.

2. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel lor the appellants-petitioners and Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and M.Sathish Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Perused the record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the M.V.O.P

4. The brief facts of the case are that the dependents of the deceased Musle Balajee (hereinafter referred to as the 2 r!R,J IIACUA.f,o.64 of 2OrlO :'i deceased') filed clajm petition under Section 166 1)(c) of the Act, 1988 read u,ith Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle RtLle ;, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20,O0,00O/- on account < f death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurrecl < n 01.03.2017 at about 6:15 P.M. near Kummaru Thanda Village. . ,etitioner No. I is petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minor sons, petit.r ner Nos.4 and 5 "r,ife, are parents of the deceased.

5. On 01.03.2O 17, thre deceased and hLr cousin brother Musle Sanjeev were proceeding on his motorcyct bearing No.Ap- 01-AG- 1955 lrom Dharmapuri Village towards 'f -randa Village to meet their relatives and at about 6:15 p.m., w. 3n they reached near Kummarithanda Village, mea_ntime, one brt , bearing No.TS- Ol UB-4508 nhich is hired by TGSRTC, being dr ven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high spee,J and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from back side, c r re to which the deceased and pillion rider fell down and sustai red injuries and deceased died on the spot. The accident had oc,: rrred purely due to negligent driving of driver of Bus bearing No.Tf i 01-UB-450g.

6. The police, Utnoor registered a case u r Crime No.32 of 2Ol7 for the offences under Sections 304-A and .l lg of IpC agarnst 'ii: f) 3 rlIR'J XlcUA.f,o.64 of2q20 the driver of the said Bus and after completion of investigation hled charge sheet against him.

7. It is further averred in the petition that the deceased u,as hale ald healthy and he was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. The deceased is having agricultural land in Survey No.29 l1 to al extent of Ac.2.38 guntas and he used to earn a sum of Rs.2,00,0OOl- per annum from it. The deceased also used to work in M/s. Ramesh Cloth Merchant Shop at lchoda and used to get salary' of Rs.9,SOO/- per month and contribute 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 they also .frnal support. Therefore, the petitioners fi1ed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from respondent Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally.

8. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest the matter and remained ex parte.

9. Respondent No.3 - insuralce company filed counter- affidavit denying the material averments made in the petition including age, avocation and income of the deceased and also manner of the accident. It is further averred that the 4 rrR,J UAcrA.f,o.64 of2O2O compensation claimed by the petitioners is exce I sive, exorbitant and hence pral.ed to dismiss the petition. 10, Basing on the above pleadings, the i:errned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: "1. Whether the death of Musle Balajee S/o M.Namdev 9 ho dred in a motor !el)icle accident occurred on 01.03.2017 at alx ut 6:30 p.m., near Kummari Thanda village, due to rash and r:gligerlt driving of tire bus bearing No.TS-O 1-UB-4508 by its d: rr:r i r... responden t No. 1? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compen;r tion? lf so. to..r'har extent and from u'hom? 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of o,r, r,:r and instrrer of motorclcle bearing No.AP-01-AG- 1955 as rr cess.an. parlies in the original petition, since the motorcycle r as also involved in thc accident? 4. To rr, hat relieP" 1 1. During the course of enquir],, ()11 beha-lf of the petitioners, the wife of the deceased was examirt :d as P.W.1 and got examined the eyewitness to the accident zL, P.W.2 and got marked one Jagadish as P.W.3 and got marked Er s.A. 1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondents, R.W. 1 was examinec. and got marked Exs.X. 1 and X.2.

12. The learned Tribuna-l after hearing I oth the counsel and after considering the entire material on r )cord, held that ..// 5 !.TR,J UACUA.tto.64 of 2O2O respondent No.1 being driver, respondent no.2 being the owner, respondent No.3 being insurance company and respondent No.4, who hired the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay of compensation of Rs.9,20,50O/- with interest @7.5% per arrnum to the petitioners.

13. Being aggrieved and unsatislted with the compensation aw,arded by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners preferred the present appeal on the following among the other grounds: (0 The learned Tribunal having held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent dnving of driver of TSRTC bearing No.TS-O 1-UB-4508, erred in not granting total compensation amount as claimed by the appellants. (ii) Though deceased was aged about 37 years and earning Rs.9,5O0/- at the time of accident, the Tribunal without considering the evidence in proper manner erred in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,50O / - per month. (iii) The Tribunal erred in granting meagre amount of compensation under 'loss of estate', loss of consortium and funeral expenses which is against the rulings laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6 rIR,J f,AcfA.ro.54 of202O (iv) The learned Tribunal failed to grant jr.r t compensation ald erred in au,arding 1ow rate of interest. L4. Having heard learned counsel for rhe appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents an j having perused the entire material placed on record, the following roints that arise for consideratiorr are: lr) 6r) Whether the oppello.nts are entltled Jor enhan:etuent of co'iapensq.tlon, tf so, to uhqt ertent? To whqt relleP

15. Issue Nos.1 and 2: The Tribunal after considering the oral zt rd documentar5r evidence held that the accident had occurred c ue to rash and negiigent driving of driver of the crime bus. The r rain grievance of the petitioners is that at the time of accident, the leceased used to earn an amount of Rs.9,500/- and in proof of r,ame P.W.l filed Ex.A.6-salan certificate and to substantiate the s rme she also got examined P.W.3, who deposed that he is runnir g a shop in the name alrd style of M/s. Ramesh Textiles at lch,> la and deceased was working in his shop as Muneem from 2009 () rwa_rds and he is drawrng salary of Rs.9,5OO/- per month. In spite of the same, the Et : '/ 7 ll{R.J UACU^ro.64 of 2OrlO Tribunal did not believe the version of P.Ws' 1 and 3 and Ex'A'6' The learned Tribunal erroneously taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,50O/- by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v' Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltdr

16. It is settled iaw that the Hon'bie Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa a. Storte o! Bihai2 it was held that even when there is no proof of income ald earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities. Further, in Shaikh Saditc Shcrtk Raflque a' Rellonce Generc;l Insurance Compang Llmtted and other*, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount of the deceased, who was unskilled labour to Rs' 10,000/- per month' artd the reievant paragraph No.5 reads as under: "5. Rannachandrrrppa a. Mdnaget' Royal Sundarq'tn Alliance Insurance Compang Limited detennined an income of Rs.4,SOO/ - per month in the gear 2OO4 for a coolie. A Constttution Bench in Nationol Insurance Compang Ltmited us. Pranag Sethi and Oth.ers foun'd tlwt there uould be an incrementol increase in the income uhich according to us 1 2011 (6) ALD 75 2 2001(8) SCC 197 r 2025 SCC Online sc 1092, 8 f,rl&J l{AcMA.llo.64 of 202O would be reasonoble if frxed at Rs.500/- per rn(t th for euery .successiue qear. Ln the present case, the accidctt occuned in the gear 2015, 11 years afier 2OO4 and going by t rc principles stated [n lh.e ofore-cited decis[ons the appelLant, tn unskilled u.torker utould be entitLed to claim monthl.T inr:ome of Rs.10,000/ " L7. In view of recent judgment, dated 1:l l'5.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shclkh Scdik I haik Ratlque's case and Latho. Wadhwa's case (cited both supr'; .) and iooking at the avocation of the deceased and considering the ground realities, this Court is of the vierv that it is a fit case to r Lke the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,oOO/- per month (Rs.900O x 12 = Rs. 1,08,0O0/ -) per annum. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insuranc e Company v. Pranay Sethi and others4, since the deceased u,a s below 40 years an addition of 4Oo/o u,ould be added towards fut- re prospectus. If the said principle is applied the annual incom,: of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,200/-(Rs.1,08,000 + 1s.43,200) (40% addition). Since the petitioners are 5 in number, n the light of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S arla Verma and 4 2017 ACJ 2700 \) ,, i i 9 IAcu iNE'J -[o.54 of 2O2o others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothers, 1/4* of income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, which comes to Rs.37,800 (-) (Rs. 1 ,51,2OOx%)

18. As per the column No.4 of table in the judgment of the Hon'lrle Supreme Court in Sarla Verrna as 36 years, the appropriate multiplier appiicable for the deceased age is '15'' Further, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier '15' and the same is not disputed by the respondents. After applying the same, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,13,400 x 15 = 17,O1,OOO/-.

19. The appellants/ claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 1O7o + 1o7o) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + lOVo + 1O7o) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranag Sethi's Judgrnent (cited supra). 2C.. Appellant No.1 being wife of the is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/ - towards spousal consortium', as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (cited supra)' s 2oo9 ACJ 1298 10 f,rR"J XAclA.Xo.64 of 2OilO

21. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being son ancl r aughter of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) towards 'parental corL ortrum', as per lVcnu Rcrm's case alts Chuhnt Ranne

22. Further, considering appellant No.4 ::ing the father and appellant No.S mother of the deceased are en -i led to a sum of Rs.48,400/-each under the head of ' frlial corr;ortium' as per Pranag Sethi's ,Jrtd.gment (cited supra).

23. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadi rgs, materiai on record and the law laid down by the Honble Supre ne Court in the aforesaid cited decisions, this Court is of the : tinion that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of <:r mpensation as modifred and recalculated as above and given in tlt : table below for easy reference:

24. Considering the above assessment mac e by this Court, appellalts would be entitled to as follows: I nnual Income (of the deceased) s.9OOO/- X 12 : Rs.1,08,000/- 6 zore lrey scc t:o a1 rllR,J X CXA.lto-64 of 2q2O Total Annua-l lncome = Annual Income + FUture Prospects (Annual Income + 4oyo) = 43,2OO Rs. 1,O8,0O0/ = Rs.1,5l,2O0l - i) Since dcpendents are live in number rz+ has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs. 1,51,200 / (-) Rs.37,800/- = Rs.1,13,a00/- is aged Since the deceased relevant multiplier is 15 and dependency would (Rs.1,13,aOOl x 15) about 37 years, the same is applied, the to Rs. 17,01,000/- Claimants' are also entitlement amount under conventional heads i-e., lrss of Estate + Funera] Expenses + loss o[ consortium + loss of filial consortium r Parental Consorl.ium - Rs.l8,15O/- + Rs. I8,15O/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.96,8OO + 96,800 Tota.l Rs.1 7,01,0O0/- Rs.2,78,300/- Rs.19,79,300/ l

25. Thus, in all the appellants/claimants are entifled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.19,79,3OO/- as against the awarded amount oi Rs.9,20,500/ by the learned Tribunal

26. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 9,2O,5OO l- to Rs. Rs. 19,79,3OO1- (Rupees Ninteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred only) with interest at the rate @ 7 .5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of rea\zation. t2 { I{IIR,J u^cuA.lto.64 of 2O2O The respondents are directed to deposit the said I nount together with costs and interest after giving due credit ,o the arnount already deposited, if any, within a pr riod of (2) months from the receipt of a copy of this j rdgment. The compensation amount shall be apportione r among the appellants/clairnants in the same manner and rar o as ordered by the leamed Tribunal. There sha-1l be no order as 1.(. )osts Miscellaneous petitions, if aly are pend i' Lg, sha1l stand closed. To, sd/- AS [.;fJAWAHAR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR -7 //TRUE COPY// I s*clou oFFrcER The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- F r . District Judge, Adilabad. (With records) One CC to Sri. S Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUO' One CC to Sri K. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate [OPl.l )l One CC to Sri A. Ravi Babu, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies

2. .t.

4. q AS/DL h"t/ HIGH COURT DATED:07/10/202s JUDGMENT MACMA.No.64 of 2020 :, iATE (,A (r 03 illifl ?Un : ,il PARTLY ALLOWED 1 q l,/ * [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 64 OF 2020 Between

1. Musle Laxmi Bai, W/o. Late Musle Blajee, Age. 36 years, Occ. Household, FJo. H.No.1-27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda Mandal, Adilabad District

2. Musle Sairam, S/o. Late Musle Blajee, Age. 13 years, Occ. Student' R/o. H.No.1-27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda Mandal, Adilabad District.

3. Musle Yuvraj, S/o. Late lvlusle Blajee, Age. 10 years, Occ Student, R/o H.No.1-27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda Mandal, Adilabad District. (Petitioner no. 2 and 3 are minors under the guardianship of their Natural mother and next friend i.e petitioner no,1)

4. Musle Namdev, S/o. tvlusle Ganapathi, Age. 60 years' Occ Nil, R/o H.No.1 - 27, Dharampuri Village, Ichoda Mandal, Adilabad District-

5. Musle Jana Bai, W/o. Irilusle Namdev, Age. 54 years, Occ Household, R/o H No.1 -27, Dharampuri Village, Ichoda tvlandal, Adilabad District. ...APPellants/Petitioners AND 1 Sambari Bhuchirajam, S/o. Rajalingu, Age. 24 years, Occ. Driver of bus bearing No.TS.0'l .U8.4508, Rl/o. H.No.1-45, Narsingapur Village, Hajipur Mandal, [\4ancherial District.

2. Allamala Prabhakar, S/o. Ellaiah, Ag TS.0'1.U8.4508, R/o. H.No. 50-137, Mancherial District. e.M Seet ajor, Occ. Owner of bus bearing No. haramraju Nagar, RKP Mandamarri,

3. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch office, H.No.673/1, Balaji complex, Ganga Reddy Road, Mancherial, Mancherial District. (Policy valid from O9l10l2O16 to OBl1Ol2O17) 4- Telangana State Road Transport Corporation' Represented-by its Managing Direct-or, Musheerabad,Hyddrabad. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 23108/2019 passed in o.P. No. 253 of 12017 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Prl. District Judge, Adilabad' "7 This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perLs ng the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and t I r material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri. S Surende leddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri K. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate appear€( for Respondent No. 3, Sri A. Ravi Babu, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the fi,4otor Accident Civil lvliscellaneous Appeal b( tnd is parfly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 9,20,500/- to Rs 19,79,300 (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand three Hundrerl :nty) with interest @ 7.Sok p.a on the enhanced amount of compensation fr,r r the date of petition till the date of realization;

2. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to rlt:1 osit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit t,the amount already deposited ii any within a period of two (02) months frorr the receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 3 That the compensation amount shall be appo tioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as () dered by the learned Tribunal;

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shit stands confirmed in . all other respects, and 5 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REGISTRAR TI; SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- pr Adilabad.

2. Two CD Copies District Judge, AS/DL tV HIGH COURT DATED:07/10/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.64 of 2O2O PARTLY ALLOWED q\r,