The High Court · 2025

ar*n*"nth Kaurwo sri Baldevsingh Dalleke',occ: owner of Lorry no' ' tr.i.5+ i'ii.isiiH.r'ro z UniteO lndia lnsurance Company Limiled' repres ' Eran; offt", -[ut,i.n.[H,lri -r+r,-eirvirWard'."n"""?;i:5ttiil. Ro'ad, chandrapur [M S ] s,un"n Manaser, ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: Sri S' Surender Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: None Appeared Counsel forthe Respondent No. 2: Sri S' A' V' Ratnam The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: HONO URABLESMT.JUSTICE M.G. INI qUDGMENT: M.A.C. M.A.IYo.349 OF 20()8 Aggrievt:d by the Order and Decree dated 05.09.2OO7 (hereinafter rvill be referred as ,impugned order,) passe,l by the learned Chairnan, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal _ cum _ District Judge, Adilabad (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in O.p.No.466 of 2OO3, the petitioners/cli Limants have filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinaf:er are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The briel lacts of tJ,re case as can be seen liom the :ecord are that the petitioners, who are the wife, children and si:;ter of "Mr.Abdut Raheem, (hereinafter wilt be. referred as .dece asedJ have filed claim petition under Section 166 (I)(c) read with Section 163-4. of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,0OOl . from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the rleath of the deceased in the road trafhc accident that occurre,d on I 1.07.2003. Th.e: brief facts of the claim petition filed bv the petitioners, are ers under: J 2 a) On 11.07.2003 at about 12'30 PM the deceased along with a person by name Md. Rafee (pillion rider) were going on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No'AP 1 E 661 1 from Kagaznagar to Bellampalli. When they reached near Boyapally Board, a lorry bearing registration No'MH 34 M 1577 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') driven by its driverinrashandnegligentmannerathighspeedinthe opposite direction, dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased and another were proceedings' Due to which the deceased and the pillion rider died on the spot' c) A case in Crime No'47 of 2OO3 of Tandur Police Station was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code' d) Prior to the accident, the deceased' who was aged about 43 years, was earning Rs7,O27 '92 paise per month as an employee in Singareni Collieries Company Limited' The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part ofdriverofcrimevehicle,whichbelongstorespondentNo.land insuredwithrespondentNo2,assuch'theyarejointlyand severally liable to pay compensation of Rs'9'OO'OOO/-' l ^.".,"..,"Iffi

4. In reply to the above claim application, the re spondent No.2 filed c()unter and whereas the respondent No. 1 :..emained exparte. The Respondent No.2 while admitting the ir rsurance coverage, mainly contended that the accident occurrerl due to the negiigenr:t: of the deceased but a false case is rt.gistered against the lorry driver. It was further contended that tf .e driver of the crime l,ehicle was not holding valid driving licens,: at the time of the a<x:ident. On the above grounds prayed to lismiss the claim application. 5 Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has lramed the following issues t) Whe_ther tty d1c7ased. uiz., Abdut Raheem died in mot o r o ccid en r. date-a_ i .b i.i6 oi"ii,lr,^ n ue hict., _ beaing No. MH 34 M IS77? _i If sc,, tahether tle ac.cid.ent took place on accoL, nt of rash and neotiqent aari"s ;j'tiZ"i.";if" bearins r,,o. MH 34 M tszz"bI the r."piiaZr'r'.fiolr,,!,ijn*,, iiil Whether tLe . petitioners are entitled J y itri::;:::;::,:lso' to ttthat o^ount-ona liom u'lhich tr iiil To tuhat reliep

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioner, prVs 1 and 2 were exam;ned and got marked Exs.Al to A7. On br:half of respondents, no evidence was adduced. The learned Tribrnal after considering the rival contentions and a,lso the oral arrd documentary evidence on behalf of petitioners' awarded compensation of Rs.1,71,00O/-' Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the iearned Tribunal' the appellants/petitioners preferred the present Appeal to enhance the comPensation.

7. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy' learned counsel for the appellants/Petitioners, Sri SAV Ratnam, learned Standing CounselfortherespondentNo.2/InsuranceCompanyand perused the record including the grounds ofAppeal' It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos'I and 2 8. have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order' There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners and deceased' There is also no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the Iearned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of PW2 (eyewitness to the accident) coupledwiththedocumentaryevidenceunderExs'Al(FIR)'A2 (inquest report) and A3 (postmortem examination) arrived to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle' Further, there is also no dispute with regard to the subsistence of the policy at the time of accident as evident from Ex A5' //,// 5 *." ,.".,.ifil I . The lirst and foremost contention of the ]earne C counsel for the petitirtners is that though as per Ex.A4 the deccased was earning Rs .'t ,O27 .92 paise per month as an eml lloyee in Singareni Collieries Compaly Limited, more specificall y in Civil Engineering Department at Goleti, the learned rribr rnar has considered the salary of the deceased as mentioned i I Ex.A4. The learned Tribunal did not consider Ex.A4 on the gro.rnd that the petitioners; failed to examine either the author of I,)x.A4 or any other olflcial from the concerned company to pr ove the nature of thr: job of the deceased ald also to provr Ex.A4 certihcate. Thus, the learned Tribunal has hxed the r Lotional income of the deceased @ Rs.lg,OOO/_ per anntrm by considering the avocation of the deceased as ,Iabour,. It is settled law that a salary certificate issued by the empl,>yer is relevant evidence and can be relied upon unless challenged with strong contradir;tory evidence. But in the present cas,:, the personal examirration of the employer is not appearing to be mandatory, especially when the salary certificate is on record and appearing rc be genuine. If a salary certifrcate is issu:d by a competent authorit5r (employer), it cal be relied upon unless its authenticity rs questioned. '! i t, 6

10. Except questioning the authenticity of Ex'A4' there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent/ insurance company to discard Ex'A4' It is to be seen that procedura-I fprmalities should not defeat substantive justice in accident claimcases.Incaseswhereasalarycertilrcateisavailable, unnecessa-ry insistence on the examination of the employer would delay justice' However' it is observed that in Ex'A4' statutory deductions were not made part of the salary certificate. Thus, this Court is inclined to consider the salary of the deceased at Rs.6,OOO/- per month' ll.ThelearnedTribunalflxedthemultipiierofthedeceased based on II Schedule of the Act as '13'' ln Ex'Al (FIR) and A3 (PME report), the age of the deceased is shown as 45 years' But as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Vermav.DelhiTraasPortCorporationr,theappropriate multiplier for the persons between the age group of '41-45'years is'14'.

12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future prospects while calculating the compensation' ' (20Grc scc tzl I I I Thus, the monthly Since the <lt:ceased was 6gsd between 40 to 50 yea rs having permanent.iob, he is entitled for future prospects @ 3oyo as per the decision laid down in National fnsurance ()ompary Limited v. pranay Sethi and others2. income of the deceased with future prospects c tmes to Rs.7,800/- t)er annum (Rs.6,0OO/_ + Rs. 1,8O0/-). S:nce, the dependents are four in number, | / 4ttt of the incomr: of the deceased has to be deducted from rncome of the ceceased towards his personal expenses and thereby the annuar income of the deceas,:d after deducting personai expenses comes to Rs.5,850/- (Rs.7,8OO/- _ Rs. 1,95O/_) and the annuat in:ome of the deceased comes to Rs.ZO,2OO/ - (S,g50/_ x 12 montirs). As stated supra, Lre relevant multiplier for the age of the dt ceased is '14'. when the annuar sarary of the deceased after derlucting his personal e.xDenses is multiplied with the relevant mu; tiplier, it comes to Rs !),82,8O0/_ (Rs.7O,2O O/ _ x U). Thus, the toss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceasred IS Rs.9,82,80O/

13. The learnt:d Tribunai awarded Rs. IO,OO0/_ towardri loss of consortium nr the pedtioner No. 1 and Rs.S,OOO/- torvards 2 20t7 ACJ 2700 i a 6' Rs.40,O0O/- each are entitled for funeral expenses. However' as per the principle laid down in National Insurance Compaay Limited v' Pranay Sethi and others3, the claimant/ petitioner No' 1 is entitled to Rs'77'OOO/- under the conventional heads (Rs'7O'OOO/- + 1O7o enhancement thereon) towards loss of estate (Rs' 15'00O/-)' loss of consortium (Rs.ao,o0o/-) and funera'l expenses (Rs'15'OO0/-)' Further' the petitioner Nos.2 and 4 being the minor children of the deceased parental consortium of Rs.80,OOO/- i'e', of the Honourable as per t1le decision in Magma General Insurance Company Supreme Court Rama. Though the Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru of Rs.9,OO,00O I -, tn claimants have claimed compensation Chandramani Naada v' Sarat Chandra Swain and anothers' the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed' provided it is found to be just ald reasonable' Thus' the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs' 11,39,8O0/ - (Rs'9'82'8OO/- + Rs'77'OOO/- + Rs.80,ooo/-). r 2017 ACJ 2700 .20la La\, Suit (SC) 904 'h j3024 INSC 777 1 I I 9

74. It is ro be seen that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who were minors at ltre time of accident, might have attained i-he age of majority. ]'trus, this Court feels it appropriate to app,rrtion Lhe compensation arrived by this Court in the foilowing prcportion: Sl.No T )escription of the party Amou:rt 1 ) ,) 4 Petitroner No. 1 (wife of the deceased) Rs.g,3,),8OO/- Petitioner No.2 (son of the deceased) Rs. 1,Or),OOO/_ Petrtioner No.3 (daughter of the deceased) Rs. 1,Oi),OOO/_ Petr tioner No.4 (Si ster of the deceased) Rs.1,Or),00O/_ 1 5. In vieu, of the above facts and circumstances, th is Court is of the consiclered view that impugned order passec by the learned Tribr rnal is required to be modifred to the e Ktent of above observittions.

16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 1,7I,OOO/_ to Rs. 11,39,g0O/_, which shall cit-ry interest @ 7.s% per annum from the date of hling the clain-r application till the date of realization . The respondents are jointly and severally liable to depor;it the compensation itmount within two months from receipt of cop'r of this judgment. On such depos;t, the petitioners are t:ntitled to wittrdraw the entire amount av,arded, to them in thr proportion as stated supra without furn ishing the crate of 10 any security subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation, which is beyond the amount claimed by the petitioners- There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/' A /-A. sRINIVASA REDDY NT REGISTRAR sEcNON OFFICER To, I 2 J 4 C hairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-District Judge' bad. (with records, if anY) dv, Advocate [OPUC] CC to Sri S. Surender Red Advocate tOPUCI CC to Sri S- A V. Ratnam' The Adila One One Two CD CoPies VHiVA/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 31tO1t2OZs JUDGMENT+DEcREE MACIU|A.No.349 of 2008 AILOWNG THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS -f, HE S 14 o k c '. .,.!', 1O APR zIE p l) l, ( 2 DRAFTS ) rN rHE HrGH "or*If8fotffoBt#E oF TELANGANA FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY ' " -nmo inousnr'ro AND TWENTY FlvE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M'G'PRTYADARSINI CIDENT clvtL MISGEL LANE OUS APPEAL NO:349 OR AC MOT oF 2008 Between: 1 2 a 4 AND 1 2 Perveen Sulthana @ Surayya Begum Wo Late Abdul Raheem' Age 39 years' House hold R/o Shanthi nagar' AollaDao' Abdul Saleem, S/o late Abdul Raheem' Age 20 years' Student' R/o Shanthi nJdri, AJ'aor'o Salma Bequm @ Hafeeza Begum S/o Late Abdul Raheem' Age 18 years' Student. R7o Shanthi nagar, Adllabao' Zareena Begum, D/o Abdul Hafeez' Age 21 years' House hold R/o Shanthi nagar, Adilabad. he guardianship of the i iryfitib;;;r; 4-{""1e,eg_t-ifl l"t petitioner vide co dt. 11-z-uu ln MAUlvr^ Nr'r''" '-"'""'...pETlTloNERS sukhwanth Kaur wo t'r P"Jo,ffi'ff?i"1if;5:a?,fJ;,?ilt"j ":*'1 i: . U#+Hfl:itili.Jf ff x?eiliitl?1,#ii"iilE[tv"*serancnManager ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ,?;;'^3tfl 'fil6lft 'Jne'n.rotr Aooeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act against the order and decree drt"d t's5;:icioi i"'-o p]r.r".'"aoo'lt-zoog on.the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident dii*"-f-'iU'nal-Cum-District Judge' Adilabad' This appeal coming on for hearing and u-pon perusing the grounds of oilrte do"t-utlow and the material papers rn appeal, the Judgment 'no'o"""tt-" rhe case and upon n"rnng"il;?g";rnlntt ot sti s.' Surender Reddy' Advocate for the appellants and S'its;il''R;inam' Advocate for the Respondent No' 2 and none appeared for n"sp'onOent No 1 either in person or by Advocate' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed 'lo'm-pensiiion am-ount- fiom Rs' 1'71'000/- to Rs' bv enhancing tnt 1i jq 800/-. which shall iarry interest @ 7 '5%-p21 annum from the date of riri"i"tri,iilJi* apptlcation till ihe date of realization: 2 That the respondents be and herchv ..6 ;^ih+r., ^-r _, $"*tJiffi"l,'ll,,",":Hi.ii}lffi ,fl Ifl :*ilT'il#i,i:t?1x}i,i".JS.;?3i3s;l,

3. That on such dep the entire amount awarded to them in the ro Sl.No osit the petitioners be a Description of the party hereby are ent,fled to withdraw ortton as 1 J 4 Petitioner No.1 (wife of the deceased Petitioner No.2 (son of the deceased) Petitioner No.3 (daughter of the deceased Petitioner No.4 (sister of the deceased) ) Amount Rs. 8,3(r,800/- Rs 1,0( ,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00 000/- without furnishing any security compensation, which is oeyono ttrJlmil;i#ffi;y rhe petirioners: and That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. payment of deficit court fee orr the enhanced Io 4 //TRUE COPYII Sd/- A. SRINIVASA RED DY AS S\ANT REGISTRAR SI I J SECTION OFFICER lrlotor Accident Claims Tribunal_Cum_District Judge, To, '1. The Chairman Adilabad.

2. Two CD Copies VH/VA HIGH COURT DATED: 31t011ZO2S DECREE MACMA.No.349 of 2008 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ')