High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in MACMAMP No. 6639 ol 2012 dated 17th October 2O12 tn MA'IMA No 3080 ot 2012. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T MAHENDER RAO CounselfortheRespondentNo.lto3:SRISUBBAGARISUDARSHANREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No-4: SRI P RAJA SRIPATHI RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 808 OF 2014 Appeal filed under sectron 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment_and Decree dated 221o6t2012. passed in MVOP.No. 22',1| of 2oo8 on the file of the Motor Accident clarms Tribunal-cum-the court of the I Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Betriveen: 1 R PADMA AND 2 OTHERS, W/o. Late K.S.Rameshkumar, Occ Widow, R/o. 2 Smt Sharadha,, Wlo. Laxrnan, Occ Housewife, R/o. 29_1_3, Sainagar, 29-1 -3, Sainagar, Sainikpuri, Securderabad. Sainikpuri, Secunderabad.

3. R.Sandhya,, D/o. Late K.S.Ramestrkumar, R/o. 29_1_3, Sainagar, Sainkpuri, Secunderabad. AND ...APPELLANT(S) ROBO SILICON LTD AND ANOTHER, Rept By C.V.Subbarao, Robo Hose, Flat No. 126, Road No. 71, Nayaniraman tiage'r,Jubitee Hiils, ftyOliiOaA_:a Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance,66 and609 llfloor White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad-5000,l 6 2 Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. SUBBAGARI SUDARSHAN REODY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NARESH BYRAPANENI The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ...RESPONDENTS i : : i I a i i I t I I i : HONOURABLE SMT.JUS TICE M.G. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.3O8O OF 2O12 and aO8 of 2O14 COMMON JUDG MENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22 '06 '2012 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned orderJ passed by the learned Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (hereinafter will be relerred as Tribunal') in M'V'O'P'No'221 of 20O8, the respondent No 2/Insurance Compaly preferred MACMA No.3O80 of 2Ol2 to set aside the impugned order and whereas the petitioners / claimants preferred MACMA No'8O8 of 2014 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. Since both the Appeals have been frled by either of the parties agiunst one impugned order arising out of the same accident, this Court is inclined to adjudicate both the Appeals by way of 'rlommon Judgment' For the sakc o[ convenience, the parties hereinafter are

3. referred as they were arraved before the Tribunal' 4 The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under ; 2 x^aM^ trc ao€o/b r 2 & @/2or4 a) The petitioners, who are wife ard daughters of K.S.Ramesh Kurnar, (hereinafter will be referred as teceased,) respectively, filed claim petition under Section 163_A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,OO,OOO/_ against the Respondent Nos.l ald 2 for the death of the deceased in the road tralhc accident. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 17 .O7 .2OOB the deceased aJong with his son Arun Kumar and nephew Chakrapani from Sainikpuri was proceeding towards Rajendra Nagar in Auto bearing registrati,on No.Ap 1 I U ST52 and when they reached near AOC Gate, a Tipper Lorry bearing registration AP 29 U 3435 (hereinafter will be referred as .crime vehicle') came in rash and negligent manner arrd dashed the auto in which deceased aJong with his son ald nephew were proceeding. As a result, the deceased died on the spot and whereas his son died in the hospital. b) A case in Crime No. 132 of 20Og of Ttrkaram police Station was registered against the driver of the lorry for the offences under Sections 337 and 33g of tlre Indian penal Code. The deceased was working as auto d.river and earning Rs.6,OOO/_ per month prior to the accident. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime rrehicle by its driver and I I { I I |' I I t F i I : i I 3 McMA Nd.3030/20t2 & 3o3/2or4 thus, the petitioners clajmed compensation of Rs'7,OO,00O/- from the respondent Nos.l and 2, wh,o are the owner and insurer of th.e crime vehicle respectively.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition averments, the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and whereas respondent No.2 frled counter denying the petition averments including the malner of the accident, age and income of the deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving license as on the date of accident and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excesslve. In order to establish the claim before the learned 6. Tribunal, PWs I and 2 were examined and Exs'A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, no oral evidence wzls adduced on behall o[ the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.Bl to 83 u'ere rnarked

7. The learned Tribuna] aftcr considering the oral and documentar5r evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding Rs.4,06,OO0/- as compensation to the petitioners' Aggrieved by the impugned order, the respondent No.2/ Insurance Compary preferred MACMA No.3080 of 2012 to set 4 M^cr^r'@.36o/ro" & 6o6E1d aside the impugned order and whereas the petitioners/claimants preferred the MACMA No.gog of 2OL4 seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. Heard both sides and perused the material available oo record including the grounds ofAppeal.

9. There is no dispute that Ex.Bl copy of insurance policy was subsistent as on the date of the accident.

10. The hrst and foremost contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 is that the learned Tribunal ought to have rejected the claim application on the ground that the owner and insurer of the auto in which the deceased was travelling were not made parties and should have held that there is every possibility of making a separate claim by the claimants against the owner and insurer of the auto.

11. It is to be observed that only when there is negligence on the part o[ a vehicle in causing the accident, ttre insurer and owner of such vehicle wilt be impleaded in the claim petition. But in the instant case there is no such evidence to hold that the accident occurred due to the negligence on tlre part of driver of auto in which the deceased was traveling. Moreover, the 1 I i t I I I I : I i 5 HGPJ k\cra No! ro30/2or2 & 3o3/2or4 learned Tritrunal by relying on the evidence of PW2 (eyewitness) ard documentary evidence under Exs'Al to A7 i'e'' FIR' Charge-sheet, rough sketch, scene of offence panchanama' inquest report, Motor Vehicle lnspector Report and postmortem examination report answered issue No 1 holding that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the tipper lorry bearing No.AP 29 U 3435. Moreover, it is to be observed that mere probabitity of filing another claim petition against the driver of th.e auto carnot be a ground to implead the driver the auto, more particularly when there is negligence on the part of thedriveroftleeautoinwhichthedeceasedwastravelingeven as per the record. Hence, the above sard contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No 2/Insurance CompanY holds no water.

12. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is that the driver of the crime vehicle was not hoiding valid driving license at the time of the, accident.

13. In order to establish that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident the respondent No.2/Insurance Company got examined its 6 Mrcxa x6.3o3o/mr2 a 3m/mlr Assistant Manager as RWl arrd documentar5r evidence under Exs.B2 and El3. Ex.B2 is the notice issued to the owner of the crime vehicle to submit necessary documents to establish that the said driver was having valid driving license. Ex.B3 is the ration card. These documents do not establish that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. If at all the driver of the crfrne vehicle had no valid driving license, then certainJy the concerned Police would have registered case against the said driver not only under the provisions of Indian penal code but also under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act for not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the said crime vehi,cle. The onty competent officials to ascertain about the issues relating to driving license are the Road Transport Authorities. In the instant case, thc respondents failed to examine any of such Road Transport Authorities to prove that the driver of the crime vehicle had no effective and valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the relevant point of tirne. In the absence of any such evidence, mere issuance of notice to the owner of tlre crime vehicle by the insurance company to produce relevant documents is not sufficient material to establish that the driver of the crirne vehicle had no effective and valid driving license to ; I i I 1 i ! l j ;i ,i {: i I : t I f i : I I i I 7 Mr.vr Nos roso/2or2 a a03/2014 drive the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. Hence, the above contention of the learned Stalding Counsel for the Insurance Oompany is unsustainable.

14. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respontlent No.2/Insurance Company is that the leatned Tribunal farled to see that a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act should be in accordance with the second schedule ald the amount of compensation should not be on presumptions.

15. It is settled law that once the Tribunal frames an issue with regard to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle ald aaswers the said issue in favour of the claimant/ s, it is immaterial as to whether the petition was hled under Section 166 or 763 - A of the Motor Vehicle Act, to award lr.rst and fair compensation to the claimants. Thus, the above contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company is untenable.

16. The learned Standing Counsel for the responclent No.2- lnsurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal erred in taking income of the deceased as Rs.54,00O/ without any basis. 8 M@J MACM Nd !O3O/2o 12 a 3Oa/51. 17 . The claimatts alleged that the deceased was earning Rs.6,OO0/- per month by driving the auto. There is absolutely no doubt that the claimants have not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. In such circumstances, tJle learned Tribunal by relying on the decision of the Honourable Suprerne Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance fnsurance Company Limitedl considered the age of deceased at Rs.4,SOO/- per month. Hence, the above said argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company is untenable.

18. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that tlre learned Tribunal failed to consider future prospects of the deceased.

79. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Tribunal did not consider future prospects_ Since the deceased was aged 5l years and self employed, he is entitled for future prospects @ l0% as per the decision laid down in National Insurauce Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others2. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to , 20r r- scc-s-s36 2 Xt7 ACJ 27@ x i j 9 Gcr{^ x6 3o&/2o,2 & 3o3l2or. Rs.4,950/- per zurnum (Rs.a,SOO/- + ns.45O/-). Since, the dependent:; are three in number, I /3ra of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and thereby the alnual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.3,3OO/- (Rs.a,95O/ - Rs.1,650/-t and the €rnnual income of the deceased comes to Rs.39,60O/- (3,300/- x 12 months). As stated supra, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is .1g,. When the annual salary of the deceased aJter deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs.4,35,60O/- (Rs.39,6OO/- x 11). Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is Rs.4,35,6OO/ _.

20. The k:arned Tribunal awarded Rs.S,OOO/_ towards loss o[ consortium. Rs.2,5OO/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,50O/- towar-ds loss of estate. However, as per the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. pranay Sethi and others3, the clairnant/petitioner No. 1 is entitled to Rs.77,OO0/- under the conventional heads i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants ' 2Ot7 l\C-t 27OO r@J vacMA Nc io3o/2o 12 & eoa/2o r. arc eiltitl€d for compensation of Rs.5,12,60orr- (Rs.a,35 ,600/_ + Rs.77,0o0/-).

27. In view of ttre above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent No.2/Insuralce Company failed to establish any of the grounds to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, M.A.C.M.A.No.3O80 of 2Ol2 is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. However, the claimants could establish that tlre learned Tribunal failed to consider future prospects and conventional heads while arriving to thc quantum of compensation, as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modihed only to the extent of considering future prospects ard conventional heads.

22. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.308O of 2Ot2 is dismissed and whereas M.A.C.M.A. No.8O8 of 2OL4 is allou.ed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,O6,OOO/_ to Rs.S,12,6O0/-, which shall carry interest at 7 _Soh per annum from ttre date of petition till the date of realization. The enha-nced compensation arnount is apportioned to petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehrcle respectively l1 MA.kr N6.loao/20r2 &@/20t4 are jointly and severally liabrle to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation arnount awarded to them with accrued interest without furnishing any security' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed To, /TTRUE COPY" SD'.T. JAYASREE ] oeEUnl ntcrqrnan i _t sEcrrf0drFrcER court or the I Additionar chier ' lffi#:8:[#:Jff"#"?l?ig:,,l?H3?:-0""'Jl*n" 2 One CG to SRI T MAHENDER RAO' Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI SUBBAGARI SUDARSHAN REDDY' Advocate IOPUC] 4 One CC tc' SRI P RAJA SRIPATHI RAO' Advocate [OPUCI 5, ONC CC tII SRI NARESH BYRAPANENI, AdVOCAIE [OPUCI 6. Two CD C:opies TPKtgh YY HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 oC .'\-jr -4:t=:=:*"--.. -'- :,'- il | 1..-l'.!- i l'rL- - j -\i j" -'.1 -' i ;i -i:' .;. -.. I i -sEP ?125 | '' COMMON DECREE+COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3080 of 2012 AND MACMA.No.8O8 of 2014 MACMA.No.3080 ot 20121S DISMISSED MACMA No. 808 of 2014 lS PARTLY ALLOWED t .dA k*" HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3253 I TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCI DENT clvtL Mtsc LLANEOUS APPEAL NOS:3 80 0F 2012 AND 808 0F 2014 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL LANEO US APPEAL NO:3080 oF 2012 Between: BAJAJ.ALLIANZ GENERAL,try_SqRANCE COMPANY, 608 and 609, 2nd Floor, White House, Begumpet, Hyderaba?5d"6iii ""'' AND ...APPELLANT 1 R.PADMA, Wo. Late K.S.Ramesh Kumar Widow R/o, 29_1_3 Sainagar Sainikpuri Secunderabad

2. Smt- Sharadha, Wo. Laxman Housewib R/o. 29_.1_3 Sainagar Sainikpuri Secunderabad Secunderabad

3. R.Sandhya, D/o. Late K.S.Rarnesh Kumar R/o. 29_1_3 Sainagar Sainikpuri 4 BgPg Silicon Ltd.,, Rep. by.C.V. Subbarao Robo House Ftat no. .126 71 Navanirman Nagar, Ju6illee ttitts, HVOeraOaJ ea -- Road No MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 808 OF 2014 ...RESPONDENTS Between: 29- 1 -3, Sainagar, Sainikpuri, secunOeraUiO.

1. R.PADMA AND 2 OTHERS, Wo. Late K.S.Rarneshkumar, Occ Widow, R/o. 2. Smt Sharadha,, W/o. Laxman, Occ Housewifu, R/o. 29_1_3, Sarnagar, 3. R.Sandhya,, D/o. Late K.S.Rameshkumar, R/o. 29-1_3, Sainagar, Sainikpuri, Sainikpuri, Secunderabao. Secunderabad_ ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1 ROBO SILICON LTD AND ANOTHER, Rept By C'V Subbarao, Robo Hose' irrl1". izo-, noro t'to. 71, Nayaniraman Nagdr,Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33 Baiai Allianz General lnsurance,' 608 and 609 ll Floor White House, Be'gumpet, Hyderabad-50001 6 2 ...RESPONDENTS AppealsfiledUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheJudgment and Decree daled i,.2to612012, passed in MVOP.No. 221 01 2008 0n the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-the court of the I Additional chief Judge' City Civil Court at Secunderabad. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri T.Mahender Rao, Advocate for the Appefiants in MACMA.No.3080 of 2012, sri Subbagari sudarshan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 3, and Sri P.Raja sripathi Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 and Sri subbagari Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants in MACMA.No-808 of 2014 and Sri Naresh Byiapaneni, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

1. That the M.A C.M.A No.3080 of 20'12 filed by insurance company be and hereby is dismissed ,

2.rhaltheM,A.C.M-A'No.sOsof2014filedbyClaimantsbeandherebyispartly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,O6,0004 to Rs'S,12,6001, which shall (;arry interest at 7.5Yo per annum from the date of petition till the date of reahzation. The enhanced compensation amount is apportioned to petitioner Nc.1, who is the wife of the deceased. The respondent Nos'1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount wkhin one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to witMraw the compensation amount awarded to them with accrued interest without furnishing any security; ard

3. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REG]STRAR SECTI FICER

1. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-the court of the I Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 4I To,

2. Two CD Copies k TPK HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.3080 of 2012 AND MACMA.No.808 of 2014 MACMA.No.3080 of 2O12lS DISMISSED MACMA No. 808 of 2014 lS PARTLY ALLOWED q.fd (t- - =S\a'