Of High Court · 2025

Smt.p Naqai:xr years, Occrr l_,, Hyderabad 2 P.Lokesh Gotrc about. 6 yeirr, () 3[T,j3l3:[]j),, ...Appellant,ess oondent No.2 Il,:fl xil,*x"riiJs?"fssili,iffi (D ,ff;s;;1fl ,",j,fl 33*033 ,:Ail?'*t,, Goud, s/o late Beheemeshawar ,3oud, Aged j,kr,,,o"i, W/o.Jayashankar Goud, Aged about 70 years, f;i{i,:Hy?iillfrriiilf s*9:"tif,,,jT?,*,giy,.6(R,,"fl ,#g jf ,oou,zu (Respondent Nc ll ir; Mjnor represented by his guardian, Respondr,nt No.1) 3l:,,:3 ff;: l,i ]i;,,5 ff;Jrrr'B,prop R/o prot r; ff; T:fl:1)eti tio n e rs 3 4 5 IA NO:4 OF 2021 ... Respo n de n UR<;rs ps nd ent petition undet S;€ C1 in *re aniJa vii ;ffi , ; :;;, ;,fiiij3eil,:l:?,yi,1J[ B;,:I,I"U.;:,; i.Xii :: vacate the interim strv ,,r.irtecr ,io.Lli"r.'o'r"o'ilr, 1/2021 i, rA No 3 0t 2021 dA CMR r,'ro 6S812t2. Ly p_.rmittinfirr;;;ffi;"r" to withdraw the,teposited ^ counsel for the clairnants; in both MACMAs : sri p.Ramakrishna F.edd / counsel for the lnsuran<;e company in both MACMAs: sri A.Rama Krir;hna Reddy The Court madt t6t 1t'11r1*ring : CoMMoN JUDGMENT I HONOURABLE SMT' JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA A.No.1 97and 688 of2 0.2l M.A. c.M. GME NT: coMMON Rs.2O,00,00O/- The aPPellants claimants filed M'A C M'A No'197 of 2O2l seeking enhancemen t of compensation' while M'A C'M'A'No'688 of 2021 \s frled bY the Insurancd Company' under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act' 1 988, aggrieved by the order and decree dated O2.Og -2O2O Passed in M.V.O.P.No' 10 34 of 2Ol4 by the Chairman' Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional Chief Judge' Citlz Civil Courts' HYderabad (for short "the Tribunal")' grantmg against the claim of comPensation of Rs' 19'60'000/ - for the death of one P.Bheemeshwar Goud (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in the motor accident occurred on 16'05 2013' 2. For the sake of convenience and clarily' the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal' 3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 16.05.2013 at about 09 00 AM' the deceased was proceeding on the road by walk and when the deceased reached Kanakadurga tempie, Dilsukhnagar, a Mahendra Boiero Van bearing No'AP28TB- 677d driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent -rn)-r.. and dashed the deceased' as a result of which' the \ 2 ETD,J deceas,.d l.. l rJora.n on the road and sustained ia tal died on tir,_ 5pa1 It is t.heir case that the decr:asel r,r.r sum ol Rr;. lri OCO/- per month as a driver and therelbr {;r^JarrLL, t t. t 1m petition seeking Rs.20,(lO,l_l(_)a)/ compen:rl'i lr rn;uries and ts earning a r, they have . towards

4. of al Th: resconcrent No.1 remained ex portear d rcspo:rclent No.2 count,.1. < r,ntending that the deceased was und(lr th,r influence cohol t;lcr tha.t while crossing the road, he ferl do,r.n on the and as r; r:h, the accident occurred. It is lurther lontended by respoll(eIr No.2/Insurance company thar tlLere u as no negligence cn rile part of the driver of the Bolero Van anc that the accident or:curr:d o;ely due to the negiigence of the, de<;easr:cl. They further der ie d t ie aile, occupation and income of the rlcct:a secl. 5. Baserj o- the above pleadings, the Tribunal has, f;_arred the follouing isr;u r: s irr tr.ial: I 2 3 V'l ,. -11q1 the cleceased Bheemeshwar Gr_rpt: die,l in the tr otc r itccidcnt with the Mahindra Bol.:ro .arr ir...,ng N:r ,\F 28 TB 6770? \\ h I er the petit ioners are entitled lor cortp,.r sarion, i' ;,.'r']1x1 extent and lrom whom? ! '1 rI I Jr Io ,',,tat, reiieP I i ETD,J 3

6. At the dme of trial' the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.Al to A10 were marked On behalf of the respondents' RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs Bl arrd 82 were marked' 7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribrgnal has granted a compensation of Rs'19'60'000/- with interest @' 8'k pet annum from the date of hiing of the petition to til1 the date of realization' Aggrieved by the same' the petitioners have preferred MACMA No.197 of 2O2l while the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M'A No 6a8 of 2027'

8. Heard the submission of Sri P'Rama Krishna Reddy' learned claimants and Sri A'Rama Krishna Reddy' Iearned counsel for the counsel for the Insurance Company' 9 The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the towards Tribunal has wrongly granted iess compensatlon consortium and that amounts towards funeral expenses and loss of estatc are also awarded very low and that the Tribunal has instead of '15' and thus' wrongly taken the multiplier as '14' He further PraYed that the prayed to enhance the compensatlon' Tribunal has awarded compensation to appellant No'4 who died during the pendency of the case and that though they have Iiled a memo dated 28'06 2OI7 along with the death certificate stating I,1 \ 4 EID,J .]l : : that a;rp::,]:rrt No.4 died during the pendency, th:.lrrbunal failed to consic er thc same and failed to consider that LRs of deceased are the iLI) l€lliir_ t Nos.1 to 3 herein. He pretyerl to 2[]66.a1s 6h. share o;'a p1;,_.llrLnt No.4 in favour of appellant Nrts. I to i . 1O. Tl r. 1,. r .r.te(l courrsel appearing for the L rsu r anc.:: Company has sult m j11c ( rhat the Tribunal has wrongly ,reld tht insurance compan) ,c I1r1 li21Us in paying the compensatjon tnrl he further contendecl tl-L:t; pVy'2 is planted as an eye witnes,s ir thi,; case and that thc J€ nte wasi held by the III Special Magistrat,: at L.B.Nagar in C.C.Nc. [it2 ,rf 2013, wherein it was held that pW2 <:e me to the scene of oili.rcc one hour after the accident. l.he co rnsel has further sub.rir:t:d that though the petitioner has not liled irn1, proof of earnings tlr., .lribunal has u,rongly taken the notiorLal i tcome on a higher sici,, 21111 granted exorbitant amourrts torr.trds the compensation : nd that they u,rongly fastened the lia:ilit against the insurarrct).'lmpilny, he therefore, prayed to seL asi<1e rhe order and decrec 1;i. r;,;,rd by the tribunal by allowing tL is a ppc il. It is further conte nrl,tr:l b.r the learned counsel that in the ltost mortem report it is c,r.rr i y rnentioned that the abdomen cf [_re c eceased Contained ,lt i,11, ol brown fluid and thus, it is clc ar r hat the deceased vlas ccmpletely under the influence which he Jeli ,llwn on the road in an intoxicated conclii.ion and of al,:oh ol due to 1 ETD,I 5 sustained injuries and contributed in the occurrence of accident and that there is no fault of the driver of Bolero jeep He therefore' prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunai' 1 1 . Based on the above rival contentions' this Court frames the lollowing point s for consideration: w h e t h e r r h e a c c i d e n t ili"::'" iffi ';""1"* :.t Ttl #::. and negligence ot.t)#t';:"u:r,i"* l" th; death of No.AP 28 TB 6t /u' P.Bheemeshwar Goud? whether there was anv^::ll::t::y;;1x::[" on part of the deceased in the oc Whether the claimants are entitled 161 snhzt666ment o[ is just and compensation granLed reasonable? Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any 'o''iitt'ttto"nal interference? To what relief'r I 2 J 4 5 POINT NOS.1 AND2: t2 a) A perusal of the record would reveal that PWl is not an eye witness to the accident. Pw2 is cited as an eye 'witness in the charge sheet under Ex'A2/Charge Sheet He stated that he witnessed the accident and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero jeep' During his cross examination, except mere denial of the suggestions given by ( t 6 ETD,] the respon ie nt <:ounsel, nothin g much could be e[crterl to discredit his evicle-r,:e . b) T-r(, ,t.lrtention of the learned counsel for insirtrar ce company is that I h,: c.z d311qs of pW2 should be discardeC, zr s i1 ,vas heid by the crirein: I Court that he is not an eye t,int,:ss. It is his contenti trL tf zLt pW2 is planted as an eye witness rn th is case and that the s tjtt l \{.as held by the III Special Magistrerr.e ar L.B.Nagar in C.C.NI. 1!.1 of':1013, wherein it was held tha. l,Vr2 crme to the scene of olfe ru:e one hour after the accident. lt ts p,:rtrnent to mendon lte r,:: .hat the decision of a criminal Cour I rs not ltinding in civil proceeC jrqs tlLat too the proceedings under ihe lr4V \cr do not call for strirl lx'oof of evidence, therefore, the decisjon o|criminar Court is ro_ ltrding on the Tribunal and the Tribunal hrs rightly relied upon tlt,: evidence of pW2 and has held thar the accident occurred cju:: rr thc rash and negligence of the dr.r,er.of tlre Bolero Jeep and t-tzrt ,}t lre \\ras no negligence of the deceasecl c) It is ar;-ser l ecl by the claimants that the dec:ase cl -,r as by walk arLd is deposed by pW2 that while the cl,rceased was going by q,z.ll:, te rvas hrt by the Bolero Van, driven bv rhr: a high spee<{, tferef<>re it is held that there negligence ()r 1h I part of the deceased. 15 nO lriver at :ont ributory { t: I !iI I I I I I I t I l I I I ; i I I I ETD,J 7 d) The counsel has argued that il is mendoned in Postmortem Examination that the Abdomen of the deceased contained alcohol but a perusai of Ex A4 reveals that it has brown colour fluid in the abclomen lt is nowhere mentioned that the contents of the abdomen were alcohol RW2 is Doctor R Sudha' who conducted Post Mortem Examination and she too has not stated in her evidence that she has found any alcohol in the body of the deceased and she further stated that she did not send Vicera for FSL examination' therefore' it cannot be held that the deceased wasundertheimpactofalcohol,whilecrossingtheroad. It is also pertinent to mention here that the charge sheet was e) flied against the driver of Bolero jeep' Relying upon the FIR under' Ex.Al, the charge sheet under trxA2 and aiso considering the evidence of PW2, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving ol the driver of Bolero van and that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased' Point Nos'l and 2 ate answered accordinglY'

13. POIN T NO.3: a) The appellants in MACMA No 197 of 2O2l are seeking enhancementofcompensation.Aperusaloftheorderpassedby the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has taken the income of the decfased as Rs. 1O,O0o/-. It is asserted by the petitioners that the I 1 \ 8 ETD,J (') deceas,:d rl,.tij earning Rs.15,OO0/_ per month as : flrj,.s1 and filed Ex.A9,/ jr jr,.l,; licence to prove the same. b) A pen s;al ,rf Ex.A9 reveals that the saic Dt-lvin11 License is valid lro m i) 3. 1 i .11005 to 2Z .O3.225 and it is issrred lor_ < lriving LMV non-trar sjrort ve],ricles, thus, it is held that the dc:c eased was holding il \,al cl driving iicence as on the date of a,::icletrt ro drive light mo:ot. re hicles. Though, no other prooi_ i5 lil:d by the petitioners ti) prov-- the earnings of the deceasecl. hc u.e s aged 40 years and v:€t i :Lbie bodied person prior to the acc cren r and was running a Iar:tilv of four members and thus, it is opiner: drat the Tribunal teLs r ghtly assessed the income of .hc clcc,:ased as Rs.1O,0OO,/_ per month on a reasonable hypothesis. in addition, the Tribunal h,rs tal:en Rs.7OO/_ per month tovr.arcls El.atu:r. based on a presultl) r,rr, u.hich cannot be sustained. 'ln c) In th,: ti;3lr of the principles laid down by tl,re Apcx lourt in Nqtional l'nsu.rq-nce Compq.ng Limited Vs. pranag Siethi & Othersl, 4Oo,i tf thr: income needs to be added torr ardr future towards future prospe lts \\-oL ld give 40 / 1OO = 4OOO / -) per mr,r.rth r,vhich \)c'tng 4Ook Fr; lO,C,00/ x Rs.14,000/- prospects. comes to Rs.l,1r:)r)l//- x 12 = Rs.1,68,0OO/- per annlrln 1 AR 2017 s()c t' I i t I ETD,I I d) Further, a deduction of 1/4e is to be made to his income as there were four dependents' therefore' the income after deduction towards Personal expenses would come uPto Rs' 1'26'000/- (Rs. 1,68,o00/- f) Rs'a2'000/-)' e) The age of the deceased was shown as '38' years tn Ex.A8/Bonafide certiiicate' while it was shown as '40' years in Ex.A4/Post Mortem Examination Report The multiplier should be chosenwithregardtotheageofthedeceased'aspercolumnNo'4 of the table given in Sarla Verma u' Delhi Transport Corpotatiot\. Thus, the deceased age was considered to be between36-40years,theappropriatemultipliertobeappliedis ,|4,.Thus,thelossofdependencyComesuptoanextentof Rs. 17,64,000/- (Rs 1'26'o00 I - X l4l' 0 With regard to the consortium' the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner who is the wife of the deceased but not awarded to the 2nd petitioner who is the son, 3'd and 4th petitioners who are the Parents of the deceased. In the light of Pranag Sethi's case' Rs 15OOO/- towards loss d of estate and .Rs'15,OOO/- towards funeral expenses and ' zoos 1a1 stc rzr I 10 ETD,J F\ Rs.40,C0r_r,' towards loss of consortlum have to ltc a warded and further it v.ts heLd that there has to be lOyo enhancem --nt in these amounts .c r. e ver.,. Lhree years h) In Ma,qma General fnsurance Compqn!! Limit,rzd. a. Nanu Ram @ 'Cl,u u-u Ram and other.j , the Apex Ccurl has elaborately discusserl t :e. principles laid down in pranagsefhi.s ca se and has furLher t e d 1t at not only the spouse but the parcrr s arrd children of the dcctra ltr:,_l s1.s als6 entitled to loss of consortiLLm Therefore, rn the pre.s err case, all the claimants would get Rs ..1g,( rOO/ - each lf r:onsortium,, hence, the comlten,satio I amount instead or' Rs 40,000/-. the heads of furr,rral expenses Rs. 18,000/ woulcl be just and under th s head v.ould be Rs.1,92,O0O/_ Further, it is hel,j that under Rs. 18,00C ,/ - ar d loss of estate proper towards'lt,ss; i) tn atl, .he claimants compensalicr: . rnounts: are entitled to t-re following 1 2 !, 4 C o1n )c''l sati( o( epcndent Cot rp:: I ;ation conso _lirtm C:r,.p,',rsatic rn under the head of loss towards loss n towards Ioss oI estate C:nr|r:;Liation e>ll lr li(.s Tot,rl towards funeral R s.77,64,O(tO / _ R s.7,92,OCO/ - Rs. 18,O0 C/- Rs.18,O0r)/- Rs.l9,9.2,OO ,r! l t (:ol8) t8.gcct t:l \ i 11 ETD,] j) awarded Rs.I9,60,000/- while the The Tribunal has be entitled to a comPensation of claimants are held to Rs.19,92,000/- and hence, the same is enhanced to the said extent. Point No.3 is answered accordingly'

14. POINT NO.4: In view of the finding arrived at point Nos l to 3' it is held that the order and d'ecree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified. Thc compensaLion granted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.19,60,OOO/- is enhanced to Rs lg'92'OOOI-'

15. PO INT NO.5: ln the result, the MACMA No 688 0f 2021 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed' while the MACMA No' 197 of 2O2llrledbytheclaimantsispartlyallowedmodifyingtheordcr and decree datecl 02 03'2020 passed in M V'O P No lO34 of 2Ol4 by the Chairman, Motor Accldents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts' Hyderabad' enhancing the compensation trom Rs 19,6O'0OO/ to Rs lg'92'OOO I and the enhancedamountofcompens:rtionshallcarry-int'[email protected]/oper annum from the date ot claim petition till realization ' I lowever' the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited The respondents are clirected to deposit the compensation amorrnt with accrued interest within a period of t\rvo months from the date of receipt of a I I ';T;;::. 12 tl D,l copy ol t dcposltr rl thc sai<l respecti,,c clatman Iit, rr5. already t:; -ludgment after deducting the am,]r_Ln il , lr r clt dcposir. the t.laimants aT(.( tiL r , (l il:..1( uill rvithout furnishir-rg any se<:_rri;. . jl .rres as allottcd b1, the Tribr_rn:tl an I t 1- e share of I shrrll be distributed to claimanr {os.1 , J u.ho are a I per their .o u.rthdrau, on rccor,l. \1,I c,ls Ls Miscr:l lrrre orts petitior-rs, pencling if any, rrL 1l-us ;r1,pszrl, stand cir sr rc I I i I I a I l To, 1 2 3 4. Svslgh //TRUE COPYII ,.,i'P.1iV?EB,!JHI- / / sEC-t.toN OFF|CER J[: ts: l,? ;'x;;[:lJ:.''' ims rribu n a r-c um-x-Add iti r na r :::99 rc .iri r) Rarnakrist : ;1,:?T['ff #..1i1 a1:::15,tT#? :ff i3 s,; ij,i 'KP" Chir:f Judge, City .a' '.,rt- irr'' id&. .r4' l" 1 HIGH COLIFiI' DATED:0410l,112025 H: S 7t 1\ I |' I o I ll0?5 -P 71 JUDGMEITIT +. ppgpS= t-l MACMA.No,.'t97 AND 688 of 2021 DISMISSING| 'tHE MACMA NO.688 OF 2021 AND PARTLY AI-I-CIWING THE MACMA NO.197 oF 2021 6 [ar 1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL rw"o iiousnND AND TWENTY FlvE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LLAN EO 2021 PPEAL MISCE USA CIVIL DENT ACCI NO: 197 AND M OTOR 134441 688 0F MOTO RAC CIDEN T CIVI L MIS CELLA NEOU SAP PEAL NO:19 70F 2021 Between:

5. P.Nagalaxmi Pavani' Wo Late Bheemeshwar Goud' Aged 4'1 Years' Occ ^ X"ffi::i'"oud aliqs sarveshwar Goud s/o Late Bheemeshwar Goud'Ased - ti Y"rt., occ Studbnt' '7a v6.re o 7- P.Jayamma S'kk'O'i' W/o Jayashankar Goud'Aged 76 Years' OcC 'ffi w'^8"itui",''fi3"ti'!1':?"r$33si{q'ii5xiffi }J5 nl,t,':l**nl;Pilmif rut3il;lT:olEl**io;';ba "'APPellants AND J 4 R/o Prot N o 1 e2' Mad havanas a r' Sg is: FJJ:'i'i"""'dxftB:i?'JE [Jio''"'o'', (Owner of the Mahindra Bolero Van bearing No' AP-28TB-6770) rhechoraman4er.,.-Yi-qfi|f ',ill[uil"T"?:[:??nttilTi".131?J3,0'n' j;i;b; d R:fitlx"ff "fl#s 3fl%:ld,Iff i ; ...ResPondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in lvlvop..t034i20rio"i"o 02.o3.2020 0n the file of the court of the li/lotor Accidents Claims Tribun"f -C,'-i-naJitional Chief Judge' City Civil Court' Hyderabad This Court dottr Otrlr:. anrJ ps6pss as follows : 1 . That th,: t\4c t rr Dismissed /\ccident Civil Miscellaneous Appeat be and hereby IS 2 That The,re , r;l-all ber no order as to costs //TRUE COPYII :;D/- MOHD. ISMAIL D$PUTY REGISTRAR .rsEcfloN oFFtcER i I \...r

1. Tht: ,l:r,r: of the MotorAc"igglt". Ctaims Tribuna _Cu n_X_Additional ^ th u .l.rrge. City Civil uourt. Hyderabad. 2. Tw,':,1lr C ooir-'s To, HIGH CO]UR-r DATED:0,+t'O4t2O2S DECREE MACMA.No.f gr7 AND 688 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA NO.688 OF 2021 AND PARTLY ALLOI'VING THE MACMA NO.197 OII 2021 0blar