The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JuSTTCE NARSING RAO TIANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No. 181 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: The appellants/claimants filed the present irppeal against tJre Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Prl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy l)istrict, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to 'learned TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.60 of 2017, dated 11.10.2019, wherein claimants/petiti,rners had frled the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seekirLg compensation of Rs. 1O,0O,OOO/- on account of death of lst petitioner's husband, namely Sri Dev Rao, (herein after referred to as the deceasedJ who died in accident occurred on 21.08.2006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellart,s/claimants frled M.V.O.P.No.6O of 2Ol7 under Section 166 of the M.\/.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent mi rner by the motor cycle bearing No.TS-01-EE-5O27 driven by respcndent No. 1. It is contended that on 21.08.2016, the deceased went to village to fetch wages for the work done by him in the lields of one Kumaram ' ,^.on.r"rffi Manthaiah and Uddav, a motorcycle bearing No.TS-01-EE-5027 driven by respondent No. I in rash arrd negligent manner and dashed the deceased at Nanqji Kunta area of Veerdandi Vinage. The deceased received severar injuries to his vital parts of the body more particurarly on the head. On 22.O9.2OL6, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The Police registered a case under section 337 and 304-A of Ipc against the driver of offending vehicre, wherein a charge sheet was also l,ed against the rider of the driver of the motor cycle and made responsible for the accident. The appellants/claimalts claimed arl amou,nt of Rs. 1O,00,OOO/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads. 3 The contention of the petitioners was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 5O years ald was earnmg Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as a labourer at N.T.R.Nagar market and also at Veerdhandi village. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No. 1 appeared in person but did not choose to file counter. Respondnet No-2 frled the counter- affrdavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including $ 3 M:8,' EA-c.8.t-tu- tAt ot2O2O the manner in which the accident took prace, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that as per policr, records, two more persons were riding on crime motorcycle and therefc,re due to overload the rider of motorcycle lost balance and hit the dec,--z*ed from backside ad the rider was not hording valid driving ricence at the time of accident, but contended that the compensation clairned is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments rnade by both the counsels, the learned rribunal framed the fonowing issues wtrich reads as under: i) Wetlrcr tle accident octruned. on 21.0g.2016 at clbot t 7.30 pm near Veerdhandi Vllage at 6 KM distonce on northem sid.: of pi, dte to ,::ry and high speed diuing of motorcycle beting No.TS_O|_ ^\.glrg"?t EE-5O27, by its diuer? ii) Wether tfLe petitioners are entitled. to rrrmpensation a;zd_ if so whnt quantum an-d. from whome? iii) To ulnt retieJ?

6. After perusing the oral and documentaqr eviderrr:es arrd going into the entire record and the evidences placed by bor:h the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim and came to a c:onclusion that the petitioners would be entitled to payment of Rs.10,06,cr)o/-, however trre 4 *^"a^.n.r", "lH petitioners filed claim petition for al Eunount of Rs. 10,00,000/_, Ure Tribr:nal gralted compensation amount of Rs.1O,OO,OOO/_ along with interest @ 7.5 o/o per annum. 7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by t] e compensation amor.mt awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned rribuna-r did not award any lilial compensation to each claimants/apperlants ad also not added future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased and the learned rribunar has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,OOO/_ per month instead of Rs'15'ooo/- per month and the learned rribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation arnount under other heads. 8. l,eamed counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, death of trre deceased ad the injuries sustained by the deceased. As far as compensation of ttre deceased is concemed, the deceased was hale and health and was aged 5o years ald was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing labourer at N.T.R.Nagar market and also at Veerdhandi Village. In cross Examination, pWl was examined, but she says she did not witness the accident. PW3 is a,, eye witness and admitted t,.at the motorcycle \ \ i .I I 5 NNEJ' X-tt, C U A. r.o, t a, ol'/tON bearing No.TS-01-EE-5027 driven by respondent r\,ro. r and two other piJlion riders hit the deceased from backside thr:reby causing head injury, injuries to legs and other vital parts of thr: body. the learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Motor cycle, but without consideri.ng the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the dec eased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased,s income at Rs.9,0C0/_ per month and also not awarded compensation under the head of ,parental compensation' and filial compensation, as per the j:r1tgms.t of Hon,$le Apex Court in Mogma Generq.l Insurance Comltan;y Limltcd. Vs.Nanu Rrrm alis Chuhra Rqmt. 9' Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - ICI()I r,ombard Generar Insurance company Limited subrnits that after corrsidering the entire evidence available on record, the reamed rribunal hzrs awarded the just compensation and further submits t].at the Tribunar has granted the fulI compensation as claimed by the claimants, hence needs no interference by this Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal. 1 zore 1re; scc rlo 5

10. Heard Sri Somaaarapu Chandralq.h, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners ad srd K.Aiag Kumar,learned counser for the respondent No.2 _ Insurance Company Limited. perused the material on ,^.aarr.n-r", "ffi record. I 1. Admittedly, the respondents have not frled cross_appeal against the Award passed by the leamed Tribunat. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point arose before this Court in this appeat is that: i) Wtether the petitioners are ampensatio4 if so, to tahat ertent? entitled for the enhnnced Point No.l L2' Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 2L.O8.2OI6. The petitioner claimed that the petitioner was earning Rs'15'oo0/- per month as an agricr:lturist, however there is no other documentary proof such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the deceased was earrring Rs.15,OO0/_ per month. In Latha. Wadhuo. as. State of Bihana, the Hon,ble Apex Court held that even where _,there is no proof of income and earnings, the income cal be ,"".or"bly estimated and assessed consi dering the ground realities by 2 2001(8) SCC 197 l l l , i i 7 Nrajt LA.c;x-A.ilo., A I ol Xlrtt the Courts and for assessing the notional income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.9,000/- per month seems to be based on the 5;r,cund realities and this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the petitioner @ Rs.9,000/- per month which needs no interference. However considering the fact that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under other heads.

13. As per the decision of Honble Supreme lcurt in Natlono,l Insurance Compang Limitcd Vs. Pranay Sethi and. otherss and considering the age of the deceased as 50 years which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, additional 25% of the income has to be added towards future prospect to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the montJrly income of the deceased would come to Rs.11,250/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.2,250/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.il,25O/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to be deducted towards the person,al expenses of the deceased as the dependants are five in nrrmber. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs. 1,01,250/- (Rs.1,35,OOO/- (-) Rs.33,750/-). 3 20',17 ACJ 2700 I U.

74. Court Thus, the total loss 25o/- x 131. *^a-rr.*rrr rlW O: O* the column No.4 of schedule in the judgment of the Apex rn Sarla Venna Delhi ltansport Cotporatiotta, and as 50 years, the appropriate considering the age of the deceased multiplier applicable for the deceased,s age is .13,. of dependency would come to Rs. 13,16,250/_ (1,01, 15. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs. 1g, 150/_ (Rs. 15,000/- + LOyo + IOo/ol towards loss of estate Emd Rs.1g, 150/_ (fts. 15,OOO/- + LO)A + LOo/o) towards funeral expenses, as per pranag Sethl,s Jttdgmcnt (cited supra). 16. Further, considering the appellant No. 1 being the wife of deceased, appellart No.l is entitled to a sum of Rs.4g,4OO/_ under the head of loss of consortium, as per pranag Sethi,s Jttdgment(cited supra). 17. As far as appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, who is married sister of the deceased, the Honble Supreme Court in SeemaRcnf us The Oriental Insltrance Compang Limlteds on 11 February, 2025, held that claimants being major, married, and earning sons can be considered as dependents, especially if their inco me is not substantial t 4 2oo9 AcJ 1298 tr.l s 2025 tNsc 192 ?, 9 u,..c.*.,r.xo. tu jlWo and there was no reason to exclude the marrir:d daughter from compensation, based on the precedent set in Nq,fional Insuro/.nce Compang Llmlted a. Birender & ors.6. In the trcsent case, the appellalt Nos.2 and 3 who are sisters of the deceaserl, claimed to be dependent on deceased and there is no rebuttar evidt:nce to show that the appellants Nos.2 arrd 3 are self dependant. Acco rctingly, appellant Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation t<) a sunr of Rs.96,gOO/_ (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of loss of sibling corrsortium,, as per Nqtional Insrrtrqnce Compang Limited, v. Blrend.<.:r & ors (ctted supra,l. to a sum of of parental

18. Appellant Nos.4 and 5 being the children of the deceased, appellant Nos.4 and 5 are entitled for compensation Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) r:nder the head of ,L;ss consortium, as per lWagma,s .htd.gment (cited supra) 19. In Scrla Vernta,s case (cttl:d. abow), the Honbl: Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of Just compensation, obsen.ed as under; "Post compensatton is adequate comp ensation whtch is .1btr and equitable on the facts and circumstance s tlte case to mnke good the loss suffered as a result the urong, as can do so, bg applgtng, the toel r QS monea settled prirrciples rctktting to 6 zozo tt scc aso 10 Tward. of @DrDen_<at^- t",g"*ilrf,""T:"T;;::ir.'i b no.- intcnded. to be a bonanza, atc*t'*'nt-ffi

20. On overall re_apl the Iaw raid down ,r;: f,;Xr,.*Jss' decisions. I am of the nni-:^_ .,--'"'"t enhancemen, material on record and uourt in the aforesaid cited opinion that the claimants are entitred to t'""oot as modified and recalculated as above or "o*p,' )r easy reference and given in the table r 21. Considering the a wourd be entifled ,. made bv this court, apperants + Fu tu sR I 35 ooo I uaI Income of( 9 oo0 x 1 2 "":;::::sessment the deceased SR I o8 0o0 ii) ir) (Ann tTo aI Annual Income AnnuaJ I al Income x 25 Rs i 08 000 AnnuaI D u u + Rs 27 0oo epen en d T otal Annu toward pers na_l s o e4pen n Rs.1,3S,oOo/_ (_) Rs.3s ,7so/_ Total Mu Dependen cy AnnuaI ti fi p Rs I o I 250 Depen x I3 CIa1ma]l ts eautlement towards Los Estate + s Fun + IoSS of Paren Con Exp I aI I of the deceased 4 Rs.1,01,2SOl_ d x AppUed k.13,16,250/_ onal head s + s of saI um sl blins) I oss of + X;;isdtll + Rs.18,rso/- + Rs.48,4oo + Rs.e6,8oo + k.2,7E,300t- Total Rs. 15 ,94,550/- 11 N.^.c.uA.No-rs t oIffi 22' Thus' the appe'ants/claimants are entitled 1.o the enhanced compensation of Rs.lS,94rSSO/_ as against the arv:rrded amount of Rs. 10,00,000/_ by the learned Tribunal. 23' considering the circumstances of the case, the iiearned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 2.5 o/oper annurn and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, t-h.s Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/craimants are entitred to interest @ 7.5 0/o on the enhanced arnount. \ \

24. Hence, the claimarrts are entitled for an enhalc(lcl compensation of Rs.IS,94,SSO,/_. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is altowed in part, enharrcing tlle compensation from Rs. 1O,OO,OOO/_ to Rs.lS, E4,SSO._ (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Fivt: Hundled and Fift5r Rupees onry) with interest at the rate @ 7.5 g/o p.a.on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amourrt together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if uoy, *ithi, r a period of two months from the clate of receipt of a copy of this judgment' The appe,ant Nos.2 & 3 11e ertitred for the 72 sibling consortium of Fo zo .^^ remaining appellants/claimants "o*r..,""r,:^Rs'4€'4oo/- *..un.r", "W each only with interest and the among the as ordered by the tooo*oned ton qmount shar be *t same mannet * e shar be no order Iearned Tribunar. "n".,t "" ,:::,':

25. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, sha]I stand closed. //rRuE copy, i?ii[ilIfHAS,S,HI ,/ (r SECT,ON OFFICER T o

1. 2 3. 4. gtm,f l;,m:,-n+"e;il;ff ff pa D s,r c, Judse ABK/GR \q- I l j / I I l I J HIGH COURT DATED: 1110412{,25 JI..IDGMENT MACMA.No.IS'l of 2020 ..:: ,- (r ;ATE I i .J ;,i )/, .,\' .-." a til{ 86 6) .,- ..-!'. l-..,.'-- PARTLY ALLOW]NG THE MACMA WITHOI..IT COSTS Gdd"L &. [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 181 OF 2020 Between:

1. Velke Lachumbai, Wo Dev Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ- House hold 2. Chakati Ar1jy, Wq Sathaiah, Aged about 29 years. Occ- House hold, (abandoned by her husband )

3. Sidam Manjula, Wo Sidam Ashok, Aged about 2l years, Occ- House hold, 4. Velke Vinod, S/o Dev Rao, Aged about 22 yearc, Occ- Worker in garage, 5. Velke Savitha,, D/o Dev Rao, Aged aboul22 years, Occ- Housekeeping All are Rl/o H.No. 11-21-1255, N.T.R. Nagar, Green Hills Colony, Saroornagar, R.R. District-35 AND

1. Kondra Dileep.Ggyd. S]g Madhukar Goud, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o H,No.8-73l1, Kancharpet Siripur, Mandal Siipur, District Adilabad-504299

2. The Manager Legal, lClCl Lombard Gen.lns. Co. Ltd, present address - llnd Floor, Lumbini Jaweel malls, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34. H.No.6-3-362/1, Osman Plaza, lll and IV Floor, Door No.1, Bahzara Hills, Hyderabad-36. ...Appellants ...Respondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 60 ot 2017 dated '1 1-10-2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Somavarapu Chandraiah, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows '1 . That the NIACMA be and hereby is allowed in part 2. That the Claimants are entitled for an enhanced compertsation of Rs '15,94,550/-.

3. That the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs.15,94,550 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs ninety four thousa ld five hundred and fifty only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o on the enhan,:e,d amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. That the Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount to1;ether with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount alread / ,leposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

5. That the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for the sibling consortium of Rs, 48,4001- each only with interest and the remaining comlrensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal.

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- I'JI JAWAHAR REDDY ASsrsrANr ryE6rsrRAR SECT{S-OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prirrcipal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

2. Two CD Copies ABK/GR \*' HIGH COURT DATED: 1110412025 DECREE MACMA.No.181 ot 2O20 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,c -9. Lt.o)1 v,V<^'/', -.'{\\W \oV