The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRt RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTT Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : SRI N HARI PRASAD Gounsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI T.MAHAENDER RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M. A.NO.8 8 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and decree daLed' 22.01.2O2O in M.V'O P'No'78O of 2015 passed by theChairman,MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-VAdditional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal")'

2. For convenience and clarity, 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 13.04.2013, at about 10:0O hours, the deceased was attending to his work as helper on the hawester machine bearing No AP-TA- 9224 and while he was cutting the paddy in the agricultural fields of one K. Shanker, the respondent No.t has driven the harvester machine in a negligent manner, due to which the silencer of the harvester machine touched the electric wire, as zr result o[ n'hich the deceased got electrocuted and sustained severe burn injuries' Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhongir and after giving First Aid, hq was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment, but he succumbed to burn injuries on 16.04.2O13 at 7:45 hours, while undergoing [reatment It is their case that the petitioner was earning Rs 15,0OO/- per f I I I I : l I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 ETD,J MACMA No.E8 2021 monttt as a helper on the harvester machine, they filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 2O, 0O,OOO/ _. 4. karned counsel for the respondent Nos. I and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3_Insurance Company filed counter allidavit denying the material averments of the petition wit]. regard to the age, income and avocation of the deceased and they further denied the manner in which the accident occurred. They further contended that respondent No.l did not possess a varid driving license as on the date of accident and their company is not liable to pay the compensation. 6' Based on the above preadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for. trial: 1) Whether the has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of tl,re Harvester Machine bearini NBo.Ap_15_TA_ 9224 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, respondenr? if so, to what amount and trom ;;;;;il. 3) To what reliep

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined as pWsl to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A6. On behalf of the respondents RWS 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B I and 82 were marked. ( q. 3 EIO,J MACMA No.88-2021

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,28,00O/- as against the claim of Rs.20,0O,OOO/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred the Present aPPeal. g. Heard the submission of Sri Ram Chandar Rao Vemuganti' learned counsel for the appellants and Sri T' Mahender Rao' Iearned counsel for respondent No.3.

10. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the Tribunal failed to take the earnings of the deceased as Rs 15,OO0/ - per month and has grossly erred by taking the earning as Rs.3,0O0/- per month as notional income' Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the guidelines laid by the Apex Court 4O"/o of addition has to made to his income as future prospects He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount under various heads while assessing the compensation He therelorc, prayed to enhance the comPensation'

11. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no evidence placed before the Tribunal with regard to the earnings of the deceased as claimed by the petitioners and that in the absence of any proof, the Tribunal has rightly I i I I I I i I l I i I i i I I 1 €rDJ MACMA NO.AE_2021 assessed the income of Rs.3,OOO/- per month and he therefore prayed to confirm the order and decree of the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: I 2 Wlether tLE enhonement ertent? claimants are of compensation, if entitled fo, so, to tohat I,Vletker tle order and. decree of tlrc Tribunal need ang interferene?

3. To uhot retieJ?

13. POINT NO l: a) The claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. lt is the case of the petitioners that the deceased used to work on a harvester machine as a helper and used to earn Rs.15,O0O/- per month. To prove the earnings of the deceased, they got examined pw3, and in his cross examination, he has admitted that the deceased is his sister,s son. It is the contention of the respondents that pW3 is an eye witness and that just to help the petitioners, he has entered the witness box to depose about the earnings of tie deceased and that there is no proof_that the deceased used to earn Rs. IS,OOO/_ by working on a harvester machine. But the fact is that the accident has occurred \frhile the harvester machine was under operation and the p.resence 5 ETDJ MACMA No 88-2021 of the deceased on the harvester machine on t}le fateful day is not in dispute. Therefore, it is held that the deceased was on the harvester machine as on the date of accident' However' his income cannot be taken to be Rs. 15,OO0/- as contended by the petitioners' ln Rarnacll'rl;ndrapptr Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaram b) Alllo.nce Insurolnce Cotnpang Lil"itedl, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.a,50O/- per month can be safely taken as the income' Learned counsel for the appellants. has further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Karanlit Kaur aln,d Ors Vs' Roya I wherein the Sundrcm Alllance Insurance Compang& AnotheP ' Apex Court has observed that in respect of a casual labourer' a sum o[ Rs.25O/ per day cannot be considered as excessive or exorbitant and thus taken the monthly income of the deceased who workeclasacasuallabourertobeRs'7,500/-permonthlnthe saidcase,theaccidentoccurredintheyear2014'Thoughthe petitioners have asserted that the deceased worked on a harvester' no evidence is placed on record with regard to the salary paid to hrm- Hence on a reasonable hypothesis the income of the deceased is asse ssed as Rs.6,OOO/ - per month' rrl0lltllsCCli6 ' :o:; tffir 1sc I oot I i'j l l I i l I I i 6 ETD,J MACMA No.88 2021 c) As per the dicta laid down in Nattonal Instrance comlrqng Limtted vs. pranag sethl and. other€,4oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects, as the deceased is aged .20, years adding 4oolo towards future prospects i.e., Rs.g,4OO (Rs.6,0OO + (Rs.6,OOO x 40 / tOO = 24OO / _l per month, which comes to Rs.1,O0,8OO/- per annum (Rs.a,4OO x 12). d) The deceased is a bachelor and therefore, 5OZo deduction need to be made towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.50,40Ol- (Rs.t,00,8OO /SOo/o). e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A3 reveals the age of the deceased as 20 years. Therefore, the age as revealed under Ex.A3is taken into consideration. The muttiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in SoLrla Verma u. Delhi Tldnsport Corporation+. The deceased being aged 20 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ,1g,. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.9,07,200l- (Rs.SO,aOO x i8). I) Further, in the light of prornorg Sethi,s case, Rs. IS,OOO/ tou'ards loss of estate and Rs.1S,OO0/- towards funeral expenses {and Rs.4O,OOO/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded i 'AIR20t7scc5r5? ' :oos (r) scc rz r l- 7 fiD,J MACMA No.88_2021 and further the said amounts have to be enhanced by 107o every three years g) h't Magma Genetal In-surance Coml'ang Ltnlted a' Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and othersF, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down io Pra nag Setht's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimant Nos. 1 and 2 would get Rs.48,OOO/ each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,000/ - ' With regard to amounts to be granted under the heads of funeral expenses Rs. 18,00O/- and loss of estate Rs. 18,0O0/- would be just and proper. h) Therefore, in alt the claimants are entitled to the following compensatton amounts: - SI.No. Name of the Heads l,<lss oI de [,oss of consortlum [-oss of Estate o[ E Total NSCS Funeral 2 3 4 '(zo tg) ts scc t:o Awarded by this Court Rs. 9,O7,2OOl - 96,OOO t8,(x)o 1E,Oq) 1ot a9,2OO I - { EroJ MACMA No.8t 2021 i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs. 10,39,200/_ while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,28,OOO/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No. 1 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT IYO o. In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modifred by enhancing the compensation from Rs.Br2grOOO/_ to Rs. to,39,2OO/-.

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the MACMA filed by the appellants is partly allowed, modifying rhe order and Decree dated 07. 1O.2O 13 in M.V.O.P.No. 1223 of 2Ol1 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,2g,OOO/_ to Rs. 1o'39'2oo/- and the enhanced arnount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 Vo per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two monthg from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, I 9 ETO,J MAcMA No.88-2021 tJle appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securiqr, as per ttreir respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs' Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal' shall stand closed SD'- .osMAN ALI BAIG ANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// N CTION OFFTCER 'o'',. tn" chairman Motor Accident claims r'iu'n"r-l*-v Additionat District ?tx1yi[il!!'Hfu :g?ls,'Jlt',ygt'f6Fl#vocateroPUC] ? Sls 33 3 Sili ilSilJJ;#;il; ft";&ie toPUCl 5. Two CD CoPies KHATVB . :--:::: ]' -:_-j:tEal;] HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 't HE.q 40 I0 T (J ( * 'v JUDGEMENT+DECREE MACMA.N o.88 of 2021 MACMA !S PARTLY ALLOWED 434441 lN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FME THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA PRESENT MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: E8 OF 2021 Between:

3. Korra Lachiram, l-achiram Nayak and Another, S/o. Nandya, Aged about 45 yea.ry, R/..9..H.No.4$8/2, Namsanipallythanda Vittage of Odela Mandal, Peddapalli District. +. l_<gtr" Qqti!., W/o. Lachiram or Lachiram Nayak, Aged about 38 years, Rl/o. HNo.468/2, Namsanipallythanda Vittage of Odeta Mandat, peddapaili District. ...AppellanUPeUtioners AND

4. G-tlgulothu Rajesh, S/o. Pulya @ Pulyanaik, Aged about 24 yea$, Occ. Driver of Harvester Machine bearing No. AP45-f A-9224, R/o. Narirsanipally Village, Odela Mandal, Karimnagar District. Presently Peddapally District.'

5. Gugulothu Sathish, S/o. Lal Singh @ Lat Chand, Aged about 25 years, Occ. Owner of Harvester Machine bearing No. AP-15-T A-9224, Rto. Namsanipallythanda Village, Odela Mandal, Karimnagar District. presenfly Peddapally District. '

6. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, H. No. 3-1-580, lll rd Floor Kyasa Towers, Ambedkar Road, NearCourt- Chowrasta, Karimnagar Branch. Karimnagar ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section '173 of Motor Vehictes Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.780 of 2015 dated.22tO1t2O2O on the fite of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Trrbunal-cum-V Additional District Judge Karimnagar. . . This appeal.coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, 'case the. Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the maGrial [apers in thd and upon. hearing the argurnent of Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemulahti, Advocate for the appellant and Sri N.Hari Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, and Sri T.Mahaender Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.3. / This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed. 2. That the compensation about awarded by the tribunal be and hereby- enhancino froni Rs.3,28,000/- to Rs.10,39,2001 and the enhanced amount of compensition from the date of claim petition till realization. 3. However the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 4. The Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation -amount accrued ihterest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment aftei deducting the amount if any already deposited. 5. On such deposit, that the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

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

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal /,TRUE COPY// SD/. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ISTANT REGISTRAR To, '1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal m-V Additional Distnct E FFICER Judge Karimnagar.

2. Two CD Copies S pare KHAIVB / HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 DECREE MACMA.No.88 of 2021 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED \1 W