The High Court · 2025

Judgment

SMT .JUSTICE M.A.C. [.A.No. 597 0F 20ta [.G; Aggrieved by the order dated Og.10.2017 (hereinafter will be referred as tmpugned orderJ passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal _ cum _ XI Additional Chief Judge , City Civil Courts, Secunderabad (hereinafter will be referred as Tribunal,J in O.p.No. lg7 4 of 2014, the Insurance company/respondent No.3 has filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred'as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3 'lhe brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioner filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2O,OO,OOO/_ against the respondent Nos. I to 3 for the death of her son by name .Bala prasanna, (hereinafter will be referred as deceasedJ. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the death of the deceased is that on 28. 10.2015 at about S.4S pM while the son of the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle from Secunderabad towards Athwelly, respondent No. I i.e., the driver of DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TD l2g9 (hereinafter will be referred as trime 2 vehicle') drove the said vehicle at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorrycle of the deceased from the backside arrd ran over the body of ttre deceased. As a result, the deceased susrained severe injuries, as such he was shifted to Balaji Hosital, Kompally and from there he was shifted to KIMS hospital, wherein the doctors declared as brought dead.

4. A case in Crime No.643/2015 was registered by police, Medchal for the offence under SecLion 3O4-A of the Indian penal Code Police against the driver of the crime vehicle.

5. According to the petitioner, the deceased was aged about 24 years, hale and healthy, working as Associate CS (Retension) in Agile, Begumpet, Hyderabad and drawing Rs.2S,OOO/- to Rs.3O,OOO/- per month. The deceased used to contribute his income for maintenance of his family and due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioner lost her sole bread earner of the family. Therefore, the petitioner, claimed compensation of Rs.2O,O0,OOO/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. I to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No. DCM Van 3 bearing No. AP 28 TD 1289 respectively, for the death of the deceased.

6. Before the leamed Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/diver and owner of the crime vehicle were set exparte and whereas the respondent No.3/lnsurance Company hled counter denying the averments of the claim petition, the manner in which the accident occurred, the age, avocation of the deceased and that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident.

7. It was further contended that there was no valid permit to the said vehicle and that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, on the above grounds the Insurance Company assailed the tiability to pay any compensation amount arrd prayed for dismissal of the case.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the pleaded accident oca nred resulting in death uiz., K. Bola Prasanna due to the ra.sh and. negligent driuing of the DCM Van beaing No. Ap 2g TD 1289? ii) Wletlrcr th-e petitioner is entitled for ampensation, if so, at uhat quantum and uhat is the liability of the respondents? iii) To uhat relieJ? _ ; 4

9. On behalf of tJle petitioner, pWs I and 2 were examined apart from relying on documentaqz evidence under Exs. Al to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.3, RWI was examined apart from exhibiting Exs. Bl to 84.

10. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and on record, documentar5l evidence petition in favour of partly allowed ttre claim the petitioner/claimant and making respondent Nos. I to 3 liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,73,28Ol- jointly and severally from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the respondent No.3/lnsurance Company has preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment. 1 1. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company/Respondent No.3 as well as Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for respondent/ petitioner and perused the entire material available on record including the grounds of Appeal. L2. It is pertinent to note that the claimant has not hled any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as the *Tfibunal by relying on the oral evidence of eyewitness (pW2) 5 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A I (FIR), A2 (charge sheet), A3 (scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch), A4 (inquest report), A5 (Postmortem Examination Report) and A6 (Motor Vehicle Inspector Report) answered issue No. I holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM Van bearing No.AP 28 TD 1289 and that the son of the petitioner succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. There is no dispute that the insurance poiicy (Ex.B 1) was subsisting as on the date of accident. There is also no dispute with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the claimant.

13. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,73,28O/- by relying on Ex.A7 pay slip, which shows the monthly salary of deceased as Rs.1O,728l-.

14. The first and foremost contention of the Iearned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.A7 pay slip of the deceased is fake ald fabricated one and created only for the purpose of claiming compensation.

15. In l.his connection, it is pertinent to note that the respondent No.3 made some efforts in discarding Ex.A7 through ( '1 6 correspondence under Exs.B2 to 84 to establish that the company in which the deceased alleged to have worked is not in existence. A perusal of impugned order discloses that the learned Tribunal did not even whisper about the efforts put forth by the respondent No.3 under Exs.B2 to El4 in discarding Ex.A7. When the respondent No.3 is seriously disputing the authenticity or genuineness of Ex.A7, the leamed Tribunal ought to have discussed in the impugned order with regard to authenticity of Ex.A7 despite exhibiting Exs.B2 to E}4 on behalf of respondent No.3.

16. In this regard, the Senior Executive (t egal) was examined as RWl, who deposed that on enquiry they found that no such oflice is functioning in the given address. In the cross examination, RWl deposed that when they tried to contract the numbers shown on Ex.A7 through phone, the mobile number was informed as wrong number and whereas the land line number belongs to Shiva Balaji Academy, Dilsukhnegar. A suggestion was given to RWI that the ollice was shifted from the given address. But the petitioner failed to explain as to where the said office was shifted from the given address. 7

17. A salary slip issued by an employer is presumed to be authentic unless there is credible evidence or reasonable suspicion to suggest otherwise. However, when the authenticit5r is challenged, additional evidence may be required to establish its genuineness. If the respondents question the authenticity of the salary slip, oral evidence from a competent authority, such as a representative of the deceased,s employer, may be necessal/ to veri& its genuineness. This testimony could clarify the nature of the employment, the salary structure, arrd whether the slip was indeed issued by the employer. Even without oral evidence, a salary slip can be corroborated by other documents such as bank statements reflecting salary deposits, income tax refurns liled by the deceased, employment records or appointment letters from the emproyer etc. courts often emphasize the need for corroborative evidence when tJ:e primary document like a pay slip or salary certilicate is disputed. In such cases, the claimant may be required to produce additional evidence to support her claim. If oral evidence is unavailable or impractical as in the instant case (when the employer is unreachable) the court may consider other circumstantial evidence and the overall facts of the case. The court has discretion to weigh the evidence and decide whether the salary 8 slip can be relied upon. In the instant case, except Ex.A7 there is no other oral evidence or documentar5r evidence to corroborate that the deceased used to earn Rs. 1O,72g/_. Thus, salary slip aJone may not be sufficient as conclusive proof of the deceased's income, especially when authenticity of such salary slip/salary certificate is questioned by the respondents.

18. However, there is no dispute that the deceased was doing private job as can be seen from Exs.Al and 42. Considering the cost of living during the relevant period and taking into consideration the qualifrcation of the deceased as tenth class as deposed by PWl, this Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.g,ooo/_ per month.

19. The other contention of the learned counsel for ttte Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal has awarded future prospects @ 50% instead of 4Ooh. In the light of t].e principle laid down by ttre Apex Court in ilattonal Insurance Cotnpang Limlted. Vs. p"@na;y Sethi and, othersr, the deceased is entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his salary, since the deceased was aged 24 years as per Exs.Al , A2, A4 and A5. Thus, monthly income would arrive to Rs. 1 1,200/ _ | 20t7 ACJ 2700 9 (Rs.8,OOO/- + Rs.3,2OO/-) and annual income would arrive to Rs. 1,34,4OO/- (Rs. 11,2OO/- x l2 months). Since the deceased is a bachelor, 5O% of the same has to be deducted towards his persona-l expenses. Thus, the income contributed by the deceased towards his family members would be Rs.67,2OO/- (Rs. 1,3a,4OOl- - Rs.67,2O0l-)

20. It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal while calculating the loss of dependency has hxed the multiplier as 15 based on the age of mother of the deceased. But the Honourable Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others y. National Insurance Company Limited and Others2 observed that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent; there may be a number of dependents of the deceased rvhose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. In the instant case, the age of the deceased is 24 years, thus, the appropriate multiplier would be '18' as per the principle laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporations. , (2Ot2) r I SCC 738 tr (2009) rj scc t 2 r 10

21. When the annual salary of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs. t2,O9,600/_ (Rs.67,2OOl_ x t8). Thus, rhe loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is Rs. 12,09,600/-. Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is being reduced from Rs. 14,48,2OOl- to Rs. t2,O9,600 / _.

22. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.l,OO,OOO/- towards loss of love and affection by relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in M. Mansoor and another v. United Inrlia Insurance Company Linited4. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2S,OOO/_ towards funeral expenses by relying on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in RaJesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and otherss. Thus, except interfering with the frnding of learned Tribunal on the point of loss of dependency, the remaining part of the impugned order is appearing to be in proper perspective in all other aspects. Thus, in all, petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 13,34,6OO/- (Rs.12,09,60OI-+p5. t,OO,OOO/_+Rs.25,OOO/_). 4 (2Or3) 12 Scale 324 s (2013) 9 SCC 54 11

23. It is the contention of t]le learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal ought to trave awarded interest @ 7.5o/o per annum instead of 97o' which is highly excessive. By considering the principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in RaJesh aad ot{rers v' Raptr Siagh and others6, this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9o/o per annum to 7 '5o/o per annum.

24. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of t I above observations.

25. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part' The quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is hereby reduced from Rs.15,73 ,2aO I - to Rs' 13,34,60O/- with interest at 7.5%o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization' to be payable by respondents (driver, owner ald insurer of the crime vehicle) jointly and severally' The respondents (driver' owner and insurer of the crime vehicle) are directed to deposit the amount within a period of one month from the date of 6 201:l Ac.J 1403 = 2013 (a) ALT 35 72 receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any securit5r. There sha_ll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha_ll stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSH AMBA NT REGISTRAC AS IS ECTION OFFICER lffi#l8t',3i}'f 3A?:i:T:i,;I:;,l:::i,ij,,"#[J,11!f oi,on,,cn,"r One CC to Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, Advocate tOpUCj Two CD Copies \ To, 1

4. DUgh @X HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.597 ol 2O18 e _ rA/E o 1$ $B \\rq 'i C)( i !.: (-_) \ ....,,..... T i I I l I I I I APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD . FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARS]NI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 597 OF 2018 Between: M/s. The SBI General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager, 3rd Floor, Ozone Commercial Complex, 6-3-669/1, Panjagutta Main Road, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondent No. 3 AND 1 . K.Therisa, Wo.Shouri, Occ: R/o.H.No.'1-4-15, Lothkunta, Secunderabad .. .Respondent No. 1/Petitioner

2. B.Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkateswar Rao, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.4-37, Church Gagilapur, Air Force Academy, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District 3. Lakshmi Bandaru, Wo.Venkateswara Rao, R/o.H.No.4-37, Church Gagilapur, Air Force Academy, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District ...Respondent Nos. 2 & 3/Respondent Nos. 'l & 2 Appeal under Section '173 of MV Act against the Judgment and Decree dated

09.'10.2017 made in MVOP No.20 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad. This appeal 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. A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Ajay Kumar Madisefty, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. This Court doth Order and decree as follows:- '1 . That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed in part; 2. That the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal be and hereby reduced from Rs. 15,73,2801- to Rs. 13,34,6001 with interest at7 .SY:o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by respondents (driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle) jointly and severally;

3. That the Respondents (driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle) be and hereby are directed to deposit the amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

4. That on such deposit, the claimanUpetitioner be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security;

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

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA T REGISTRAR ASSI ::--::=---- TI OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad.

2. Two CD Copies D s ? HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.S97 ol 2O18 APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART 1z\oilr bD