The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 4/PETITIONERS 5. Mr. Sunil Rana, S/o Rajender Singh Rana, Major, Owner of Lorry bearing No. HR 38 S 6729, No 1 17, Village Nangli Poona, Nagal Poona, Northwest Delhi, Delhi -110 036. ...RESPONDENT No. 5/RESPONDENT No. 1 lA NO: 1 oF 20't8 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 stay the operation of the order and decree dated 14-09-2017 made in MVOp.No. 480 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-ium- | Additional District Judqe, Nizamabad. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Akkam Eshwar Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4: Sri L. Dayaker Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 2 and 5: None Appeared The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: / HON'BLE SMT.JU STICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M .A.No.614 of 2OL8 JUDGMENT 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the iearned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum- I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, in M.V.O.P.No.48O of 2Ot4, dated 14.Og.2O17, the respondent/ Insurance Company in the said M.V.O.p. preferred the 2nd present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the wife, son and parents of Late pentu Naveen Kumar (hereinafter be relerred as the deceased) filed a petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, l98g claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,OOO/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accidcnt that occurred on 10.09.2014. It is stated by the petitioners that on 1O.O9.2O14, when the deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing No.Ap-25-R-2O11 from Balkonda Village to Armoor side and when reached Mother Therissa School, which is in the limits of Balkonda Village at about 11.4O a.m., a lorry bearing No.HR-38-S-6729 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the vehicle and dashed the motor-bike of the deceased from behind, due to which I \ ,/ '/ ': MGPJ MACMA No-614 0t2018 the deceased fetl down from the motorcycle and the lorry ran over the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple fractures and crush injuries to Head, fracture to right shoulder and other multiple and grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot.

4. Based on a complaint given by the de-facto complainant/wife of the deceased, Police of Balkonda Police Station registered a case in Crime No.201 of 20l4under Section 3O4-A IpC against the driver of crime Lorrl bearing No.HR-38-S-6729. It is stated by the petitioners thar they incurred more than a sum of Rs. i,00,OOO/- towards transportation of dead body ancl for performing funeral rites of the deceased and due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, they became destitute and lost their source of income. Hence filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent Nos. I & 2, who are the owner and insurer of crime Lorry bearing No. HR-38-5-6729.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. l/owner oI the crime lorry filed his t:ounter contending the averments made in the claim petition which includes, rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of crime lorry, receiving injuries by the deceased, death of the deceased on the spot and lurther contended that the subject .crime lorly was insured with respondent No.2 and if any compensation is awarded to the petitioners, the respondent No.2 / I 3 MGP,J MACMA.No 6t4 0f 2018 shall be held liable for payment of the same and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the averments made in ihe claim petition including, age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that the ctaim petition is not maintainable for non- joinder of driver of alleged crime vehicle as necessary party' It also contended that the concerned Police failed to comply the statutory provisions as required under Section 158(6) of M-V'Act and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

7. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial: - (t) Whether on 10.09.2O14 at about 11.4O a.m' in front of Mother Theri.sa School in the limits of Balkonda Shiuar, Madhapur, accident ocatrred due to rash and negligent diuing of Lorry beaing No.HR-38-S'6729 bg its.diuer? (it Whether Pentu Naueen Kumar receiued injuies in that accident and died of the injuies? (ii| Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to tuhat amount and from whtch respondent? (iu) To utlwt reliei? 4 MGeJ LI/\CMA No 614 at zola

8. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, pWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to A I 1 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no orai evidence was adduced, however, Ex.Bl_Copy of Insuralce policy was marked with consent.

9. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly_allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 12,95,000/_ along with interest @, 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by both the respondents i & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal. lO. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Appe llant/ Insurance Company, Sri Akkam Eshrvar, learned counsel for respondent No. I and Sri L.Dayaker Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4.

11. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the notionat income of the deceased @ Rs.4,S00 instead of Rs.7,S00/_ in the absence of documentary proof showing the income of the deceased. contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have \ awarded amounts under Non-pecuniary Damages by lollowing the 1 He also 5 MGPJ MACMA No 614 0f2014 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Pranag Sethil.

12. Per contra, Iearned Counsel for respondents/claimants contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

13. After hearing both sides, the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the order possed bg tlrc learned Tibunal requires interference of this Court? POINT:- 14. As seen from the grounds of Appeal, there is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and death of the deceased' Hence, this Court is not inclined to once again delve into the said aspects. The only aspect that has to be dealt with in the present Appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation'

15. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased @ Rs'4,50O instead of Rs.7,5O0/- in the absence of documentar5r proof showing the income of the deceased. lzot z 101 tzo sc I I T] 6 MGPJ MACMA No 614 of 2018

16. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that though the petitioners stated that the deceased used to work as Agent of Reliance Insurance Company apart from doing Agriculture in his land to an extent of Ac. 1O.O0 by raising paddy, turm(:ric, maize and other commercial produces and earn more than a sum of Rs.40,0OO/- per month, but they failed to produce any substantial piece of evidence showing the same except filing Ex.A7 pattedar pass book which do not disclose about any income. Hence, in the absence of income proof, the learned Tribunal presumed the earnings of the deceased to be Rs.7,500/- per month, deducted 1/4tr towards personal expenses, applied relevant multiplier and calculated loss of earnings which ultimately arrived at Rs. 12,15,O00/-. This Court do nct hnd any reason to interfere with the monthly income assessed by t.he Tribunal as the same appears to be reasonable by considering the date of accident and depending upon the different types of cultivation made in the land by the deceased.

17. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance is with regard to awarding excess amounts under the Head of Non-pecuniary damages.

18. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- to',{,ards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.50,OO0/- towards loss of consortium and an amount I I 7 MGPJ MACMA No.614 ol2ol8 of Rs.S,OOO/- towards transportation. Whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natlonal Insuro'nce Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranag Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 27OO) fixed,."asonable figures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,0QOy'- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively which in all comes to Rs.70,000/- (which shall carry 107o enhancement for every three years). Hence, this Court by relying upon the said judgment is inclined to interfere with the Iinding of the learned Tribunal and hereby reduce the amounts awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses as Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,0OO/-. However, the amount awarded towards transport expenses shall remain same.

19. In the resuit, the Appeal'hled by the Insurance Company is partly-allowed by reducing the amounts awarded under the Head of loss of consortium and funeral expenses i.e., from Rs.75,000/- to RS.S5,OOO/- Except the said finding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain same. There shall be no order as to costs.

20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR SI SECTION OFFICER The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. (with records. if any) .. - . onJCC to sii n Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate tOPqg] - On" CC to Sri L. Dayaker Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1

2. a

4. 5. Y{ HIGH COURT DATED: 27t0112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.614 oi 2A18 THE S14 o o ,'t\ \ t 24 APH 2tE -ao4 T t * i$ t' o PARTLY ALLOWING MACIVI/{ WITHOUT COSI-S I) "rt"{' W I I I \:.t I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MoNDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY oF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 614 OF 2018 Between: SBI General lnsurance C-o. Ltd, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office,.3'd.Floor, ozone c-ommbrciji compr"r,'6 g-069, 66sj_1, 1-"A, b, C_ib, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082 .,.APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND I

2. 3 4 Pentu Lahari @ Kavitha Wo Late Naveen Kumar. Aged 21 years, Household, Pentu, Badrr (Name not yet decided but calling through nick name Badri) S/o Late Naveen Kumar, Age- 1 year. lvlinor, Occ-Nit. Pentu Pedda Narsaiah, S/o Limbanna, Age- 55 years, Occ_ Agriculturist. Pentu Raju Gangu Wo Pedda Narsaiah, Age- 45 years, Occ- Household. (Respondent No.2 is minor.and is being Represented by his mother and natural guardian Pentu Lahari i.e. 1st Resfiond6nt herein) All are R/o H.No 7-2111 . Nadimigaily, Nizambad District Balkonda Village and Mandal, 5 ...RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 4/PET|T|ONERS Yl P*ll[ql, €/o.Ralender Singh Rana, Major, Owner of Lorry bearing No. !H lU ! b/29, Rto 1'17, Village Nangli poona, Nagal poona, Northwest 6elhi, Delhi -110 036. ...RESPONDENT No. S/RESpONDENT No. 1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the order..and Decree dated '14-09-2017 made in M.V.o.p.No.4g0 of 2014 on the file of the court of The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-r Additional District Judge, at N izam a bad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, - Advocate for the.appelant and sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, sri L. Dayaker Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and none appeared for Respondent Nos. 2 anO S eithJ-in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company be and hereby is parfly_ allowed by reducing the amounts awarded under the Head of loss of consortium and funeral expenses i.e., from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 55,000/_: That the said finding, the findings arrived by the Tribunat in all other aspects shall remain same; and That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2 3 //TRUE COPY// ASS S Sd/..T. JAYASREE T REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER -.-.-_' Accidents Ctaims Tribunat_Cum_t Additionat District Judge, at To, , [["rrg?,;; 2. Two CD Copies VH/gh YY HIGH COURT DATED: 2710112025 DECREE MACMA.No.614 of 2018 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS '^d^&"