The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 2: Sri V. Venkata rami Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REI) )Y MACMA No.I 12 of 2019 .TP-DGMENT: This appeal, is directed against the ordcr and cirt te tl'rted

04.12.2O18 passed by the Chairman. Motor AccidcrL ; Ciaims Tribunal cum-lll Additional Chief Judge, City (li,' Court, t ltr The llyderabad (for shorl "the Tribunal") in O.P No.2913 cl appellants hereiu i.c., Iegal heirs of the deceased-Ediga .\ Lil Krrmar Goud seek enhancemcnt of the compensation awarded l(rr tlle (leatll o[ dr:ceased in a nlotor vehiclc accident.

2. The bricf facts of the case arc that on 29.09 2O l6 l c dc'':eased '"r'as proceedi[g from Vavilala villagc to Leeja village or- ]ris motot cr.cle bearing No.AP 22 AG 3809 to bring Sroceries a I I wlien htr .tlo. \P 2I. rrached Padrpuram bus stand, a lorry bearing registrati' I TT 8650, driven by rcspondeut No.l dashed to the rno < r,rycie in a rash and negligent manner, Ieading to his instantal ( r,-rs death. Stating that at the time of his death, the deceased had st rriiecl M.A., B.Dd., and PGDCA and was working as private teachcr'': r,1 nrnning Xerox-cum [nterllet center and used to earn more tharl . s.2O,0OO/ per month and that the deceased was the only earning r t rrber of the tamily consisting of the appellants and they were tolal] rlependent upon the earnings of the deceasecl for their livelihood, th - rppellants- claimants i.e., his wife, minor son, mother, and g.randfa I er hted the -., z 2 aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, sccking compensation of Rs 30,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondcnt No. 1 i.e., owr)cr-cum driver of the lorry rcmained ex parte. Respondent No.2-rnsurance company hled counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed rs excessivc and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. The 'l'ribunal, after considering thc orai and documentary cvidcncc, held that thr: dcccascd died in the accidenl occurred due lo the rash and neglisent driving of the driver ofthe lorry and awarded compensation ofRs.I2,12,40O/- in favour of the appellants-claiman t s togcthcr q,ith interest at thc rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realiz-ation.

4. l,earncd counsel for the appellants-claimants would submit that even though appellants-claimants pleaded the Income of the deceased as Rs.2O,000/- per month, the Tribunal has not only underestimated the income of the deceased, ignoring his educational quaiifications and earning potential, but also failed to take note of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rn Shaikh Sadik Shrrikh Rafique u. Reliance Genersl ltsurance Compang Ltdt., wherein it was held that the income of an unskilled worker for the year 2OO4 shall be Rs.4,500/ per month with an increment of I 2025 tNSC 673 3 Rs.5OO/- per month ftrr t:ach successive year. [Earned cr t nsel would further submit that taking the accident year herein rrs ll0I6, thtr rncorle ofthc rleceascrl orrght to havc been hxed al Rs. r,;00/- pcr month and ultirnatel\'. prayed to enhance the compensatir r.

5. On the orhel hand, learned Standing Counsel appr':' ing lor tht: Insurance ComP;rnl supported the impugned award ol lc Tr-ibunal iind contendcd t[]at tlr( claim of Rs.20.000/ per nri)rr h !vi1s no: sLrpported by anv doc:umt'ntary evidence and therefore I t' Tribunal rghtly adoptccl nolional income. It is further contcr(( I that the c'ompensation ar,,,a rclr: cl is just and reasonable and does r ot \( arran: irltcrfcrcncc. 6 This Court has considered the submissions of bo I sid,:s ancl perused the rnatcrial on rccord. The deceased was 29 y('i r ; old at thc time of the acciclent. l'hc Tribunal adopted a notional mo r hly incomt: oI Rs.6,O00/-, which is contrary to the principles laid I ,rvn by tht: Hon'ble Supremc Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh RaJ glle's case (supra). As per the snid decision, the income of Rs.4,5OL ' . lxed for the year 20O4 is required to be increased by Rs.500/- p' -nonth for every subsequent year. Applying the said formula for r r a<:cident year 2O16, the incomc of the deceased ought to have [,r :n fixed al Rs.1O,500/- per month \t- 4

7. As held by the l-{onble Supreme Court in National Insurantce Compang Limited. us. Pranag Sethi and. others ), cven self- cnplot'r'd l)crsons arc cntitled ll a.ld t on lorvards fulLtre l)r-osj)(:cts Since the deceased was 29 ycars of age,4OYo has to bc added towards future prospccts. Thus, the nonthly income u,ould corre to Rs. Ia,7O0/- (Rs.f0,500/- + Rs.,1,200/ ).'lhere are lbur dependants and lhcreforc l/4th h;rs to be dcducted towards personal and Iiving expenses. 'l'he monthly contribution rvould thus be Rs- l I,025/- (Rs.1a,700/- - Rs.3,675/-) and thc annual contribution cornes to Its.1,32,300/- (Rs.11,025/- X l2). 'l'tre 'lribunal riglrLly adopred the appropriate multiplier ol '17' for thc' age group of thc deceased, as hcld in So.rla Verrna u. Delhi Transport Corporationr. Applying the said multiplier, the loss of dcpendency comes to Rs.22,49, iOO/- {Rs. 1,32,300 X 17). In addition to the above, as pcr the principles laid don'n by the I{onble Ape x Court Ln Pranay Sethi's c.rse (supra), the appellants are also entitled to Rs-84,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + iO% cnhancement for every threc years) under conventir.rnal heads. Thus, the total compensation amount comes to Rs.23,33,1OO/- (Rs.22,49,lOOl- + Rs.84,OOO/ ) which is rounded off to Rs.23,33,000/- 1 2017 ACJ 2700 \ r(2009) 6 SCC 121 5 8 In lhc rcsult, the appeal is partly allowed by rrr 1 a ncing th,: c,)urpensation fro rn Ils. l2.12,4OOl- to Rs.23,33,000/-. T'r r en lrance<l c{)r1r llcnsirtror shall L:arrt, intcrest aL 7 -5o/o per annum f,1 :r tlrc dat(l c,I I)etitron trll tl)c date ol deposit. The rest of th-e t,trr.s an(l ionrlitions irnl;oscd lx thc Tribulal shall remain unalt(,rr I No orde r als t() cosls. As a scquel, tlrc rnrscellaneous petitions pending, j ant , shall sta r rd closecl. Sd/- f\l ASS ;t\ JAWAHAR REDDY ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Curr -lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri M. Vijay Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V Venkat rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC 4. Two CD Copies AS ,ft. HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 2511112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.112 of 2019 -''' ?a1-' , '. - :-:;.rl 0 3 liAR ?s?6 ir, .":. PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS . f i l l I I ..tff"'t &-c IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C,V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT C lVlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 112 OF 2019 Between: 'l . G. Nagamani, W/o. Late Ediga Anil Kumar Goud, 2. Rudrateja Goud, S/o. Late Ediga Anil Kumar Goud, 3. E. Jyothdmma, W/o. late Anjaneyulu Goud, 4. E. Bajaranna Goud, S/o. Hanumanna Goud, .APPELLANTS/PETRS AND

1. Mahammad Younus Varala Syed S/o. V.S.Noor, 2. The Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep.by its lvlanager, T.P. Hub, 3'd floor,6-3- 871, Snehalatha Building Greenland, Begumpet, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of lr,4otor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree passed in Ii/VOP No. 2913 of 2016 dated 04-12-2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, l\,4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 M. Vijay Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri V. Venkata rami Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACIVA be and hereby is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 12,12,4001- to Rs- 23,33,0001;

2. That the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7 -5o/o p.a. from the date of Petition till the date of deposit;

3. That the rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered;

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall ;tand confirmed in all other aspects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. sd/- rv ASS; JAWAHAR RE DDY RAR //TRUE COPY// CER To 1 . The Chairman, [\4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cr- r r-lll Additronal Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies Sw HIGH COURT GVBR, J DATED: 2511112025 DECREE MACMA.No.112 of 2019 PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS .oqt"n &*"