The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri S.satyananda Rao The Court delivered the fotlowing: r'-;1 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MACMA.No.3795 of 2OO8 JUDGMI}NT:

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act) assailing the award passed by the I Additionrrl Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for short thc Tribrrnal'), in O.P.No .2075 of 2OO 1 dated 01.07.2005.

2. Appellants herein are the petitioners and respondents herein are the r:spondents before the Tribunal.

3.1 Appellants - petitioners have filed a petition under Section 166(i)(c) of the MV Act r/w Rule 455 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1'J89, claiming compensation of Rs.6,0O,OO0/- along with interest at the rate of 24o/o per annum for the death of Gadapa Shashikzueth.

3.2 It is stated in the petition that on 12.L2.2OO1 Gadapa Shashikemth was travelling on a Suzuki motor cycle bearing No.AP- 25-F-82Ct8 as pillion rider and another person by name Rachakatla Santhostr was driving the said motor cycle. When they reached Excise C)ffice, Kanteshwar at about 07.15 a.m., lorry bearing No.ATK-!r477 dri.ven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the motor cycle due to. --/ 217 BRMR, J MACMA.No.3795 of 2008 which G.Shashikanth, motor cycle and R.santosh fell down. G.shashikanth sustained fractures and crush injuries, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and he died on the same day while undergoing treatment. The deceased was aged about 22 years, he was a studerft, doing fish business and was earning Rs.1o,000 l- per month. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.ATK g4TT and prayed to award the compensation.

4.1 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

4.2 Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry bearing No.ATK 9477 do not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 12-L2-2OOL at 7-15 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the l.orry bearing No.ATK 9477 driven by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relieP

6. Appellant No.2 - petitioner No.2 is examined as PWl, also examined PW2 - Santosh and PW3 - M.Ramaswamy and marked I I I I I 7, BRMR, J MACMA.No.3795 of 20O8 Exs.Al Lo A7. Respondent No.2 did not examine any witness and got marl<ed Ex.B 1 - copy of Insurancc Policy.

7. Ttre learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded an amount of Rs.1,58,000/- together with sinrple interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the date of filing the original petition till the date of deposit, directing the respondent No.2 to pay the awarded amount and that appellants - petitiont:rs are entitled for 1/3ra share each as legal representatives of the dr:ccased G.Shashikanth.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,O00/- per month but wrongly came to a conclusion that the deceased G.Shashikanth is shown as a student and treated him as a non- earning member and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,OO0 l- per annum and also erred in deducting 1/3.d towards expenseri. Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.6,OO,O00/- instead rtf Rs.1,58,000/- and interest should have been granted at the rate of l2o/o per annum instead of 9%o per annum and prayed to enhance the compensation.

9.1 Nc'tice issued to respondent No.l is served on 99.]2_._29,8 but he feriled to appear 1 / BRMR, J MACMA.No.3795 of 2008 a'\t

9.2 Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the learned rribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 1 1. Now the points for consideration are: i) Whether the appellants/petitioners have made out any case for enhancement of compensation, if so? ii) Whether the award passed by learned Tribunal in OP.No.2075 of 2OOl dated 01.07.2005 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court? POINT Nos.1 AND 2: L2. Appeal is filed in respect of the quantum of amount awarded.

13.' The learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the deceased G.Shashikanth is shown as a student, treated him as a non- earning member and fixed an amouiet of Rs.15,O0Ol- per annum notionally based on second schedule to Section 163-A of the MV Act. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, the age of appellant No.2 - petitioner No.2 is taken as 40 years and applied the multiplier of '15.5' on average and arrived at a compensation of Rs.2,32,5OO/- and deducted I/3ra towards expenses i.e., Rs.77,5OO l- and the loss of dependency and other expenses are shown as under: / ,r s17 BRMR, J MACMA.No.3795 of 2008 i 2 2 Loss of Dependency Transport Expenses Funcral Expenses Total compensation Rs.1,55,00O-00 Rs. 5OO-00 Rs. 2,500-00 Rs.1,58,00O-00 L4. PV/1 deposed that the deceased G.Shashikanth after completing the education was doing fish business as he was not having any job and was earning Rs.10,OOO l- per month. Ex.AS is the mernorandum of marks of B.Com III year of Osmania Universi -y dated 17 .06.2000, which shows the deceased G.Shashikanth is a B.Com graduate. Ex.A6 is the certificate course in Inforrnation Technolory of the deceased. The learned Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that the deceased G.Shashikanth is shown .ts a student and Iixed the notional income at Rs.15,OC,0 l- per annum

15. By the date of the accident i.e., L2.L2.20O1 the deceased has already r:ompleted his B.Com and as per the evidence of PWl he was doing fish business, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the income of the deceased be taken at Rs.4,O00/- per month, which will meel- the ends of justice. Further, as per Ex.A2 - post mortem examination report, the deceased was aged about 22 yeat; as on the date of zrccident and the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per 617 BRMR, J MACMA.No.3795 of 2008 6 the decision of the supreme court in smt. sarla varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1.

16. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Sl.No Name of the Head 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 Income Deduct 50% personal expenses (as per Sarla varmat) Annual income Multiplier'18' Pain and suffering Loss of love and affection Loss of estate Funeral expenses Total compensation Gompensation awarded by this Court Rs.4,000/- per month towards Rs.2,O00/- (4,000 x 50%) Rs.24,000/- (2,000 x 12) Rs.4,32,0OO/- (24,000 x 18) Rs.1,O0,0OO /- Rs.1,O0,0OO /- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.6,62,0OO /- Rounded off Rs.6,6O,OOO I -

17. In the result, MACMA.No.3795 of 2008 is allowed and the compensation pwarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated OL.O7.2OO5, passed in O.P.No.2075 of 2OO1, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,58,O00/- is enhanced to Rs.6,6O,0O0/- toge;/1er (2OO9) 6 scc 121 I BRMR, J MACMA.No.3795 of 2008 with interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the dzite of filing the petition till payment. c) The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the &vra16ls6 amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 6O days from ttre date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Ap,pellants - petitioners are directed to pay Court fee on the enhanced amount. e) Appellants - petitioners are entitled for Rs.2,20,000/- ea.rlh and they are permitted to withdraw their entire arrrount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand clcsed. No costs. SD/- A REENIV ASA REDDY REGISTRAR / T /TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I r\dditional Motor Accident claims Tribunal at Nizamabad.(with Records) 2. One C;C to Sri P Radhive Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One C;C to Sri S.Satyananda Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two {)D CoPies Sa/PSL YY ' :-,. ri1.?ai*srjjirj : I .i .,,:,i li, .,,i :4 / ( HIGH COURT DATED1 111212025 JUDGMEINT MACMA.No.3795 of 2008 .--:l 0 5 HrR 2028 \t t-au r..,i -\, 'i ALLOWIilIG THE APPEAL WIHTOUT COSTS (, .r$eh Ys* pL- \ [ 3448 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3795 OF 2008 Between:

1. Gadapa Srihari, S/o.Gadapa Narsimlu, aged 46 years, Occ: Nil R/o. Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

2. Gadapa Vrlaya, Wo.Gadapa Srihari, aged: 4?years, Occ:Household R/o. Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

3. Gadapa Kavitha, D/o.Gadapa Srihari, aged: 23years,Student,R/o.Kanteshwar; Nizamabad. ...Claimants/Appella nts AND

1. K.Venkateshwar, S/o.K.Narayana aged: 39 years, Occ; Business-cum-owner of Lorry Bearing No.AT K-9477 R/o. h. N o.6-20-2, Gurbabadi, Nizama bad. 2. The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd, represented by its Divisional Manager, " Divisional Office, Opp.Z.P.Office, Subashnagar, Nizamabad. Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 01-07-2005 passed in OP.No. 2075 of 2001 on the file of the court of the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nizamabad. ... Respondents/Res pon dents 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 argument of Sri P Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and SriS. Satyananda Rao, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed.

2. That the impugned award dated 01.07.2005, passed in O.P. No.2075 of 2001, ce and hereby is modifled;

3. That tlre compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,58,000/- be and herebf is enhanced to Rs.6,60,000i- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment;

4. That t,re respondents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgmr-,nt;

5. That tlre Appellants-petitioners be and hereby are directed to pay Court fee on the enhance amount;

6. The Agrpellants-petitioners be and hereby are entitled for Rs.2,20,000/- each and thay are permitted to withdraw their entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security; and.

7. That tlrere shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. A SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The I Additional [\Iotor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nizamabad 2. Two CI) Copies Sa/PSL -1 HIGH COURT DATED:0t111212025 r' i DECREE MACMA.No.3795 of 2008 ( THE S 14 O a * 0 5 i,iAB 2020 * ALLOWIT\IG THE APPEAL WIHTOUT COSTS I.t .od# W