The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This M.A.C.lt4.A. is filed by tl'rc appellant/ claimal ,/pctrtioner under Seclion 173 of M.V.Act against rhe Au,ard and dt:<: ee passed by the \'lotor Accrdents Claims Tribunal cum-[[ Additiona] lthicl Judge, City Crvil Court, Hvdcrabad (hercinafter refcrrcd to as 't.lte Tribunzrl') 1n M.V.O.P.No.1403 ol 2017, dated 07.i1.2019, seekjr; compensation of Rs. I5>.00,O00/- on account o[ the death ol Balla .Bi as\,amma (uife of petitioner), (hereinerfter referred to as "the deceased") i r an accident that occurrccl on 13.0.+.20 17

2. For convenicnce, the parties u,ill be hereinafter e[er.r.ed to as thev are arTaved beforc the Tribunal

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/<:l: irna.t earlrer hled M.V.O.P.No.1403 of 2017 under Section 166 of the \ V..\ct, 1988 and Rule 455 of M.V.Rules 1989, seeking compensation 1c r. the death of the deceased, who died in the accid.ent alleged to have r i trsecl due to rash a,d negligent driving of the driver of the Setwin btr It is contended that on 13.04 .2o 17 , the deceasecl u,h e returning t ) her home after completion of her duty. While the deceased was waiti r 3 at bus_stop, the 2 NT.IR.J MACMA-No-343 of 2020 offending Vehicle Setu.in bus bearing No.AP-O9-TA-2293, came in rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed the deceased due to rvhich she fell dort,n and sustained serious fractures and died on the spot. The Police, havc registereci a case vide Crime No.92 of 2017, under Section 304-4 of IPC against driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Respondent No.1. The appcllant/claimant clarmed an amount of Rs.15,00,00O/- as compensation for the deatl-r.of the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal, was that petitioner lost his spouse due to the acciclent and there is no one to look after the family ol the deceased and the pctitioner has to depend on others for their day to day basic needs and prayed the Tribunal to award just compensation.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, both the respondent No. l-Driver of the offending Set',r,in bus; and respondent No.2-Owner of the Setwin bus remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 - Uniteci india lnsurance Company Limited, hled counter-afhdavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the offending Setwin Bus driver did not drove the Setwin Bus in negligent manner and due to the deceased self negligence the said accident occurred and further contended that i- / ../ : : i i I T i i ! 5I I 3 NNR.J MACMA.No.343 of 2020 the compensation cl:rimed is exorbitant a]ld praye,l o drsmiss the clairr petrtion.

6. Basing on thc pleadings and averments I rade by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the follo$,in I issues r^,hic]r reads as uncle r: t) Whet]'Ler tht tleulh of the deceased Balla Bhagyan:t i r Ihe rash ond negligent diuitg of the S<rlu'r r No.APO9TA22().) diuen by its diuer? ii) ) Whethe r the petitioner is entitled for compensoliot ?' lf sct,to utlruL t'xtent and ji.orrt tuhom ? u'as due Io l:us beaing iii) 'l'o what reliel' ''

7. To prove thc petitioner's case, PWs. 1 & 2 ,'ere examined anC marked Exs.A1 to A5. None examined on behali rf the respondents houevcr Ex,B1 copy of the insurance policy rtas tni ked

8. Alter considering the material on record ancl :he evidcnce placecL b1. both the parties, the learned Tribunal allorvecl t re claim petition rr part and granted compensation of RS.4,9O'OOO/- I ong ri'ith illterest @ 60/" per annllm.

9. Being unsatisfled and aggrieved by the ( ( r lpensation amounL awar<led by the learned Tribunal, the present ap real is filed on th(: I i 4 NNR.J MACMA.No 343 ot 2O2O ground that the deceased u'as aged about 43 years at the date of accident and was doing House-keeping u'ork in SBI and earning Rs.9,000/- per month and was contributing the same to the welfare of the family, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the above avermeirts and hxed lhe income of the deceased at Rs 4,0O0/- per month and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

10. Learned counsel for the appellan ts/ claimant submits that there is nodisputer,l.ithregardtoaccident,injuriessustainedanddeathofthe deceased. In trial, Pwl & PW2 were examined. Exhibits A. 1 to A.5 were marked on behalf ol petitioner- Learncd counsel further contended that PW2 narrated the said accident and submits thc deceased u'ho r'r'as standingandwaitinglorthearrivalofthebus,thedriverofbusdrove the offending vehicle, in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased succumbed to injuries sustained ir-r the acceded caused due to rash and negligent driving of Setwin bus, but without considering the evidence in proper manner q'ith regard to income of the deceased' the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased's income at Rs.4,000/- per month and also not awarded just compensation under various heads as per the it.,gr-: tt!!tr!*Ge!E{r. 5 NNR..I MACMA.No.343 of ozrJ judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National I. surance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and. othersl,

12. Learned counscl for the respondent No.ii submits that after- consrdering the entire evidence available on recorcl . he iearned Tribunal has auarded just compensation and needs no interi rence

13. None appear lor respondent No. 1 & 2. 14 I'lcarcl Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learncc' counsel for thc appe ll:r n t,/ petitione l and Sri P.Bhavana Rao, kriu cd counscl lor tht resporrrJent No.3 Insurance Comltany. Perused thr naterial ort record

15. Admittedh,, the respondents have not filed : oss-appeal against the au zrrcl passcd br- the learned Tribunal. As sucl . Lhere is no dispute regarding liabilitv of the respondents, age of the dc: :ased and accident The onlv point arose before this Court in this appeal is that: r) Whether lhe petittoner is entitled fo, L:ompensatiort, if so, to Luhet ertent? 'he enhanced Point No.1: 1 2017 ACJ 2700 6 lllACMA.No.343 NNR.J of 2020

16. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on

13.04.2O17 , alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the Setwin bus driver and the petitioner lost his rvile (deceased) in an unfortunate accident. The petitioner claimed that the deceased was working as House Keeper in SBi and rn'as earning Rs.9,00O/- per month, ho,"ve,",er there is no other documentar-r' prool thc same, such as relevart account books or banl< entries to shou' that the deceased rvas earning Rs.9,00O/ per month as claimed by the petitioner/ claimant. But looking at the records available, the averments and submissions made by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is evident that the deceased was aged about 43 years u'ho was hale and healthy and would have earned more than the monthly income s'hich the leamed Tribunal has granted. ln Latha Wadhuta us. State of Bihar2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even rvhen there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can reasonably be estimated and assessed by the Courts, considering the ground realities, hence the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.4,000/- fle(Jnonth appears tc be meager' 2 2001(B) SCC 197 7 NNR..I MACMA.No.343 of 2020

17. Hencc cor.rsi<lering the ground realities and tl ( agc of the deceaserl r'"'as 43 years s.ho n,as hale and health at the tin r of acciclent ancl b,' follorving the l:ru laid dou,n b1, Hon'ble Suprrne rr Court in Latha Wadhwa's case (cited. supra), this Court is ol t re opir-rir>n that th -. deceased n,ould obviously earn Rs.250/- per d r I by doing House keeping rvork or anr,' other odd job zrccordingly, th,: r be notionallv takcn as Rs.7,500/- per month. Ap I cceased ir-rcome can 't from t hat. as pe r the decision ol Hon'ble Suprcme Court in r! ational Insurance Compong Llrnited Vs. Pranag Sethi and others:l a nd consiclering th,r age of the deccrrsccl as 43 years, additional 25%o ol t re income has to b,: added tou,ards friture prospects to the monthly inc < me of Lhe cleceased - Therefore, thc n'ronthlv income of the deceas< Rs.9,375/ (Rs.7,500/ * Rs.1,875/-). The anrr i wou1t1 come to ra.l income of th<: deceased r','oukl cOme to Rs.1 ,12,5OO I (Rs.9,375 I n,hich, 1/2 has to be deducted tonards the persi X 12) and, out ol nal expenses of thr: deceased, as thcrc u'as onlv one dependant on thr I eceased income a:; claimed by thc l)eLiLioner at thc time of the accidc rt. Then the actual annual incomt, rvould come to Rs.56,250/ (Rs 1,12,500/- ( ) Rs.s6,250/ ). 3 2017 ACJ 270A B NNR,J MACMA No.343 of 2o2O i:r '-

18. As per thc column No.4 of schedule prescribed in the judgment of the Apex Court in So;rlrz Verma a. Delhi Transport Corpotationa, and considering the age of the deceased as 43 years, the appropriate multiplier applicabie lor the deceased's age is '14'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,87,500/ - (56,25O1- x lal. i9. The appellants/claimant is further cntitled to Rs.1B,150/ (Rs. i5,000/ + look + 10%) towards loss of estate arrd Rs 18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + lOo/o + lO'kl towards funerai expenses, as per Pranag Sethi's Judgrnent (cited suPra).

20. The sole appellant/ claimant being the spouse of the deceased, the appellant is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs 48,400/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium', as per Pranag Sethi's Judgment (cited suPra).

21. ln Sarla Verma's cdse (clted above), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of lust compensation' observed as under: " Post compensation is adequate compensation which ls fair and equitobLe on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the tiss suffered as a result of the turong, as far as moneA can do so' bg apptyiig, the well settted pinciples relating to auard of compensation' Ii is to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit " "not-intended o 2oo9 ACJ 1298 (sc) i i i ! t i I I E i I Ii Ei 9 NNR..' MACMA.No-343 of 202O 2L. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, rr:e terial on record an<1 the 1aw laid dorvn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court r the aforesaid cite<l decisions. I am ol the opinion that the clai:r ant is entitled to enhancement of compensaLion as modified and rl:alculated as abo\,(l and given in the table for easy reference

23. Considering the abovc assessment made by tt is Court. appellantr; w'ould be entitled ior thc compensation as follorr,,s i) ii) iu) v) .nnua1 Incomc (o[ the deceased) Rs.7,500/ X12 = Total Annual Incomc : Annual [ncome + Futurc Prospects (Annual Income X 25!,;,) = Rs.90,0OO/- * Rs.22,500/ = Rs.1,12,500/ RS.9O,OOO/ nual Deperdcncy = T,ltal Annual Income I l2 deduction to\a.ards personal expenses of the deceased : Rs.1,12,500/ ()Rs.56,250/ = Rs.56,250/- Total Dependcncl, : Annuiil Dcpcndcncy x Applied Multiplier = Rs.56,250/ x14 Claimant's entitlement to$'ards conventional heads = Loss of Estatc . loss ol Spousal Consortium = Rs.18,15O/- - Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,40O Tolal Rs.7,87,500t Rs.84,700/- Rs.8,72,200i- 24- Thus, the appellant/claimant are entitkr(l to the enhancecl compensation of Rs.8,72,OOO/- AS against the z rvarded amount ol Rs.4,90,000/ b,r, the learned Tribunal I \ 10 NNR.J MACMA.No. 343 of 2020

25. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has nghtly awarded the rate of interest i.e., at 6 ok per annum, which needs no interference. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner/ claimant are entitled to interest (0 6 % on the enhanced amount

26. Hence, the sole claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.8,72,OOO/- Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allou,ed in part, enharrcing the compensation from Rs. 4,9O,00O I - Rs.8,72,OOO/- with interest at the rate @ 6 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the datc of petition till the date of realization. The respondents arc directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest alter giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, u'ithin a period of tr.vo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appeliant/claimalt in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There shali be no order as to costs. 2'7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed t, 1bv ury q S /- M. OSMAN ALI BAI SISTANT REG R SECTION OFFICER -t I T o, M

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court. Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRl. T VISWARUPA CHARY Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI P BHAVANA RAO Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/SA HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 1: ::^3-.... _ rE S.';,it';:\. ^ .s * o,() + :' 'l 'r1.,'i ( $ * o f-, , r-atij'r] -

1.;,' JUDGMENT MACMA.No.343 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS b \/ t'1, q I i I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3443 ] FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELL ANEOUS APPEAL NO: 343 OF 2020 Between: Balla Vykuntam, S/o. late Ramaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ - Nill' R/0. H.No.10-3- 4441 13, P S. Nagar Slam Area, Near Water Tank. Vl,ayanagar Colony, Hyderabad' AND ...PETITIONERiAPPELLANT

1. T. Ramesh, S/o. T. Venkataiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Driver, R/o' H No'7-2- 1087tN16. B.K. Guda, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad- 500 0'18

2. Surya Kiran Mangi, S/o. late Sudarshan, Aged - Major, Occ - Business, R/o H.No.13-3-244/30, Bhim Nagar, lmampur, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad.

3. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep by rts Regronal Manager, 2nd Floor, Postnett Bhavan, Near Church Burldings, Tilak Road Hyderabad - 500 00.1 (R1 and R2 Respondents are Extra Party in CC) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal flled under Section 173 of fvlotor Vehicle Act against the order and decree dated 07l11l2o1g passed in o.P No. 1403 of 2017, on the file of the court of MACT-cum-the ll Addl. Chief Judge, Crty Civil Court' Hyderabad This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal,thejudgmentandDecreeoftheLowerCourtandthematerialpapersin the case and upon hearrng the arguments of SRl. T VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 & 2 and SRl. P. BHAVANA RAO Advocate appeared for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the [r,4otor Accident Civil lvliscellaneus Appeal be , and is hereby partly allowed

2. fhat the compensation amount be and is herebv .,nhanced from Rs. 4 90.000/- to Rs.8 72.000/- with interest at the rakr , 6 % p.a. on the enhanced amount flom the date of petition till the date c I realrzatron

3. That the respondents be and are hereby directed to oeF lsit the sard amount together w th costs and interest after givrng due credit ( the amount already deposited, rf any, wrthin a period of two months from tirr late of recerpt of a copy of thrs ludgment 4 That the compensation amount be and hereby shall br apportioned among the appellanUclaimant in the same manner and ratt,) as rrdered by the learned Tnbunal. 5 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- I/ OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR lllrue Copyll r\rroru oFFrcER To

1. The I\,4otor Accrdents Clalms Tribunal-cum-ll Additionat\1. ef LrrOge City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2 Two CD Copres. GElSA u. HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 DECREE MACMA.No.343 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COS.. ; 1 I I.\u' \l/