The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.23 2 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: 'l'his app,:al is filed b1,. the appcllants-claimanrs aggnevccl by [hr. orcler .1n(] L)e.rrce dated 03.02.2020 in O.p.No.5 ol 2O 16 passed br t,hc MrLor Accident craims Tribunal-cum-vr Addiironal District ancl Sessiorrs Judge, R.R.District, at L.B.Nagar (1irr short ,,Lhc Tribunal"l. 2 F-or corr'c.Lie.cc ancl claril_v, the parties herein:Lrc refcrrecl to as f hev u t'rc lrr-:r..'ed beforc the Tribunal. 3 'l'h" (-ilrie of the claim petitioners befbre thc Trjbunal is that on 25.10.2O15 ,rt 1O.OO A.M., the deceased was goine to his r,".ork p)ac<: at Q Marr Sl-ropping Mall, Banjara Hills ancl near TV9 Head ollrce, a Set* in Rus bca.ng No.Ap o9 y-g7gg driven rn a rasrr ard ncqliqe nt ,larn(rr b., its drir.er, dashed the deceased cue to *.rr ich ht: died. [t lri the case of the petitioners that that ltctitioner u,:rs asccl abolri 2O r,:ars and t,l as w,orking as Sales Execui-ve rn e-N1art Rct.iil Li,Lire,1, Ba,jara Flills, Hyderabad and thei filed claim pctrtion sce king ccmpensation of Rs. 15,O0,00O/-. 4. Responrlent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. r. Respon<lent No.3 filed counter denying the averments of the petition $'i1h rela.rrd lo the age, income and avocation of the dcct--ascd and alr;o the manner in lvhich the accident occurrecl. It is fr-rrther corrrencled that the setwin buses are rurr under the 2 :TI],] MACMA No.2l2 2021 Government sponsored schemes, the buses are run under ccrtain terrr-rs and conditions and therefore respondent No 3 is not liablc tcr pay I he comPensalion.

6. Respor-rdent No.2-insurance comPanv filed a cor-lr-rter denf ing thc avermcnts of thc petitioner with regard Lo the agc and carniugs of the deceased and they further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deccased and there is no negligcnce of the bus driver.

7. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the follorving issues lor triel[: 1) Whether the death of the deceased s'as cattscd in N4V Accidcnt on account of rash and ncgligcr-rcc of LI'rc drivcr ol Setwin Bus bearing No.AP-09-Y 8799? 2) Whether the accident vehicle is covered by Insurance? 3) Whether rhe petitioner is entitled for comopenstrtion' rf so' to what extent and on whom? 4) To what relief?

8. Ar the time of trial, petitioners got examirred as P Ws l to 3' got marked trxs.A. 1 to A.6 & Ex.X. 1 On behalf o[ the rcspondents R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B' 1 to B 1 1 r''"'ere marked' g. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.7,00,OOO/- as against the claim of Rs.15,0O,0OO/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancemcn ['

10. Hearcl tt e submission of learned counsel for the appcllants 3 E TD,] MACMA No 2:,2 .U 02i and responden [s.

11. LcaLrnccl counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learnccl l'ribunal has failed to apply thc guidelines .:f the lion,blc Apcx CourL fot' determination ol compensation ancl thal [he l'ribun:rl has; lriled to au,ard just compensation to t.he claimants. Hc llrther s rbmLtted that the dcceased used to eant Rs.SOO/ - per dzrr. and that tlr( 'l'ribunal lailed to consider the same ancl also that thr: Tribrrnirl firilcci to adci irmount tou.ards fnturc prcspects oI the c1e i'casecl :rni1 t trrclirrc pra.,'ed to enh:rnce the compcnsation. 1l. (Jn thc o l::r hand, lt:arned counsel for the rc-qpondenl No.2 submi[tcc] (]rat ir: is clear from the evidence of p.W.3 that thc deceased s'orkr:cl for twenty live days in their Super Market ancl also subrniltcd rl.rat there is no proof of income in support of petitioners ('onlelllion and therefore praved to uphold the order o[ lhe TribrLLral.

13. Basecl on lhe above rival contentions, this Court framcs the io llc,t rrt i Iruirys ,,r,leterminaLion: Vr/hr'lher the compensation granted lry 'l ribun:rl is just and reasonable? 2 V,'hcther the order and dccree ofthe Tribunal need anv interferencc?

3. To r,.1t:rt relieP iTD,] tuiALMA No.232 2C 21 -r 1,+. POINT NO.1: a) The case of the petitroners is that lhe deceased r'vas aged 20 years and rvorking as Sales Executive in Q Mart and earning Rs.5O0/ pcr day. In suPPort of their contention theY have examincd t'].W.3-the Senior Manager of Q Mart and got markcd A pcrusai of the Ex.X 1 reveals that it is rhe copl' of Ex.X. l. Pror.isional Trade License. The evidence of P W 3 revcals that tllc deceascd worked for 25 days in their super market and thcv usccl to pay Rs.5OO/ per day. Though, it is elicited from P W 3 that the deccasedusedtoearnRs.500/-perdayitisnotclearrr.hetherthe dcceasecl stilL conttnued to u'ork in lhcir estabiishmcnt as on the datc of the accident. ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manage1 Rogal Sundaro.rn b) Alliance Insutance Compang Limitedl, the Apex Cor-rrt has hcld lhat rn the absence of any proof of income lr'ith regarcl to zr labourer, Rs.4,5OO/ pcr month can be salely laken as the income' ln the said case accident occurred in the year 2OO4 but in tl're prcsent case the accident occurred in thc year 2015 and thc deccased is stated to have been working as a salesman in Q-Mart' Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, his income is Laken as Rs.8,OO0/ Per month- ' (:ot L) t: scc::o 5 :TD,J No.2Jl 2021 "IACMA c) As per th.r clicta laid dorvn in National Insurance Compdnu Limited Vs. .Pranag Sethi & Others2, 4Ook ol Lhe inc:ome nccds to be added tov..ar cls lltture prospects. As thc deceased is agecl 2O years as per- P.N{.8 rcport, :rdding 4O7o tonards fut l,rre prospecLs n'o'-rlcl givc R:;.11.200/- (Rs.[3,OO0/ x4O/100 :3,20()l- = Rs.8,OOO + Rs.3,200: Its.11 2OOl-) per month, u,hich comes to Rs.1l,2OO/- x 1 2 = Rs. 1 ,3 +,2-00/ per annum. d) Thc clarntanls hercin are the parents of the dcceased. The dccc:rsed ,.r trs a l,racltclor. Thus 50% de duction neccl to bc maclc to his incont,: ir,,r':uil:; ocrsonal c.ypenscs zrnd this rr.olr cl come up to Rs 67,200/ (l?s 1.3'1..1O01' ( ) Rs.67,2OO/ ) c) Thc Post \1or-tctn Ererminartion report filed lLnder Ex.A.4 revcals thc ag,e o1-the dcceased as 20 5.ears. The muir.iplier should bc choscrt u'i h rcgard fo thc age of the deceasecl, as per colllmn No..1 of 1lr(:, ta )li' given Ln Sarla Verma u. Dethi Transport Corporation). 'fhe clcceascd beine agecl 20 vears, tho appropriate multiplier to be appLied is'18'. Tirerelore, rhc loss of dependency comcs up to li s. I 2.1)9,600/- (Rs.67,20O X 18= Rs. 12,09,600/_). I In Lhe liqhr ol Pranag Sethi's case , Rs.4O,O0O/- towards loss of consortium, Ils. 15,O00/- torvards [oss of estate and Rs.15,0OO/_ tou'ards hrncritl oripenses have to be au.arded. It u,as further held 2 AtR 2017 SCC 5;15 / r :00i, 1r',; SCL t] t b ETD,I MACMA NO,232 2021 that the said amounts have to be enhanced bv lO%o for cven three -years_ gJ tn Magma General Insurance Compang Limited a. Nanu Rqm (tt' Chuhttt Ram q.nd other*, the Apex Court has elaborarely discussed thc principles laid do'"r,n tn Pranag Sethi's case and has further held that the parents and children of the deceased arc also entrtled to loss of consortium. Therelore, applying the principles laid dou'n in both the cases, the claimants ir-r the present case u'ould get Rs.48,aOO/ each torvards loss of consorLium, hence, rhe compL'nsation amount unclcr this head would be Rs-96,8007'- (Rs +8..+00/ X 2 = Rs.96,800/ ). Further Rs.18,150/- tor,,.ar.cls loss of estaLe and Rs. 18,150/ tou.ards funeral expcnses are ar','arded. Tl'rerefore, lhe compensation awarded by the Tribunai is e rrhirrced lrcrm Rs.7,OO,OOO/- to that of Rs.l3,42,7OO/ -. Point No.1 is ansu'cred accordinglv. 15, POINT NO.2: In vicu of the finding arrived at point No. 1, it is held thaL rhe order and dccrec passed by thc Tribunal need to be modified and accordingly compensation gran[ed by the Tribunal to the exlent of Rs.7,00,O00/- is enhanced to Rs.13,42,7OOl-. ' (:o ts) I s scc' I ;o .ID, ] iTACMA Nc r32 2021 16, POINT.NO.3: 7 In the rc sult. the MACMA filed by thc appellants is partly allori,ecl, moCifving the order and Decree dated i,3.O2.2O2O in O.P.No.5 ol .2015 passed br rhe MoLor Accrclent Claims Tribr-rnal_ curn VI Aclditic nal Districr and Sessions Jrrdgc, Fl. R. Districr, at L.R.Nagar, enhancing thc cotrltcnsatton lrom Rs.7.0O,OOO/_ to Rs. 13,42,70C / ancl Lhe cnhance d amolrnt of comprns:rtion shall carn' interesr. 6 7 .5 ,% per annum from the date of r:l:rim petttion tLll realization. Hos.cver, the intcrest lor the periocl ol dcla1., if any, is litrleitcd Ile spondent Nos.2 arLcl 3 are clirccted .t cleposit thc conpcns:rtirtr L antou,t *-iLIt nccrucC i.tercst u,L[hin . perrod of h.vo rnonrhs frorn tl-c clzrtc of reccipt oi a cop-t. oi fhis -lLtrlgmcnt :rfter dcclr-Lcting !h. a mor-u)t if lrn-r alre:rc1,r clcp6sited. O1 :t,-rch dcposil, the petitioncrs .re cntitlecl to wirhdrau, the said am()unt u.ithout lurnishing anv r;ecuritv, trs pe r thcir re spcctive sharr s as allolted b1 t}'rc TribLtn rl \o citsLs. Miscclla.co.s pctiti,,irs, pr-..diLt.t il anr., iLr this ..rppeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, l/otor Accidents claims Tribunal - cum -vl Additional District & Sessions Judr;e, R.R District at L.B.Nagar (lf any Lower court record).

2. One CC to SRl. A S NARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to St?1. P HARINATH GUPTA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies IVIMT \6s' .HIGH COURT DATED:1 1lA4t2O25 .gE SIA JUDGMENT MACMA.N 0.232 of ZO21 (f J . ';il I 11 0t't lffi -.i' ,t.;' -ft r.:., t15.s11..;,.*.' ,.r "a.-i'' ,: i, ':".::: PARTLY ALLoWING THE uncTvTa WITHOUT COSTS f cof'' ' Vr- \ )<^6 (o$r'o 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MIS CELLAN OUS APPEAL NO: 232 OF 2021 Between: 1 Noor Jahan, W/o. Mohd. Saleem Ahmed, Age,44,.years, Occ' Household' All liiinyr H.r.ro '194 1 Type, rliR prt6 sitd, Boratjand, Hyderabad presently iliioi""g ii Fi No ts-ti,'sittornagar, L.B Nagar, R'R'Dist', T S' Ivlohd. Saleem Ahmed, S/o. IVIohd.Nazeer Ahmed, Aged about,48 years occ, itrli nir *" iv". n rtro rg+ t ivpe, NRR Puram-Site, Boraband' Hvderabad bii;#iitrv trio;ng ,i'H-r.lb r g 13, Sarrornagar, L'B Nagar, R R Dist ' T S' 2

3. Ameen Anesha Sultana, D/o. Ivlohd Occ, Nil, All are RJo. H.NO.194 Hvderabad PresentlY residing at R:R.Dist., T.s. Saleem Ahmed, Aged about 22 Yearc' '1 Type, NRR Purim Site, Boraband, H-NO.19-13, Sarrornagar, L.B Nagar, AND

1. M.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o M. Chenna Reddy, Age,. Major' Occ' B-usiness' Rl/o ' ' iil;D;it virrig6. i/oinabat Mandat, Ransaieddv District' T S (owner of Crime Vehicle) ...Appellants/ Claimants

2. The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd, Rep by its lvlanager' l.ll 99dy - i;6,'Vl'Ftooi, srty, io*"r.s, S.P Roab, S-ecund^erabad-3--€q!iq"^. irio oraOooariso100003'1 72'valid from 07IOBI2015 to 06/08/2016) 3. The Managing Director/ Commissioner, Setwin Buses' Qilwath Road' Claims Cell Charminar, HYderabad.

4. Ivlohd. Haii. S/o. Ahmdab Age Major, Occ, Driver, Rl/o Dalimb' Omerga Tq' District Omanabad, Maharastra State' ...ResPondents AppealfiledUnderSectionlT3oft\/otorVehiclesAct,againsttheJudgment.and decreeinM.V.o.P.No.5of20l6daled.O3to2t2o20onthefileoftheCourtofthe cn,irrn,n,MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal_cum-VlAdditionalDistrict&Sessions Judge, R.R District at L.B.Nagar' I This appeal cr)mino on for hearing and upon perusrng the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and t)e-cree or tn"iriJri"i J.iiir.,!" rr,"rrat papers in the MVop and upon hearinq .he arguments of SRI A. S. NARAYANA , Advocate for the Appellants and p HARTNA-TH cuFrn, nj"""ri" r"l n" Respondent No.2. This court doth Order and Decree as follows: "nJ

2. 3.

1. That the l/otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal be and hereby is partly ailcwed. modifying the ordei o".r"" dt 03/o2/2020 in .9 I Tg 5,'2016 passed Oy te Urotti a."iO"nt Ctaims Tribunat _ cum _ Vt Addt Dist & Sessions juOge, n.R Oiii., at L.B.Nagar, Enhancing the compensation from Rs. 7,00,000/_ to Rs. 13,i2,ZOO/_-;;J" i;" enchancecl amount of compensation sfratt carry interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of claim petition till re;fiz;i;; That horuever the interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited. That the respondent No. 2 &3 are be and here by directed to deposit the compensations amount with accrued interest within a period of two months form the date of receipt of a copy of tf,is irUgmeni.aiil,. deducting the amount if any already J"po.iLO. That on surch deposit the petitioners are be and here by entired to withdraw the said amount . 5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stand 6. confirmeC in all other respects; and That there tre no order as to costs in this appeal. 4' SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// G- To, SECTION OFFICER & Sessions Judge, R.R District ail B tir'd;; " uL,rr 1 The Chairman, lr/otor Accirte.nts CJagns Tribunal _ cum _Vl Additional District 2. Two CD Copies MMT w' HIGH COURT DATED:1 110412025 DECREE MACMA.No.232 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS tlLo p(e,\- Vt- ((6P