Tribunal ought not to havc rounded off the number to such a vs Prdndg Sethi and otherst, the deceased is entitled to future

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the stay passed in MACIVIAMP No.2031/20'16 dated 28.04.2016 in MACMASR No 14541/2016 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(MACMAMP . NO: 2031 OF 2016) 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 grant stay of all further proceedings rncluding execution of the order and decree passed in It/VoP No.17512010 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum lll Addl District Judge, Khammam dated 06. 11.2015 pending disposal of the above appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. SOMANCHT VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No. 'l: SRI SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI The Court delivered the following Judgment : HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSII{I M.A.C.M.A.No.2332 OF 2016 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 06. I 1 .20 15 (hcrcinaltcr ',vill bc referred as 'impugned orde r') passccl b1' ttrc lcarned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Acciclents Clainrs 'I'ribunal - cl-rm - [[l Additionat ChieI Judge, Khammam (hereinafter '.vill bc re fcrred as TribunalJ in M.A.T.O.P.No. 175 ot 201O, the Insurance Cornpany/ respondent No.2 has filcd the present Appcal to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of con-',cniencc, the partics lrere inatter are referrcd as the),rverc ari'ayccl belorc the Tribunal.

3. 'lhe brief facts of thc case as can be sccn from th(: record are that the petitioners tlled clairrr pctition clainring compensation clf Rs.4,00,O0O,/- asainsl the rt.sporrdt:nt Nos. 1 ar.d 2 for the death o[ t-heir lam ilv membe r by nlrme "Venkateshu,arlu" (hereinafter rl,ill be relerrcd as 'cicr;c'a:;cd '). The reason assigned by thc petitioners lor the deat.h of the deceased is that on O8.12.2OO5 zrt abolrt 7.00 AM u.hile the deceased was standing in lront of C)ongress Officr:, W1,r'1, 2 l11rr.1,. bearing No. AP -05- l"f - 462 (hercinalier '*,ill be relcrred as 'crimc vehicleJ being drir.en by its d rivcr with high specd irr rash 2 -r- and ncglif{r nt nlanncr dashcd the deceased, u-LLo dicd on the sp(Jt

4. Fl:rsr:ct on the complaint lodged by one Gugloth l,axmi Bai, er c'asc irr Cr-inrc No. 134 l2OO5 was registe red by Police, Wyrlr for thc oflcur:r-' r-rrrric-r St:<:tions 304-4 and 337 of thr: indian Penal (loclc Policr aeilrnst tht: drivr:r of the crime vehicle . r\cr:or-rrrng to thc pctil roners, the deceased u'as aged al;out

5. 28 _\,ear-" irnd carnirril Rs.b,()00/ - per month bv dorng lighting busincr;s. lhr cleccnsed used to contribute his income for rraintt:nrrnc: ol his lamil-v and due to suddert death of the rlcr,'easerl. tirt' pr:titiortcr No. j lost lovc, affection and conjugal happin*;s ancl thc 1-rrturc of t)ctitiotter No.2, u,ho is a nrinor, losL hrs bright fr rtrr:r: anrl yrt:tilirttrer No.3, u'ho is the fathcr o[ the dr:ceascci. losr his sorl aI- his; old age. 'I'herelbre, the pctitioncrs, clzrimc:ri ( oni j)('nsali()lr cf l?s.-l,OO.O0O/- under Section 16(> of thr: it4oLr.,r- Vr:hiclcs At l. I tl8ft against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, lr,h o :ir'. tlre ou rtt:i: anr.l insurer of the ,:rime vehicle rcspectivt'h , lor thc cli':rth of the deceased.

6. Bcftrrt' ttrt' lcirrrtccl Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2l o..r ncr arci irrsrrre r ol r hc crirnc vehicle filed separaLe countcrs. 'l'!ti: rr:s1.londcnI No. 1 r'ontcitded that as the crirne vehicle nas insured with respondent No.2, the compensation, if any, is liable to be paid by respondent No.2. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 denied the manner of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and that the claim of the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, on the above grounds, the Insurance Company assailed the liability to pay any compensation amount and prayed for dismissal of the case.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framcd the following issues: i) Whetler the accident ocantred due to rash and negligent driuing bg the Lorry bearing No. AP 05 TT 462 resulting the deoth of Kouualotla Venkatesuarlu on O8.12.2OO5? i4 Wlrctlrcr the petitioners are legal heirs of the decea.sed, if so, are tLtey entitled to compensotion, to uhat amount and from whom? i ii) To u-that relieJ?

8. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs I to 4 were examined apart from relying on documentary evidence under Exs. A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.2, none were examined apart from exhibiting Ex. B I copy of insurance policy.

9. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in favour of the petitioner/ claimant and making respondent Nos. 1 and 2 liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,48,0OO/ jointly 4 --r and severalh from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company has preferred the present Appeal to set aside thc rmpugned judgment.

10. Heard Sri Somanchi Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company,/Rs5pondent No.2 as well :rs Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, learned counsel for respondr: n ts / pc titioners and perused the entire material availzrble on rt:cord including the grounds of Appeal. I1. It is pcrtinent to note that the claimant has not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. .lhere is no dispute with rr:gard to the manner of the accident as the learned Tribunal bv rr:lying on the oral evidence of eyeu'it.ness (pW2) coupled with Exs.A I (FIR) and ,A,2 (charge sheet), answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due 1o rash and negligcnt driving ol' thc crime vehicle and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

72. There is no dispute that the insurance policy (Ex.B1) was subsisting as on thc datc of accident. There is also no dispute with regard to thc rclationship betweeli the deceas(:d and the petitioners. 5

13. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of [he deceased as Rs.6,OOO/- per month without any documentary evidence.

14. In this regard, the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW1, wherein she categorically stated that the deceased was engaged in the work of arranging decoration lights and used to earn Rs.6,OO0/- per month. Apart from that the petitioners got examined PW3, who is alleged to be the employer of the deceased. PW3 deposed that he is an electrician and doing his profession in the name and style of Upendra Kalyana Mandapalu and that nearly four or five electricians are working under his control. He further deposed that he is paying Rs.25O/- per day to each electrician and the deceased is one such electrician. Thus, the evidence of PWl is corroborated with the evidence of PW2. As rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, there cannot be any documentary evidence of proof of income for such occupation. Hence, the above contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is untenable. Therefore, the income of the deceased as fixed by the learned Tribunal is treated to be in proper perspective. 6 [!cPJ

15. Thc learned counsel for lhe respondent No.2/lnsurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in adding future prospccts (a.' 5O7o to the income of the deceased while computing th(' compcnsat ion.

16. The learned Tribunal while arriving to the annual income of the deccased has rounded off the annual income of Rs. 1,08,000/ to Rs. l,10,0OOl-. ln general, a hgure, which is in decimal form. u'ould be rounded off to a closer [o the next number. Therr-'is no decimal form in the figure arrivecl by the learned Tribunal bl.lt only for the sake of convenicnce in calculations, the learned Tribunal has rounded off Rs. i,O8,O00/ to Rs.l,lO,OO0/- i.e., with a dilference of Rs.2,O0O/-. This diffcrencr: of Rs.2,OO0/- will have considerable impact on th( quantum of compensation. Thus. the lcarned Tribunal ought not to havc rounded off the number to such a large extent.

17. As seen lrom the page No.S of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has added 507o to the income of ttre deceased towards future prospects. In vie'.r, of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in National fnsurance Compang Litnited. Vs. 7 Prdndg Sethi and otherst, the deceased is entitled to future prospects @ 4O%o ol his salary, since the he was below 4O years and self employed. Thus, the monthly income with future prospects would arrive to Rs.8,40O/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,40O/-). Since the claimants are 3 in number, 1 / 3ra of the monthly salary (Rs.8,400/-) of the deceased i.e., Rs.2,800/- shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would come to Rs.5,60O/- (Rs.8,aOol- - Rs.2,800/-). The annual income would arrive to Rs.67,2OO/- (Rs.5,600/ x 12 months). Thus, the income contributed by the deceased towards his family members would be Rs.67,2OOl-.

18. When the annual salary of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs. 12,O9,600/- (Rs.67,2OOl- x 18). Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is arrived to Rs. 12,09,6OO/-. Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise o[ deceased is being reduced from Rs. 13,23,OO0/- to Rs. 12,09,600/-. | 20t7 hcJ 2700 .- 8

79. The learr-red Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- tor,r'ards loss of love and affection, Rs. 1 ,O0,00O/ - towards loss of estate and Rs.25,OO0/ tou,ards funeral expenses. It is settled principle of law in respr:ct of granting compensation under conventional heads as pcr the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others2 the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,OOO/ under the conventional heads (Rs.70,00O/- + l07o enhancement thereon). In aclclition thereof, petitioner No.2, u,ho is the minor son of the deceased and petitioner No.l is entitled for Rs.40,0OO/- under the head of 'parental consortium'as per lhe decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Compang Limited u" No,nu Ram @ Chuhru Rann and other€. petitioners / claimants are entitlcd to compt:nsation of Thus, in all, Rs.13,26,600/- (Rs.12,09,60O/ * Rs. 77,OOO/- + Iis.4O,000/-).

20. It is thc contention of the learned colrnsel for the Insurance Company that thc learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 7 .5"h per annum instead of 9%o, which is highly exccssrve. By considering the principle laicl down by the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Ra;'bir Singh and 2 20t7 ACt 27U) 3 (2018) r8 scc 130 9 others4, this Court is inclined to reducc [he rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from <),'/o per annum to 7.5t\t per annurn - .21. [n r.iew of the above lacts and circumstances, this Court is of the considcrcd vievi Lhat impugned Au,ard passed by [he learned Tribunal is requircd to be modificd to the extent of above obserwations.

22. In the result, Lhc Appcai is allowecl in part. The quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is hereby reduced from Rs.l5,.+8,O00/- to tis.13,26,600/- with intcrest at

7.5'% p.a. from [he date of pctition lill the (late ol realization, to be payable by respondents (owner and insurer of the crime vehicle) jointly and scver:rlly. Out of the above said compensation, the petitiotrcr No. 1 is awarded an amount of Rs.8,O0,OO0/-, petitioner No.2 is awarded Rs.3,50,OOO/- and petitioner No.3 is arvarded Rs. 1,76,600/-. The respondenLs (ou,ner and ir-rsurer of the crime vehicle) are dircctcd to deposit the amount within a period of onc month from the date o[ receipt of a copy of this .judgment. On such deposit, the petrtioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled ro u,ithdrau, Lhe e ntire | 20i3 AC' I103 2013 (-rl AI-T:15 10 - amount a\\'a l (led to them without furnishing any securitrv The compensati()rl rrs':rrdcd [o peLitiollcr No.2/minor is ilrdered to be depositecl :rs i"DI? itl arn natiot'ralizccl bank until tl-re minor a[tains thc :rqe ol ma-ioritl'- 1'he petitioner No 1 bcrng the natural guar<lian of thc minor is cntirled to t'il hdrarv the intcrcst accru.'d lhcrcon otlce in six motlths to m(ct the day to day e xpenscs ,rl'.ht: nlinor. There shalI tre no order zrs to costs' Ivlisccllanco-ts petttions, il anr', pcnding shal! sttrnd closcrl //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER A To 1.

3. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum lll Additional District Judge, Khammam. ( with records ) One CC to SRl. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 *DE( l{lr.tl JUD(;MENI' l() 't rt.E S ia 116' R 11 ilrH tu z a MACMA.N 0.2332 of 2016 f\ * {)F P,\IITI,Y,\I,I-0U't\G 1 I II] \,IA('N4I\ \I'I'f IIOLIT ('()S'I'S @ n\^\^( IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TE AT HYDERABAD l LANGANA FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. NO: 2332 OF 2016 Between: United India lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch lr/anager, Kakinada. ..APPELLANT/ Respondent No. 2 AND

1. Kovvakula Padma W/o. Late Venkateswarlu,26 years, Housewife, Rl/o. B-C.Colony, Wyra Village and [t/landal Khammam District- Telangana State. 2. Kovvakula Nithin Sai, S/o. Late Venkateswarlu, 5 years, Occ: Student, Rl/o. B.C.Colony, Wyra Village and lt/andal Khammam District. Telangana State. r (Being minor Rep. by his mother i-e., Respondent No.1 herein)

3. Kowakula Yellaiah, S/ o. Muthaiah, 70 years, Occ Nil, Rl/o. B.C.Colony, Wyra Village and Mandal Khammam District. Telangana State. .. Respondents/ Petitioners

4. The Ramadas Motor Transport Ltd., Rep. K.Saraswathi, Office at Post Box No.42 Subash Road, Kakinada, E.G.District, A.P. ...RESPONDENT/ Respondent No. 1 Appeal Under Section 173 of It4.V. Act aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 06-1 1-2015 in M.A.T.O.P. No. 175 of 201O on the file of the Court of the Chairman, [Vlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum lll Additional District Judge, Khammam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon .perusing the l/emorandum of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Sreenivasa Rao Ravulapati, Advocate for Respondent No. 'l . This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is partly allowed.

2.That the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is reduced from 15,48,000/- to Rs. 13,26,600/- with interest ----. =*-z al7 .5 % p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be pa,ygplg. by respondents io*n"r- ,;d i;;;r"r of the crime vehicle) jointty and severally. 3. That out of the above compensation, the petitioner No. 1 is awarded an amount of ns.e"OOiOOOl_, Fetitioner No. 2 is awarded Rs. 3,50,000r- and petition". tio. 5A uriu;;;;R.. 1,76,600/_ . {,fnqt tf-r9 respondents ( owner and insurer of the crime vehicle) are drrected to deposit the amount within a Gi- ,;i;; ;;;il'?i# il; date of receipt of a copy of tfris JuOgme;t. 5' That on such deoosit, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entitred to yJfrXlir* th e entire' a mou nt r;r;i;;"i"' i;"r' *ir,ort r,;; ;ilil;;; .^ " ii i vr rr I rqrr\rl I

6. That the compensation.awarded to petitioner No.2/ minor is ordered to be deoos*e.d as rod i;;;t';;ilatized bank untit the minor attains the bge of milority. 7. The petitioner no. .l and hereby is entitred to wi*roraw ttr" iit"rlliu".rued thereon once rn srx months to meet the day to day expensus of tf,. ,il;r. -" "'."" 8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. being the natural guardlan of the minor be AS Sd/. T. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER cidents Claims Tribunal cum lll Additional To

1. The Chairman, Motor Ac District Judge, Khammam. 2. Two C.D.Copies V HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 DECREE I/ACIVA No 2332 of 2016 PARTLY ALLOWING THE TVACIVA WITHOUT COSTS ,L( 3l { \