The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Lajwanthi Tahlani, W/o.Hargovind Tahlani Cio.Kiran Transport Near HP Petrol Pump, Sirpur Kagaznagar Town of Adilabad District

3. The new lndia Assurance Company Limited, Fi/o. rep by its Branch Manager Branch Office Haripriya Mansion, Bank Street, Palakol of West Godavari District

4. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Fi./o. rep by its Branch Manager Banch office, D.No.3-5-83, 1st Floor Osmanpura Locality of Karimnagar 5. Dontharaeni Rajamallamma, Wo.Mallaiah R/o.Lakkaram Village, Mutharam Mandal of Karimnagar District

6. Pidugu Sharadha Alias Kavitha, W/o.Laxman Rl/o.Gundaram Village of Kamanpur Mandal of Karimnagar District

7. Thummala Malleshwari, W/o.Sadananda Ri./o.Advasrirampur Village of Mutharam Mandal of Karimanagar District

8. Eraveni Laxmi Alias Madavi, W/o.llaiah R./o. Regadimadikkunta Village of Sultanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. (R1 , R2 and R5 to R8 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: SRI cUDl MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: M/s/ P. SATYA MANJULA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT.JUS TICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.185 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 17 'O4 '2O 17 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned awardJ passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.374 of 2005, the petitioners/claimants have filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation'

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal'

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioners have hled claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,OOO/- from the respondent Nos' I to 8 for the death of deceased by name "Pandilla Rajaiah" (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased')' Petitioner No' 1 is the wife and petitioner Nos'2 and 3 are the children of deceased and petitioner No. 1. The brief facts of the claim petition hled by the petitioners, is as under: a) On 15. I l.2OO4 the deceased went to Akkepalli Village to attend a function on his motorcycle bearing No'AP 25 d 5045' / 2 After attending the function, the deceased along with his sister were returning to their village and on the way when they reached the outskirts of Rajapur Viliage at abour 7.O0 pM, due to darkness, the deceased dashed his motorcycle to the lorr5r bearing No.ATR 6O27 (hereinafter will be referred as trime vehicleJ, which was placed in the middle of the road, without any precautionary measures. Due to the accident, thc deceased died on the spot and his sister, who was the pillion rider, sustained bleeding injuries and fractures. b) A case in Crime No.96 of 2OO4 was registered for the offence under Section 304-A and 337 of the Indian penal Code by Police, Muthram against the driver of the lorry and after thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 304-4 and 338 of the Indian penal Code. c) The deceased was hale, healthy and agecl about 56 y2 years at the time of the accident and was working as Short Fire Helper in 10 Incline of SCC Limited, Godhavarikhani and earning Rs. 1 1,OOO/- per month. The deceased also entitled for bonus, exgratia, leave travel concession, under ground allowance etc. The deceased was the sole bread winner of his family. Therefore, tJ.e petitioners as dependents of the deceased fi,led claim petirion seeking compensation of Rs.g,0O,OOO/_ 3 against respondents jointly and severally' Respondent Nos'1 to 4 are the driver, owner and insurers of crime vehicle respectively. Respondent Nos.S to 8 are the daughters of the deceased and they got married and living separately with their respective husbands.

4. The respondent Nos. l, 2, 4 to 8 remained exparte' Respondent No.3 filed its counter denying the allegations made in the petition and that the deceased alone was responsible for the accident. It was further contended that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant in all proportions' On the above grounds prayed to dismiss the claim application' 5 Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues. il Whetler the accident occurred due to rash and iegligent driuing of the crime uehicle driuen bg its diuer/ R1? entitled fo' ii) Wletler the petitioners are compensation on oLc.ouit of the death of tte deceased' ,thi is the lrusband' of ile petitioner and father of and from petitioner Nos.2 and 5,11 so, to tDhat 3mount whom tlrc compensation has to be claimed? ^ iii) To uhat reLieJ?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioners' PWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs Al to Al2' On behalf of respondent No.3, no oral evidence was adduced; however' Ex.B 1 Copy of Insurance policy was marked. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation amount of Rs.5,44,661/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/ petitioners preferred the present Appeal to enhance the compensation.

7. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned Award. The learned Tribunal fixed the liability on respondent Nos.l' to 3, who are driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively. There is no dispute with regard to [he relationship between the petitioners, respondent Nos.5 to g and deceased.

8. There is also no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of PWl (son of the deceased/ petitioner No.3) and pW2 (sister of the deceased/pillion rider) coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A 1 (FIR), A,2 (inquest report), A3 (charge sheet), A4 (PME Report), AS (MVI Report), 4,6 (Form No.54) and A6 (crime details form), has arrived to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the parking of the crime vehicle in the middle of the road without any precautionary measures. 5 g. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants/ petitioners is that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the monthly income of the deceased as per Ex.A12 and failed to consider the evidence of PW3 (employer of deceased) but without any basis has considered only the basic pay of the deceased @ Rs.5,181/- by leaving aside the other allowances drawn by the deceased.

10. A perusal of the impugned Award discloses that the learned Tribunal fixed the basic pay of the deceased shown in Ex.A10 as the monthly salary of the deceased. But it is pertinent to note that while hxing the monthly salary, gross salary has to be taken into consideration after deducting the statutory deductions. The learned Tribunal ought not to have taken only basic pay of the deceased while arriving to the monthly income of the deceased. As per Exs.A8, AIO and A12 apart from the basic pay, the deceased was also drawing various allowances, which form part of salary. It is to be seen that none of the documents discloses the statutory deductions to be deducted from the salary of the deceased. The notional monthly salary of the deceased as per Ex.PlO rs Rs'lO'777-72 paise per month as on the date of the accident' The deceased expired on 15.11.2OO4. Thus, the salary of the deceased prior to his death is to be ascertained. As per Ex.A8, the gross salary of the deceased for the month of October, 2OO4 u,as shown as Rs. 10,9O4-29 paise. Even in the said document, there is no mention with regard to the statutory deductions like professional tax, income tax etc., from the salary of the deceased. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the after deducting necessary statutory deductions, the salary of the deceased can be arrived at Rs. 10,000/-.

11. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased as 56 years as on the date of the accident since the learned Tritrunal by relying on PME Report and inquest report under Exs.A2 and A4 has rightly came to the said conclusion that the deceased was aged about 56 years as on the date of accident. Thus, as per the principle laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationr, the appropriate multiplier for the persons aged between 56 to 60 years is 9'.

12. Since the claimants are three in number, l /3rd of the monthly salary of the deceased (Rs.3,333/-) shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, as such, the I (100c) 6 SCC 12l ,: contribudon of the deceased towards his family members will arrive to Rs.6,667 I - '

13. It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future prospects wh e carculating the compensation Since the deceased was aged above 6O years and doing permanent job' he is entitled for future prospects @ l57o as per the decision laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v' Praray Sethi and others2' Thus' the monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to Rs.7,667 l- per annum (Rs'6'667/- + Rs'1'Ooo/-) and the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs'92'OO4/ - 17 '667 l- x 12 months)' As stated supra' the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is 9' When the annual salary of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier' it comes to Rs'8'28'036/- (Rs'92'Ooa l- x 9l' Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is Rs'8'28'036/ -' The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs'1'OO'000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs'25'OOO/- towards funeral expenses' However, as per the principle laid down in National InsutaT ce 2 2017 Ac) 2700 Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others3 the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,OOO/- under the conventional heads (Rs.7O,00O/- + lOo/o enhancement thereon). Though the claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.8,0O,O00/ -, it is settled law that there is no restriction upon the Court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed. It is the duty of the Court to award just compensation. Thus, in all, petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,05,O36/ (Rs. 8,28,036/- + Rs. 77,000/-).

14. Now coming to the entitlement of the compensation, though the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and respondent Nos.S to g are majors and not depending upon the earnings of the deceased, they are certainly entitled for some amount out of the compensation amount towards loss of love and affection.

15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view t-hat impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observations. 12Ot7 AC) 27OO \

16. In the result, the Appeal is aliowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,44,661 l- to Rs.9,05,036/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Out of the above said compensation, the petitioner No.l is awarded an amount of Rs.7,85,036/- and the petilioner Nos.2, 3 and respondent Nos.5 to 8, who are the children of deceased, are awarded an amount of Rs.2O,0O0/- each. The petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 8 are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them wittrout furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. closed Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand //TRUE COPYII SD/.K.AMMAJI ANT REGISTRAR SI ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (with records)

2. One CC to Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. P. Satya Manjula, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BGV/plp @ro'-;4 HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 (2 drafts) I I JUDGMENT+DECREE MAGMA.No.185 of 2018 ( q c ,) )' .-l tr6 TS A TE 1 t$ [tq $rl ..4 .+ 6115;r,i,r '.^,' \r-L ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. NO: 't85 OF 2018 Between:

1. Pandilla Susheela, W/o. Late Pandilla Rajaiah, Rl/o. Machupeta Village of Mutharam, Mandal of Karimnagar District

2. Kumari Pandilla Padma, D/o.Late Pandilla Rajaiah, RI/o. Machupeta Village of Mutharam, Mandal of Karimnagar District

3. Pandilla Srinivas, S/o.Late Pandilla Rajaiah, Rl/o. Machupeta Village of Mutharam, Mandal of Karimnagar District AND ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

1. Nikoda Ganapathi, S/o.Bapu, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Driver of lorry, Bearing No. ATR 6027 Rl/o.Punjumeraguda Village of Rebbana Mandal of Adilabad district

2. Smt. Lajwanthi Tahlani, Wo.Hargovind Tahlani C/o.Kiran Transport Near HP Petrol Pump, Sirpur Kagaznagar Town of Adilabad District

3. The new lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rl/o. rep by its Branch Manager Branch Office Haripriya Mansion, Bank Street, Palakol of West Godavari District

4. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rl/o. rep by its Branch Manager Banch office, D-No.3-5-83, 1st Floor Osmanpura Locality of Karimnagar 5. Dontharaeni Rajamallamma, Wo.Mallaiah Rl/o.Lakkaram Village, Mutharam Mandal of Karimnagar District

6. Pidugu Sharadha Alias Kavitha, W/o.Laxman Rl/o.Gundaram Village of Kamanpur Mandal of Karimnagar District

7. Thummala Malleshwari, W/o.Sadananda Fl/o.Advasrirampur Village of Mutharam Mandal of Karimanagar District B. Eraveni Laxmi Alias Madavi, W/o.llaiah Fl/o. Regadimadikkunta Village of Sultanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. (Rl , R2 and R5 to RB are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree made in M.v.o.P.No.374 0l 2005 dated 17.04.2017 0n the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of ap-peal' the Judgmeni and Decree of the Court Selow and the matdrial papers in the MVOP and upin hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate- for the nppJ[nt and ofimt. p.-satya Manjula, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs 5,44,66'l/. to Rs 9'05'0361 (Rupees NinelakhsFivethousandandThirtySixonly)whichshallcarryinterest@ 7.50/o per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realiiation;

2. That the respondents 1 to 3 be and hereby are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment;

3. That the Petitioner No.1 be and hereby is awarded an amount of Rs.7,85,0361(RupeessevenlakhsEightyFiveThousandandThirtySixonly) and petitioners Nos.2,3 and respondent Nos.S to 8 who are the children of the deceased are award an amount of Rs.20,0001 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each;

4.ThatthepetitionersandrespondentNos.StoBbeandherebyareentitledto withdraw the entire amount awarded to them without furnishing any security;

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR *:- ,,\\ /\\ \.Iscrron oFFtcER - -- To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar

2. Two CD Copies u HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 I (2 drafts) DECREE MACMA.No.185 of 2018 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS. .rd