The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 1&2: R. Anurag The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE'I/I EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.394 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimalts aggrieved l ,y the Order and Decree dated 25.09.202O in M.V.O.P.No.1O73 ot' ,i016 passed by the Mot.or Vehicle Accident Claims Tribu rr:1-cum-XXVI Additional Chief .Judge, Ciby Civil Court at Hydera lra C (for short "the Tribunal'') .

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein lrr,: referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunzr \vas that on

30. 10.20 15 the deceased-B. Krishna was going on irir, Splendour motorbike beerring No.AP-28-CY-9178 and when ht' rr:ached near Lodha Apartments in Phase-IV, KPHB Colony, Hyrl,rrabad, the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.TS-1lZ-3139 came al a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the mo o - bike from behind, as a rr:sult of which the deceased fell down, sr srained head injuries and died on the spot. The claimantr; sought a compensation of Rs. 1 5,00,OO0/-.

4. The respondents No.1 and 2 has filed counte.r <lenving the material averments of the petition with regard to the ocr;urrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the dt: :<.ased. It is 2 ETD,J MACMA No.394 2021 further contended that the self negligence of the deceased resulted in the accident and that there was no rash and negligence of the RTC driver and that they are not liable to pay compensation.

5. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the foilowing issues for trial: - 1 Whether the pteaded accident had occuted rcsulting in death of the decea_sed-9. Kishna due to the ra:;h and negligint clnuing of TSRTC beaing No.Ap- I t -Z 3 j 39 bA its dner?

2. Whether the petitloners are en\tled to anA compenscLtion, if so, at Luhat quantum and uhat is the lnbilitg oJ the respondents)

3. To u.that relieP

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined pWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to ,4.6. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,42,2OOl- compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is frled by the claimants seeking enhalcement.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants ard Sri N. praveen Reddy, iearned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

9. The learned appellant,s counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded very low amount of compensation by assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,OO0/_ per month. The deceased used to work in VRL Logistics and used to earn 3 ETD,J lr'lACMA No.394 2021 Rs.15,00O/- per month. But, the Tribunal has not c rnsidered the said fact and has assessed the income of the rlr:eased to be Rs.6,000/- per month which is very low. He further srrbmitted that the Tribunal faik:d to award amounts under loss of r:< asortium and other conventional heads. He therefore, prayed to cc n;idt-'r the said facts and enhanoe the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the otlrer hand has submitted that the petitioners have not Iiled any pr(,o'of income of the deceaserl and thus, the Tribunal was right in rsst:ssing the income as Rs.6,000/-. He further submitted that l,rrvards loss of consortium zrnd other conventional heads, the guideti Les laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Comparryr Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Othersl ar:d Mqgma Genera l. Insurance Cornpang Linited. U Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Rom and others2 may be followed

11. In vievr of the above rival contentions, the pcrrts that arise for determinzrtion in this Appeal are as follows:- I 2 lAhe er the claimants compe'nsatton? lVheth.er the Order and Decree of the Tribunu ',eed any inte rf<'rence ? are entitLed to enhu,t,:ment of

3. '1'o what relief ? 1 AtR 20'17 SCC 5157 '] 1:o t a.t ts scc t:o 4 ETD,J MACMA No.394 2021

12. Point No.1: a) The appellants are aggneved by the quantum of compensation. PW 1 is the mother of the deceased and she has asserted that her son used to work in VRL Transport Company, Kukatpally as a Private Employee and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and Batta of Rs.20O/- per day. No document is filed in support of earnings of the deceased. b) The claimants counsel relied upon Jegarani & Another Vs. The Manager Bajaj Alltanz General;3 wherein the Apex Court has held that in case of a mason, no documentar5r evidence can be expected. However, taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased and the year of the accident being 2013, the monthly income of the deceased could be reckoned at Rs.9,OO0/- and has also added future prospects. In the present case also, no proof is filed, but it is averred that he is a Private Employee in the VRL Logistics Transport Company. c) In light of the above cited decision of the Apex Court, it is held that the income of the deceased can be assessed to be Rs.9,O0O/- per month. r Ci',il Appeal Nos-4310-431t of2023 5 ETD,J MACMA No.394 2021 d) As per thr. dicta laid down in No,tional Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Othersa, 4Oo/o of the in::ome nceds to be added towards future prospects. As the deccas:d is aged 24 years, adding 4O7o towards future prospects i.e., 90:){ )+3600 would give Rs.12,600l- per month, which comes to Rs. 112,600/- x t2 - Rs.1,51,2O0 /- l)or annum. e) The deceased is a bachelor and therefore, 1(.ok deduction need to be madc towards personal expenses and tf ir, would come up to Rs.75,t5O07 - (Rs.1,51,2OO x 50/ 100) f) The Pcst Mortem Examination Report filed rrnder Ex.A4 reveals the age of the deceased as '24'years. The nnrltiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceaSed i*; per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs. De thri Transport Corporations, the deceased being aged. '24'years, t.-r(, appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.13,60,8OO/- (Rs.75,600 x 18). In the tight of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.15000/, -owards loss C) of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral eKl:renses and 4 ArR 2017 SCC 5157 ' 2009 (6) SCC rZ r 6 ETD,I MACMA No.394 2021 Rs.4O,OOO/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by |OV" every three years. h) In Magma General lrtsura,rr.ce Compang Limited- u- Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ro,tn and. others6, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Sethi's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, there are three claimants and would get Rs.48,400/- each, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs. 1,45,200/- instead of Rs.40,O00/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. i) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts:- 1 Compensation under the head of loss of de enden 2 Compensation towards loss consortium to the petitioner Compensation towards loss of estate 3 4 Compensation towards funera-l expenses Total Rs.l3,6O,aOO/- of Rs.1,45,2OOl- Rs.l8,150/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.l5,42,3OO/- j) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners a_re entitled is calculated as Rs.15,42,300/- while the Tribunal has u lzotty ts scc t:o 1 ETD,] l, ACMA No 394 2021 awarded Rs.9,4'2.2OOl-. Therefore, it is opined that 11 e petitioners are entitled f,rr r:nhancement of compensation Hence, point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO.2: It is held tLrat the order and decree of the Tribt r al need to be modified wittr rcgard to the quantum of compensati, rr:. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.15,42,300i lrom that of I I Rs.9,42,2OOl- that is awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 rs answered accordingly.

74. POINT NO.3: In the resrrlt, the appeal is partly allowed. nrodifying the Order and Decre,: dated 25.09.202O in M.V.O.P.No lt)73 of 2O16 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribuni -cum-XXVI Additional Ctrief .ludge, City Civil Court at Hyderab rtl , enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,42,2OOl- to 15,42,3t.t0/- and the enhanced amoul-rr- of compensation shall carry interes' @ 7 .5'k per annum from the rlate of claim petition till realization . Iowever, the interest for tLLe pc'riod of delay if aly, is forfeited. Th.r cespondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount vrith accrued interest within a period of two months from the date' ,rl receipt of a copy of this -ludgment after deducting the amount I any already E EID,) MACMA No.394 2021 deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- XXV, Additionar chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.(With records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] G AS/gh T l HIGH COURT DATED:111O712025 tL STA.l.' a ?B STP tffi L,, A,/tttt-C,".+ra,r;'{'i/ a. '.ii=-i -_.!.ta- .' JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.394 oI 2021 [2 DRAFTSI PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:394 OF 2021 Between:

4. Smt. B.Parvathi, Wo. B.Madhu alias Mukunda, aged 50 Years, Occ Household, Residents of Plot No. 35, Powernagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad_ 5. B,Madhu alias Mukunda, S/o. B.Lavanna, aged 53 Years, Occ Nil, Residents of Plot No. 35, Powernagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad

6. B.Guna, S/o B.Madhu alias Mukunda, aged 16 Years, Occ Student (petitioner No. 3 being minor rep by her Natural mother and next best friend petitioner No. l) Residents of Plot No. 35, Powernagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND

4. T.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Managing Director, Office situated at Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, HyderabaC.

5. T.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manager, Miyapur Depot, Hyderabad. 6. Banothu Narsimha, S/o Not Known, Aged about major, Occ Driver of TSRTC, R/o C/o Depot Manager, Miyapur-l Depot, Hyderabid. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O,P.No. 1073 of 2016, dated.25logl2o20 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV| Additional Chief Judge, City Civil' Court at Hyderabad. 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 arguments of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri R. Anurag , Advocate for the Respondents 1 and 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal b<: and hereby is partly allowed, modifying the order and decree dt. 25t0912020 irr MVOp No.i073116 passed by the MACT-cum-XXVI Additional Chief Jurlg,:, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation frorr Rs.g,42,2001 to Rs. 15,42,300/- and the enhanced amount of compensat orr shall carry interest @ 7.5%p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.

2. That however, the interest for the period of delay if any rs, {rtrfeited; 3. That the respondents are directed to deposit the comp:nsatron amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from thr: ,late of receipt of a copy of this.iudgment after deducting the amount if any alr::ady deposited; 4 That on such deposit, the claimnants are entitled to with,ir:rw the said amount without furnishing any security;

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the l'ribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII SD/. N. SRIHARI I=F'UTY REGISTRAR ND /\, i STCTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- XXr/l Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.(Wrth records, if anyr

2. fwo CD Copies o. AS/g I I HIGH COURT DATED:11107t202s DECREE MACMA.No.394 ot 2O21 I PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. 1 3