The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 3 Ramavath Mangtha And 2 Others, Sio. . R. Parsharam, Age. [/ajor, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 2-831, Mailaram Village, Bommala Rama Ram Mandal, Bhongiri Head Post Office, Nalgonda District. SBI General lnsurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, 3rd Floor, Ozone Commercial Complex, 6-3-669/1, Punjagutta [/ain Road, Hyderabad - 500 082. (Policy No. 0000000002544938 - 01 Period of lnsurance from 181A212016 to 1710212017). . Bixapathi B, S/o. Chandru, Aged. 40 years, Occ. Driver of Crime Vehicle, R/o. H. No. 2-36, Gurraladandi, Bibinagar, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. PIN - 508 126 c o u nse r ro r th e Ap pe r ra n t(s ) : S Rr NAG ESWARA -^J:"Jr"IX;l:'*"" oo nde nts

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: Non appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.RAMA KIRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT \r.' i1 THE HONOIIRABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.46 L of 2O2O JUDGMENTl This appeal is filed by the appellants being unsatisfied with the au,ard and decree dated 27.O9.2OL9 passed in M.V.O.P.No.,826 ol 2016 on the file of the Motor- Accidents claims Tribunal (lll Aclditional District Judge) Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. :

2. lior convenience, the parties will hereinatter t-re referred to as arrayecl befbre the Tribunal.

3. The M.V.O.P.No.826 of 2OL6 rvas filed b-\, appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198.8 clairning compensation of Rs.15,OO,OO0/- (Rupees Fifteen t,akhs only) for the deatlr of one Mohammed Yaseen in a mctor vehicle accident occurred on 04.08.2016, u,hiie he \ras returning back to home on his TVS XL bearing No.AP-10-R 4g4S from Chengicherla and on the \rra-v when he rea,:hed near Sampoorna [{otel at Medipally, the driver of Tipper bearing No.AP-24-TII-8636 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from behind. Due to rvhich, he sustainecl bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The pglr:g have 2 t.'.., registered a case in Crime No.485 of 2016 for the offence under Section 304-4 of IPC against the driver of the tipper. +. Learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners contended that as on the date of' accident, the age of the deceased was 35 years and he was u'orking as labour in Ammar Leathers, Bakaram, Mustreerabad, Hyderabad and he was earning Rs.14,5O0/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand five hnndrecl only) per month. Since the family lost their dependency, the appellants ha.ve filed the M.V.O.P claiming cornpensation of Rs. 1 5,0O,OOO/- against respondents.

5. Before the tribunal, respondent Nos.l and 3 remained ex parte and vvhereas, respondent No-2 fiIed counter contending that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holuling a valid and et'fective driving license at the time of the alleged accident. The respondent No.2 denied the age, income of the deceased and. the iuvolvement of the crime vehicle. It is also statecl that the quantum of compensation claimed is eXcessive, baseless anci prayecl to clismiss the claim-petition.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.l to 3 rvvere examined. and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. / ,i: i' -1 On behalf o1' the respondent No.2, no ,,vitness \ ias examined, but Ex.B1 is marl<ecl.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Trib.unal framed the (i) ',i/hether the acctdent occurred on 04.()8.:)016 due to rash and negligent driuinct oJ driuer o.,F I\pper b eartng N o. AP-2 4 -TB-B 63 6? (iil Whether the petitioners are entitl,:c) for compensation? U so, to uthat quuntum ancl from uthich of the respondents? (iii) 'To what relieft

8. After ,analyzing the evidence available on record, the Iearned tribunal allowed the claim petition arvartling a total compensation of Rs.8,76,4OO/- with future interes;t eQ 9oh per annllm to be paid by the respondents, jointl-y ancl severally. challenging the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

9. Heard Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula, learnecr counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Rama Krishna Red,1y, rearned standing Counsel for Insurance company appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. \ '*'-- 4

10. . The main grievance of the appellants is that the learned tribunal ought to have taken into consideration Ex.A7 as the appellants have proved the Ex.A7 by producing the evidence of PW.3. The Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned tribunal did not appreciate the evidence of PW.3 and did not consider Ex.A7 on the ground that PW.3 did not produce any bank Statement to show the salary amount which was actualty paid to the deceased and there was no license being producecl to show that PW3 was running the,'business. Having disbelieved the same, the learned tribunal has assessed the compensation by taking income of the d.eceased at Rs.4,SOOl- per month by adding the future prospects as the age of the deceased being 35 years and ,' taking future prospects at 4O7o and deducted 1/3.a of the amOunt towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, as per the judgment of sarla vermq. vs. Delhi Transport corporationl, it was held that multiplier in respect of the age group of 31- 35 years being 16, the same was taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the appellants are also entitled for compensation under the conventional heads i.e., towards '(2009) 6 scc l2l ) funeral expenses, spousal consortium and parental consortium 1 1 . Per contra, learned Standing Coun se. for the respondents argued that the Tribunal after considering all these aspe<:ts has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, for which interference of this C,)urt is not necessary. Flence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Considering the rival contentions of both the parties as it is seen that the said accident occurred on O4.08.2O16 and there is no dispute regarding the deceased being rvorking as laborer in the said firm of PW.3 and considering the ground of realities that a laborer working in the city obvi,tusly u,ould get more than Rs.4,5OO l- and any laborer would g;et Rs.25O/- per day.

13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case ;rnd the present cost of living and ground realities, this Court j.s of the opinion that the income of t.re deceased can be tak.en as Rs.7,SOO/- per month (Rs.250 x 30) as against the income which is considered by the learned tribunal. \ \ 6 I' L4. As per the dicta laid dorvn in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi &, Othersz, 4oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged about 35 years, aclding 4OP/o towards future prospects would make income of deceased at Rs.10,500/- per month (Rs.7,5OO x 4Oohl, which comes to Rs.1O,500/- x 12 : Rs.1,26,000 l- per annum.

15. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Venna (Supra 1) if the deceased \vas married, | /3ra of his income has to be deducted as there are 2 dependents i.e., 42,OOOl- towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would come to Rs.84,OOO/- per annum (Rs,1,26,000 - (1,26,0O0 x ll3l = Rs.B4,00O/-) This sum if multiplied with the multiplier (16) applicable to the age of the deceased, who is aged 35 years, it would come to Rs.13,44,OOO/- (Rs.84,000 X 16 = Rs.13,44,000/-). Thus, appellants are entitled to Rs.13,44,OOAI- under the head 'Loss of DependencY'. ' RtR 2017 scc s1s7 1

16. Therefcre, the claimants are entitlecl for the compensatic,n in the following terms: I 2 -J 4 J Loss of depenclency Rs.13,44,00O/- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- I-oss of Estate Rs.18,150/- Parental Consortium Rs.48,400/- Spousal Consortium Rs.48,400/- *l,fter increasing lO(h for everv th ree years as pt:r the.jrrclgment of the Apex C,rurt in Pranag Sethi (Supra 2) TOTAL Rs.14,77,LOO I - \ L7 - Takinl3 the entire material placed on record and the rival contentions of both the counsels, this c,furt of the opinion that the appellants would be entitled lbr enhancecl compensation of Rs. L4,77 ,roo /- as against the compensation granted by the learned tribunal i.e, Rs.B,76,4OO l-

18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed lt.r enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.B.76,4OOl- to Rs. 14,77 ,lCtO l- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs Seventy seven thousand one hundred rupees only) with interesl. at the'iate of 7.Soh per annum from the date of filing the petition till clate of realizatir:n. Respondents No.1 and 2 are .lointly and severallv liable to pay compensation and respondent 8 No.2/lnsurance Company shali deposit the entire amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such Deposit, the appeiiants are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with interest accrued on it. Appellant No.l shall withdraw her share and as the appellant No.2 is minor, the share amount of appellant No.2 shall be kept in FDR till she attains majority. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. i llr' /TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD TY REGISTRAR OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Sessions Judge Rangareddy D]strict at L'B'Nagar'-- On" Ct t"Sri"Nages;ira ndo nepakula, Advoc.fl[9Juc] 6;; aa io SriA-dirn krishna Reddv, Advocate [OPUC] . Two CD CoPies To, 2 3 4 M KH/NVB It / / HIGH COURT DATED:1 3/03/2A25 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.461 ot 2020 { HE S, () ?5ii0lM * -l,r+.-t.,..,;-:^, " . : jq4..i;., * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT GOSTS 1 t\ 4 ) [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 461 OF 2O2O Between:

1. Zareena Begum And Another, Wo. Late Mohd Yaseen, Age. 33 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H. No. 19-13, Saroornagar, Bhagatsingh Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District, Telangana State

2. Arta Maheen, D/o. Late Mohd Yaseen, Age. 13 years, Occ. Student, (The Petitioner/Appellant No. 2 being Minor rep. by her mother and natural guardian Petitioner/Appellant No.1 herein) Both are R/o. HNo.19-1 3, Saroornagar, Bhagatsingh Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District, Telangana State ...Appellants/Petitioners AND

1. Ramavath Mangtha And 2 Others, S/o. . R. Parsharam, Age. Major, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 2-831, Mailaram Village, Bommala Rama Ram Mandal, Bhongiri Head Post Office, Nalgonda District. 2 3 SBI General lnsurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, 3rd Floor, Ozone Commercial Complex, 6-3-669/1, Punjagutta Main Road, Hyderabad - 500 082. (Policy No. 0000000002544938 - 01 Period of lnsurance trom 18102120161o 1710212017). . Bixapathi B, S/o. Chandru, Aged. 40 years, Occ. Driver of Crime Vehicle, R/o. H. No. 2-36, Gunaladandi, Bibinagar, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. PIN - 508 126 ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Order and Decree dated 27.09.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.826 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Sessions Judge Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. 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 Nageswara Rao Repakula, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A.Ram Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent No.1 & 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed.

2. That the cornpensation amount awarded by the Tribtrnal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.8,76,4001- To Rs.14,77,1001 (Rup=es Fourteen Lakhs Seventy Sev'=n Thousand one hundred rupees only) witr interest at the rate of 75% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of realization. 3. Respondent Nosl and 2 are jointly and severally liable '.o pay compensation and respondent No.2/lnsurance Company shall deposrt the entire amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a opy of this Judgment.

4. As such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with interest accrued on it.

5. That on appellant No.1 shall withdraw here share and as the appellant No.2 is minor, the share amount of appellant No.2 shall be kept in FDR till she attains majority.

6. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ,/TRUE COPY/ TiD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR \\. SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairrn;3r'1, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Sessions Judge Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Two CD Copies KHA.rvB M/ HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 310312025 DECREE MACMA.No.461 ot 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1 $+