The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI SUBBAGARI SUOARSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 6:-- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.L56 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This appeal is frled by the appellant-lnsurance Company under Section L73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and I l decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - I Additi,onal Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.55 of 2O16, dated

09.09.2019, wherein the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 15,49,200/- to the respondents /claimants herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the leamed Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants hled M.V.O.P.No.55 of 2OL6 under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the Devi Venkaiah (hereina-fter re{erred as deceasedJ who died in the accident alleged to have canrsed due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Auto Bearing No.AP-15-TV-1796. Oo 10.09.20 15, the deceased was returning to Mulkalla Village from Gudipet by u,alk and reached opposite to Vyshnavi Petrol Hub at Gudipet Tor.r,n, Adilabad District, a vehicle 2 NI{R.J U./LC.M.A.No. rs6 of 2O2o \ bearing No.AP- 15-TV- 1796 came in a rash and negligent manner with I high speed and dashed the deceased, due to which he sustained severe injuries and was talen to Gandhi Hospital but he succumbed to inj uries in the hospita-l while taking treatment on the same day. The Police, Hazipur registered crime No.96 of 20 15 against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and was hale and healthy and working as Village Sunkari and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per montJr, which he used to contribute the same for the welfare of the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their dependency and further contended that deceased was only bread winner of their family. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads. I

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 - Ou,ner of the Crime Vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and 3 ITIIR.J x.A.C.r.A-xo. 156 of 2(YrO the compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and prayed to dismiss the clairn petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which l'eads as under: "(1) Wetlrcr the pleaded accident occarred resulting in death to the uictim uiz. Sri Deui Venkaiah S/o.Si Pedda Lingaiah due to rash and negligent driuing of the driuer of the uehicle beaing No.AP 15 TV 1796 ? (2) Wleher tle petitioners are entitled to anA compensation and if so, at uhat qtantum ? (3) To uttwt relief ?" 7 . After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.15,49,2OO/- along with interest @ 7 .Sok per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awa-rded by the Iearned Tribunal, the present appeal is hled by the appella-nt/Insurance Company on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid license to drive the vehicle. It is further contended that except the statement of PW.3, rro docurnentar5r evidence was filed to show that the deceased used to work as Village Sunkari and was earning Rs. 10,00O/- I 4 I{NR.J .A.C.M.A.IIo.156 of 2O2O p.m., however, the Tribunal without any document evidence talcen the income of the deceased Rs.9,OOO/- per month which is highly excessive and further submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously added 307o toward s flrture prospects of the deceased, as the deceased was 45 years as on the date of the accident and the Tribunal ought to have added 25o/o towards future prospects and the interest granted by the Tribunal @ 7 .5o/o on the compensation amount is on higher side and prayed this Court to set aside tJle Tribunal order against the appellant/ Insurance. I

9. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference

10. Heard, Sri A.RamakrTshna Reddg, learned counsel for the appellant and Srt Subboga nt Sudarsho;n Reddg, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l to 4. None appeared for respondent Nos.S & 6. Perused the material on record.

11. Admittedly, the claimants have not liled cross-appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Tribunal. As such, the claimants are satisfied with the Award and decree and the compensation awarded by 5 !!8,:t M.A.C.U.A- o.I55 of 2O2O the Tribunal. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is I that: "i) Wlether th.e leamed Tribunal has rightlg jlxed the liability on the appellaht to paA *te compensation ii) Wlrcther the TYibunal had rightlg consider the claim petition filed under Section 166 (A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and rules 455 of M.V.Rules 1989 and auarded just compensation to the claimants." I Point No.1:

12. Admittedly, the deceased sustained severe injuries due to accident occurred on 1O.O9.2012 and succumbed to injuries in the hospital while taking treatment on the sa:rre day. Ex.Bl is the [nsurance Policy which was subsisting as on the date of accident for the crime vehicle. The Ex.B2 is the Driving licence of the crime vehicle driver, which clearly shows that the driver of the crime vehicle is authorized to driver the crime vehicle, Hence, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 - Owners of the Crime Vehicle and respondent No.2-Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from liability. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in lavour of claimants and against the respondents. Point No.2: 13. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,00O/- pas qlonth by working as Village Sunkari, however there is 6 !I&J M.A.C.M-A.No.l56 of 2O2O no documentary proof such as bank entries to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal believing the version of PWl-wife of the deceased and PW3-Sarpanch at Gundipet Village has taken the income of the deceased as 9,00O/- per month.

1.4. As far as point No.2 is concerned with regard to the just compensation to the claimants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhua us. State of Blhart , where it is stated that in the absence of an-r' documentary proof with regard to income of the deceased and where there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts.

15. ln Shalkh Sadik Shaift Raflgue o. Relltrrlce General Insurance Conpang Llmited o'nd others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount of the deceased, who was unskilled labour to Rs. 10,000/- per month, and the relevant paragraph No.5 reads as under for read reference: ":r. Ra:ma.chandrappa us. Manage4 Rogal Surr.dararrt Alliance Insuro;nce Compang Limlted determined an income of Rs.4,SOO/' 1 2001(8) SCC 197 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1092 i.: I 7 U!8,{ M.A.C.M.A.No. r56 of 2O2O per month in tte Aear 2004 for a coolie. A Constitution Bench in National Insurance Compang Limited us. Pranag Sethi and Others found tlnt tlere uould be an incremental increase in the income which according to us taould be reasonable if fixed at Rs.50O/- per month for euery suc@ssiue gear. In the present case, the accident occurred in the gear 2015, 11 gears afier 2OO4 aru1 going bg the pinciples stated in ttte afore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilled uorker wouLd. be entitled to claim monthlg income of Rs.1O,OOO/ -"

16. [n view of recent judgment, dated 13.05.2025, passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Shallch Scdik Shcrilc Rafique's case (cited supra) and the fact that deceased has not hled any income proof and Iooking at the avocation of the deceased, this Court feels that the I learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month and needs no interference.

17. The compensation amount which was granted under conventional heads is in the light of the pronouncement of judgment in Srrrla Vertna u. Delhi T'ra nsport Corporatlon3 Magma General Insurance Compang Limited Vs,Ngnu Rann alis Chuhrtt Rcma and I I the same needs no interference by this Court. The leamed Tribunal has added 30% future prospects to the income of the deceased, hou,ever as I 2oo9 AcJ t29s (sc) o 2018 (18) scc 130 o [TI{R,J M.A.C.M.A.No.l56 of 2O2O per the full bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranag Sethi's case (cited above), the future prospects of age group of 4O to 50 years prescribed as 25% but the learned Tribunal has erroneously added 30% to the future prospects.

18. As per the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Pranag Sethi and others (cited aboue) and considering the age of the deceased 45 years which is not disputed by either of parties, additional 25Vo of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1 1,250/- (Rs.9,O00/- + Rs.2,25O/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.11,25O/- X l2l and, out of which, 1/4 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as there were four dependants dependant on the deceased income as claimed bv the claimants at the time of the accident. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.1,01,250/. (Rs. 1,35,000/- (-) Rs.33,750/-)

19. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verrna's case (cited above), and considering the age of thc deceased as 45 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group ol40 to 50 years, as the age of deceased was 45 years as 9 N[B,:I M.A.C.M.A.No.l56 of 2020 on the date of the accident, th€ relevant multiplier would be '14'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 14,17,500/- (Rs. 1,0 1,250/- x l4). I

20. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decision. The compensation amount is modified and recalculated for the reasons stated above and given in the table below for easy reference Head Amourt srrivcd at by the Tribuaal Alrlou.nt arrlved at by this Cou.rt I Loss of income to be contributed to the welfare of the family Funeral Expenses Transportation Consortium Loss of Estate Rs.f4,74,2OOl - Rs.r4,17,5OO/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,O0O/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.25,o00/- l Rs.20,OOO/- Rs.1O,O00/- Rs.20,OO0/ - Rs.25,OOO/ Total 15,49,2OO /- t4,92,sOO l- 1

21. Considering the circumstalces of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7 .5 o/o per annum on the compensation amount and the same needs no interference by this Court.

22. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, by reducing the compensation from Rs.l5,49,2OOl- to Rs. L4,92,5OO1- (Fourteen i :i I t_ 10 !n{R.J M.A.C.M.A.No.l56 of 2020 Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand and Five Hundred Rupees only) with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents therein are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the arnount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned arnong the respondents/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdrau. the same without furnishing .any surety. However, it is made clear that, if the claimants had already withdrawn the excess compensation amount, if any, the appellant-insurance company is not entitled to recover the same from the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs e

23. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY// SD'- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f.---------- { SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional chief Judge city civil Court Secunderabad.

2. 6;; bci; Snia nnr,lnxntsHNA REDDY, Advocate [oPUc] 3. One CC to SRI SUBBAGARI SUDARSHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies I }WB F1,, HIGH COURT DATED:28/0712025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.156 of 2020 SiAIE o() ut itB 1$1$ i DE: ,,7 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS !r *P@' (-A. c'.([" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE [ 3/t43 ] I I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 156 OF 2020 Between: Reliance General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Sagar Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Appellant AND t. Devl Shantha, Wo Late Devi Venkaiah, Aqe. 41 years, Occ. Housewife, Presently Rlo 121 , Barhan, Compound, Kalas(;uda, Secunderabad. Q Devi Rajashekar, S/o Late Dgvi Venkaiah, Age.22 years, Occ. Nil, Presently R/o 121 , Barhan Compound, Kalas(;uda, Secunderabad !. Devi Prashanth, S/o Late Devi Venkaiah, Age. 19 years, Occ. Student, Presently Rlo 121 , Barhan Compound, Kalasiguda, Secunderabad lp.Devi Soundarya, D/o Late Devi Venkaiah, Age. 19 years, Occ. Student ' Presently R/o 121 , Barhan CompouM, Kalasiguda, Secunderabad. (Respondent No.4 is declared as major and discharging the guardianship of R'l vide C.O. dt.10.11.2020 in lA No.S of 2f'2O) fr.Simhadri Mouloji, S/o Not Known, Age. Major, Ocrc. Owner of the Crirne : Vehicle as per Policy, No 2-29, Korutla, Peta Yellareddypeta, Kortalapet, Yellareddypeta - 505 305 €.Peddaiah Neerati, S/o Chinnaiah, Age. Major, Occ. Owner of Crime Vehide as per R.C and driver, R/o 2€5, Peddampet, Mancheriyal, Adilabad District, Telangana State (R4 declared as Major and R1 is discharged as the guardian of R4 vide Court Order Dated 10.11 2020 in 1.A.5 of 2020 ..,Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicbs Act, against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.55 of 2O16 dated.09/09/2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Clairns Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chiif Judge City Civil Court Secunderabad. / 1 I This appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and. the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.RamaKrishna Reddy,. Advocate Appellant and Sri Subbagari Sudharshan Reddy, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. t to 4, and none appeared for the respondent Nos.S and 6. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed, by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.15,49,200/- to Rs.'14,92,500/- (Fourteen Lakhs Ninety Tow Thousand and Five Hundred Rupees only) with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petit'on till the date of realization.

2. That the respondents therein are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this .iudgment.

3. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the respondents/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal.

4. That on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdrawn the same without furnishing any surety.

5. That However, it is made clear that, if the claimants had already withdrawn the excess compensation amount, if any, the appellant-insurance company is not entitled to recover the same from the claimants.

6. That save as aforesaid. the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects: and

7. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR ---t-"-- SECTION OFFICER \

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additio Court Secunderabad.

2. Two CD Copies nal Chief Judge City Civil NVB w ,/ HIGH COURT DATED:28/0712025 DECREE MACMA.No.156 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS u *Pcej\