The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.301 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: The appellants/ciaimants filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.95 ol 2O 16, dated 23.10.201.9, wherein claimants/ petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,OO0/- on account of death of a minor boy, namely Kuncham Mahesh, (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a road accident that occurred on O5.O4.2O12.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants who are the pa-rents of the deceased frled M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2O 16 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It is contended that on

05.04.20 12, the deceased minor boy went to mango orchard of one Vakeel, situated at Kallur road, Korutla toplu malgoes and at about

15.00 hours, ri'hile he was returning home sitting on the engine of the 2 Ar.C. U,A-No.3O I oJ 2A2O Tractor/trailer bearing No.AP-15-AZ-1566/AP-15-AT-5428 and while the deceased was getting down from the tractor, respondent No.1 moved the tractor in a rash and negligent marrner, due to which, the rninor boy feli down and the tractor front tyre ran over him and he sustained injuries to his vital organs. immediately, after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Korutla and as his condition was serious he was shifted to Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, where he died on the same day at 23.30 hours while undergoing treatment. The accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor/trailer driven by respondent No. 1 and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said tractor which was insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company. The Police, Korutla registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2Ol2 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 1. On account of death of the deceased, the claimants frled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ - under various heads.

3. The contention of the claimants was that as on the date of accident, the deceased, who was the only son of the petitioners, was aged about 1O years and was hale ald healthy. Due to the said accident, the claimants lost their love and affection and suffered mental 3 !a4J e44eL.!e391,e12929 agony arrd further contented that if the deceased would have sr.rvived, he would have earned Rs.30,000/- per annum. As such, frled claim petition seeking compensation.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter- affrdavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that there rvas no negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 and the compensation rvhich is claimed is excessive and exorbitant ald that as on the date of accident, respondent No.l \!ias holding valid driving license and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and that respondent No.3 is liabie to pay the compensation as ciairned by the petitioners and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent No.3-lnsurance Company filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the petitioners did not implead all the legal heirs of the deceased to the petition and that the accident occurred due to sitting of the deceased on the tractor mudguard which is against MV Act and Rules and that respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving license and the Police charged him under Section 181 of MV Act. The Police, driver and owner of the said vehicle did not inform the company about the accident and as such, 4 tvttR.J .A.C. -A.No.3O, oI2O2O respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the leamed Tribunal framed the following issues which read as under: i) Whether the death of the deceosed utas caused on Motor Vehicle Accident on acxDunt of rash and negLigent diuing oJ diuer Tractor/trailer beaing No.AP-|5-42-1566/AP-15-A7:-5428 by respondent No.1? it) Whether tle petitioners are entitled for ampen sotion? If so, to what amount and from which oJ the respondents? iii) To uhat reliefr

7. The claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Pl to P8. On behalf of the respondents, RW. 1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.Rl to R6. B. Having heard both the counsel and after perusing the oral and documentary evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash a-r-rd negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and partly allowed the claim petition, awarding an amount of Rs. 1,47,5OO/- with interest @ 9ok per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date 5 !44,J 44,9,4!\ N",19J-e1 2929 of realization, in favour of the claimants and directed respondent No.3 to deposit the awarded compensation amount along with interest and later recover the same lrom respondent Nos. I and 2.

9. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not rightly taken income of the deceased and fixed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum instead of Rs.30,0OO/ per alnum. Further, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of love and affection and hlial consortium to the parents

10. Heard Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3-lnsurance Company.

11. The point which arose for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is that i) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensatton as prayed for? If so, to tthat ertent?

72. The mairlBrievance of the appellants is that considering that the \ deceased was aged about 10 years and that he is a non earning 6 naaJ UA.c. .A.No.3O, oI2O2O member, the learned Tribur-rai has wrongly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, instead of Rs.30,000/- per annum.

13. During arguments, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halderr, wherein, the Honble Supreme Court, taking into consideration whether the amendment in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect by a Gazette Notifrcation on 22"d May, 2018, would relate to an accident which had occurred prior to the said date, has held that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same and in the present case, the liability of the Insurance Company has not been interfered with and accordingly, enhanced the claim to Rs.5,O0,0OO/-.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusml Devi v. Md. Kasim & Anr 2, wherein, in respect of the death of a 3 year old child in the accident, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded additional amount of I 202+ Law Suit (SC) 1002 2 2023 Law suit (sc) 964 Rs.1,00,000/- as global enhalcement, to the award granted by the High 7 IEE"' 449e!geJ.0!412929 Court, i.e., Rs.5,00,O00/ -

15. The Honble Supreme Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto and Otherss, u'herein, the deceased was aged about 12 years and was studying Class 5 and the Hon'lcle Supreme Court, while applying the pnncipies in Kishan Gopal v. Lalaa and in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmus, has held as under: "15. [n vieu. of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs.15,0OO/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of <levaluation of money and value of rupee coming do'*.n from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income \r'as treated as Rs.3O,OOO/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs.25,0OO/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively.

16. Thus applling the raLio of the said judgrnents, looking to ttre age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicablc to the facts of the present cas€. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 3O,OOO/- including future prospect and applying ttre multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,5O,O00/- and if we add Rs.50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of 3 lzozs; r scc zoe 4 lzot<y I scc za+ 5 (zozz) t scc a0 I 8 146!, t-A-c.u-A, No,30I oI ZO20 compensation comes to Rs.5,00,OOO/-. As per the judgnent of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been a',varded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,OO,OOO/- up to the r.a.lue of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just ard reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,0O,OOO/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,0O,OOO/-, ttre enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,OO,000/-".

16. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Devl (clted supra), and a-lso the similar circumstalces and facts in the present case, that the deceased rvas also 10 years and non-earing member as on the date of the accident, this Court is inclined to grant salre compensation arnount to the petitioners/claimants herein, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled for compensation arnount of Rs.5,O0,000/- with 7.57o interest on the enahalced amount as granted by the Hon'ble Suprme Court.

17. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not prove that the said vehicle driven by the driver was holding valid driving license, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribuna,l has rightly came to the conclusion that respondent No.3 shall initially deposit the awarded compensation and recover the same subsequently from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the same decree. laE , u -A. c. L l.Ee.09f 2[f 92 Q iB. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, enhancing the 9 a compensation from Rs. I,a7,500/ - to Rs.S,OO,OOO/- with interest at the rate (@ 9nk p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of rea-lization. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already depositecl, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned arnong the appeliants/claimants in the sarne manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire cornpensation amount without furnishing any surety. However, liberty is granted to respondent No.3 to initiate proceeding for recovery of the apportioned amount from the respondent Nos.1 and 2. There shall be no order as to CoStS.

19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial.

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribu 2. One CC to sRl. A V K S PRASAD Advocate IoPUC 3. One CC to SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Advocate I 4 Two CD Copies GE/PSL w l l-cum-llAdditional PUC] HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.301 of 2020 'tliE Sl'4 o\( \j (f c) * 0 2 FEB 2t[6 ,' i\ .4. -:. ' , PAT ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

6.ofl'L w 6\(a6 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO [ 3443 ] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 301 OF 2O2O Between:

1. Kuncham Tirupathi, S/o.Venkataiah aged about 42 years. Occ. Coolie.

2. Kuncham Nagamani, Wo.Tirupathi , aged about 39 years. Occ. Coolie Appellants 1 and 2 here in are R/o.Ananda Nagar, Nakkalagutta, Korutla Town and Mandal Karimnagar Dt. ...APPELLANTS/PETITTONERS AND

1. P.Bhumaiah, Sio.Rajam, Occ driver, R/o.Korutla Town, Karimnagar Dt. (not necessary Party)

2. Elishetty Ganga Reddy, S/o.Gangaram, age.major,Owndr of Tractorffrailor, R/o.1-4-95, Adarshanagar, Korutla Town and Mandal., Karimnagar Dt.

3. I F F C O Tokio General lnsurance Co.Ltd, S.D.Road, Sec bad- 500003, rep by its Br'Manager' ...RE''oNDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 23.10.2019 passed in O.P.No.95 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial. 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 argument of SRI A.V.K.S.PRASAD, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 & 2 and SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, advocate appeared for the Respondent No.3. - This Cour.t doth Order and Decree as follows:

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

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.1 ,47,5001 to Rs.5,00,0001 with interest at the rate @ 9% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That the respondent No.3 be and is hereby directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest afler giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of recerpt of a copy of this judgment.

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

5. That on such deposit by the Respondent No 3, the claimants be and are hereby entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount without furnishing any surety, and that the liberty is hereby granted to respondent No.3 to initiate proceeding for recovery of the apportioned amount from the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal lff rue Copyll SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY SSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims unal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial. (with records, if any) Two CD Copies 2 GE YV HIGH COURT DATED:0't /08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.301 oI 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS "'*'"