The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M A.NO.17? oF 20.21 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 16.08.2019 in M.V.O.p.No.36g ot 2OlZ passed bv the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_prl.District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal,,).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herern are referred to as they were arrayed before thc Tribunal.

3. The case of the craim peritioncrs berore the Tribunar is that the petitioners are the wife and sons of Oruganti Sathaiah aged 4g years and that the deceased was the owner and driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.Ap_24-V-402, u,hich was plied for hire. It is their case that the deceased was proceeding on the National High Way No.65 with passengers from Chitl,al to Narketpally on o8'o3 2or7 at s:so p.m., when they reached vivera Hoter, on the outskirts of Narketpally Village, a Bolero bearing No.Ap_27_y_ZOOZ coming from Hyderabad and proceeding tou.ards Vijayawada driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit the auto rickshaw of the deceased from behind. As a result of which the auto rolled over and the deceased and other passengers in the auto rickshaw sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was r-L ETD,J MACMA No 177 2021 2 shifted lo Kamineni Institute of Medical Scicrces, Narketpally, r.r,here he strccumbed to in;uries on the same cl,r1 at about 7:4O p.m. Thal thc accident occurred due to rash ancl ncgligent driving of the drivel of Bolero and that the respondents are jointll and severally lialrle lo pay compensation.

4. The orvner and driver of the jeep who we r,: the respondent Nos. I and 2 before the Tribunal remained ex-parlr .

5. Res rondent No.3 hled its counter denying the averme nts of the petition and they further contended that tl:c dcccased was carrying lO passengers in the auto rickshaw u,hich is meant for only 3 pal;sengers and that the accident occurrecl onl-y due to the negligence of the deceased and that there is no rrcgligcnce of the driver of the jcep. It is further contended by the respondent No.3 that the d -ivt:r of the Bolero did not possess a v:rLd driving license as on the da[e of the accident and that the sard vehicle is not insured v,ith it and has also denied the are. incomc and occurrenc( ol the accident.

6. Bas< d on the rival contentions of the parl r,rs, thc Tribunal has framecl the following issues for trial: 4 Whether the deceased died in a road. a.r'cklent ciue to the rttsh and negligent driutng of the diuer o-l lrc Btlero Vehicle beaing No.AP-27 Y 7007 on 08.03.2017 o' ubout 5:00 p.m., at Oppositge to Viuero Hotel, outskirls ol' \'u.rketpally Vtllage artd Mandal on NH.No.65, Nalgonda Distn<:-,' ETD,] MACMA No.177,2021 3 Whether the petitioners are entilled for compensotion' if so' fromulam? To uhat result? i4 To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs I and 7. 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A6 On behalf of thc respondents RWl was examined and Exs.B1 and 82 were marked' Based on the evidence on record' lhc Tribunal has awarded a 8. compensation of Rs.5,38,OOO/ - towards compcnsation as against the claim of Rs.I5,0O,OO0/-- Aggrieved by the same' thc petitioners have preferred the present appeal' 9 Heard the submission of Ms Annapurna Sreeram' learned and Ms. P. Bhavana Rao, learned counsel for the apPellants counsel for resPondent No'3

10. karned counsel for appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly apprecia[ed the evidence on record and awarded a very meager compensation and that the Tribunal failed toconsiderthatthedeceasedwasplyinganautorickshawand used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month, and the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.5O,u0O/ - tou'ards consortium inslead of Rs.4O;OOO/- and that it has awarded very less amount towards loss of estate and Funeral Expenses and also that the Tribunai 4 ETD,J MACMA No.177 2021 failed t<, follou, the principles laid dou,n by r he Apcx Court in granting just compensation. - 1 1. Learned counsel for respondents has subntifted that the trial Cor-rrt hz.s given a well reasoned order and thal he pctilioncrs are not entitled to any enhancement and thereforc, prayed to dismiss the appe rl.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the follon ing points for determination: 1 2 Whether the claimants are enhancement of compensation? If extent? e ntitled .so. [o fo, Whether the order and decree need ang interference? of t ite Tibunal

3. To tuhat reliej? 13, POINT NO.I: a) The claim petitioners in this appeal are aggrieved ,*,ith regard to the que ntum of compensation. It is their case t hat the deceased uscd to r:arn Rs. 15,000/- per month as a dnver of the auto rickshaw. Hon'ever, no proof is hled in this regarrl. In the absence of any prcof, some amount of guess work is requrred in assessing the incomr: of lhe deceased. i 5 ETD,J MACMA No 177 2021 b) lo Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insura,nce Conpanu Limitedr, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with rcgard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. But in the present case, the deceased was an auto driver as per the contention of the cla.im petitioners. Ex.A6 is the driving license of the deceased and he was driving the auto rickshaw at the time of accident. Thus it is elicited that lhe deceased was an auto driver. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,0O0/- per month and the same amount is taken by the Tribunal also. c) As per the dicta laid down in No,tional Insltro,nce Cotnpang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Other*, 25ok of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 48 years, adding 257o towards future prospects would give Rs.7,500/- (Rs.6,00O/-x 25/lOO = 15O0/-) per month, which comes ro Rs.7500/- x 12 = Rs.9O,OOO/- per annum. d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, 1 / 3ra deduction need to be made to her income towards personal '(2orr)12scc236 ' en.2ott scc 5157 6 ETD,J MACMA No.177 2021 expenses arld this would come up to Rs.60,000, - (Rs.90,000/ - (-) Rs.3o,oo3/ ). e) Thr: I)ost Mortem Examination report flled under Ex.A3 reveals tlre age of the deceased as 48 years. Th('refore, the age as rcvealcd under Ex.A3 is taken into consideration. The multiplier should b: chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verrna u. Dethi Transpoi't Corporation3. The deceased being zrqed 48 years, the appropriz te multiplier to be applied is '13'. 'l-hus, the loss of dependency comes up to an extent of Rs.7,20,00O/-. 0 With regard to the amount to be awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' in Pranag Sethl's cilse cited supra, Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,00O/ towards funeral expenses and Rs.4O,0O0/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded. g) ln ltagma General Insurance Compang Limited a. Nanu Ram (d. Chuhru Ram and other#, the Apex Cotrrt has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Setht's case and has furt\er held that not only the spouse but the parenls and children i of th<i dec:ased are also entitled to loss of consorliLrm. Therefore, r:oo9 (c) scc t ' (lot 8 ) l8 sc.' 2l [0 I I l EID,J MACMA No.177 2021 in the present case, the claimants would ge[ Rs.4O,OOO/ - each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs. 1,20,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-, since there are three claimants. Further, the compensation amounts for Loss of Estate i.e., Rs.1S,O00/- and an amounr of Rs. 15,0O0/- for Funeral Expenses needs to be awarded_ h) Therefore, in all the claimants are entitled to the lollowing compensatron amounts:- SI.No. Namc of the Heads I 2 3 4 Loss of dependenc v Loss of consortium Loss of Estate Irss of Funeral NSCS Total Awarded by this Court Rs. 7,2O ooo/- 1 2O,OOOl- 15 ooo/- rs,ooo/- 8 7O,OOO/ - i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.8,ZO,OOO/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,38,OOO/-. Thus, it is opined thal the pctitioners arc entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.l is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding arrived at point No. i, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified by T IO,J MACMA No 177 7021 .-- 8 enhancing tl-re compensation from Rs.5'38'OOO/- Rs.8,7O,OOO/-. Hence, Poinl No.2 is ans\vered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3: ln the result, the MACMA filed by the aplxrllants rs partly allowed, rnorirfl.ing the Order and Decree datccl 16.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.368 of 2OI7 passed by the Chairman. Motor Accident Claims Tribu nal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda, enhancing the compensa,ion from Rs.5,38,OOO/- to Rs.8,7O,OOO/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest (tl 7.5 o/o per annum frcm the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeitcd. Respondent No. I to 3 are directed to deposit the compensati,>n amount with accrued ir ter-est within a period oi two months from the date of receipt of z. copv of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already decosited. On such deposit, the appellanis are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing an1' sccurity, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellzrneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand clost'd. SD,. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPU EGIS /TTRUE COPY'/ SECTI N OFFICER To, 1 The Chairrnan , Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - PrinciPal District 2 one cc to SITIT ANNAPURNA SREERA!! Advocate [OPUCI Judge, Nallonda 3 One CC to SRl. P BHAVANA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies MT HIGH COUIRT DATED:1 310312025 . :' . :-:.:1-:: ' . r'_/,i \: -r - '' : ':' ':-) " ..',,1 /, t., JUDGMEN'T MACMA.No.177 ot 2021 :) ItP 1ffi i 1 i.,->". '.).. k 1{\- :, t0 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS / 2A1/ ,/g.'/; .-iil':". .. . , ,t ! . ?.i ..! .'. -i. 134/.41 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ,.1. ..-.:. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 177 OF 2021 Between:

1. Oruganti Laxmamma, Wo. Late Sathaiah, Age. 48 years, Occ. Household All are RJo. A.P. Lingotam Village of Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District, presently residing at Raghavendra Colony, Nalgonda Town.

2. Oruganti Mahesh, S/o. Late Sathaiah, Ager 30 years, Occ. Employee All are Rl/o. A.P. Lingotam Village of Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District, presently residing at Raghavendra Colony, Nalgonda Town. i. oruganti Raj Kurirai, S/o. Late SathaiahiAge.-l20 years, Occ. Student All are Rl/o. A.P. Lingotam Village of Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District, presently residing at Raghavendra 'Colony, Nalgonda Town.'A3 has been declared as major vide C.O. Dt.23.O2.2021 in lA No.4 of 2021. ...Appellants/ Claimants AND

1. Shaik Noor Basha, S/o. Kamal Basha, Age. 31 years, R/o. H.No. 18-36:17, Sangadigunta, Varigavari Slreet, Guntur Bazar, Guntur Town and District - 522 OO3, Andhra Pradesh. (Driver of Bolero Vehicle bearing No. AP- 27Y- 7OO7)

2. Hasan Engineering Works, Rep. by Shaok Nuruddin, F/o. D.No. 162 86 '189, APIIC Growth Centre, Gundlapalli Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Ongole, Prakasharri District - 523001 , Andhra Pradesh. (Owner of Bolero Vehicle bearing No. AP-27Y:7007) i

3. United tnoia tnsuiinc6tiimpany t-imit6o,idiVisionii om"" (TP HUB), Posnet Bhavan, 2nd Floor, P.B.No:,144, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad - 500 007 Rep. by its Divisional Manager. (Policy No. ,1 50801 31 16P105504959, vald trom 27107120161o 2610712017) (Respondeht No.1 is not necessary party to this Appeal) ;.:, ,.' ',. spondents/ Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 368 of 2017 dated. '16/08i2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. , .- rt... This appeal corring on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SMT ANNAPURNA SREERAIVI, Advocate for the Appellants and F, BHAVANA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and Of NONE APPEARED, Ad yocate for the Respondent No.2 NOT APPEARED EITHER lN PERSON OR BY Advocate and Respondent No. 1 NOT NECESSARY PARTY. This court doth C)rder and Decree as follows: tl . ffrat the tVlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal be and hereby is parfly allowed, I\1odified the order and Decree dt. 16/08/2019 in MVOP Nci. 368 of ' .2017 pass,ed by the Chairman, MACT cum Prl District Judge, Nalgonda enhancing the Compensation from Rs. 5,38,0004 to Rs. 8,70,0004 annum from the date of claim petition bill realization.

2. That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per 3. That the interest for the period of delay be and hereby is for feited. 4. That the Fespondent No. 1 to 3 be and here by are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest with in a period a period of two months frc m the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount id any already deposited.

5. That on srch deposit, the appellants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw y;the said arnount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares '.'Fas allotted by the Tribunal, Natgonda.- 6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal Shall stands Confirmed in all other re spects; and

7. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M DEPUTY o D. ISMAIL R To, OFFICER '1. The Chairrnan, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - principal District SECTI Judge, Nalgonda.

2. Two CD Copies .:- 1;: . MMT ', !{" '.4 ,} ,..rf.;t .:-Jf, ' I I:.- i., ;f*. i ii;r. n.. ...: .: . ', *'iii- :i,i ,;',F. HIGH COIIRT r.'ri#*, ir --- \:r. DATED:13t10312025 DECREE MACMA.N o.177 of 2021 -:' n$fit* 'r4sq ARTLY ALLOWING'THE MAC M A"',,*;,, - .WITHOUT COSTS,," l.r', .. 4 /5 /g/r t? -]fi.