The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant Smt B.ROJA RAMANI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.MOHANA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.l: None appeared The court made the following: JUDGMENT 1 THE IION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EAI)A JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company' aggrieved by theorderandDecreedated3l.l2.2olgino.P.No.543of2oLT passedbythelllAdditionalChiefJudge'CityCivilCourt'at Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal")'

2.Forconvenienceandclarity,thepartieshereinarereferredto as they were arrayed before the Tribunal' 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 26.09.2015,thedeceasedK'sharathBabuwasgoingbywalknear SahyadriEngineeringCollege,whenacarbearingNo.KA-51-P- 6635 came from Mangalore side at a very high speed in a rash and negligentmannerandhitthed'eceased'duetowhichhefelldown ontheroadandsustainedgrievousinjuries.Immediatelyhewas shiftedtotndianHospital,wherethedoctorsdeclaredhimdead.It isthecasethatthedeceasedwashaleandhealthy,aged45years andwasworkingaSalorrydriverandearningRs.2o,oo0/-per month and the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.15,OO,O0O/-. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte before the 4 Tribunal. 5. Respondent No'2- Insurance Company has filed counter denyingtheavermentsofthepetitionerwithregardtooccurrence 2 of the accident, tJre age, income and avocation of the deceased. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and that there was no negligence of the ETD,J MACMA No.16r_2021 car driver. 6' Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunar has framed the following issues:_ 1' 2'

3. 4. 'n p"rirriiz are ffi:;*r;r'y"::trT;^^ di.1 in ue rocrd accident outned. on negligent driuing 'r tnt ii'*;; beanng No.KA-sr-p-uurrTo "; wnttne' -entitred to the ampensation and ffif:;:"y"rispondents are tiabi for-io",Z,r,p.nsatiort, if so to Whetley tlt9. eolicy is in force at tite time of accident? To what relief ? 7 ' At the time of i.i^r, petitioners got examined p.ws. r and 2, got marked Exs'A' 1 to A- 17. on behalf of the respondents no oral - evidence was adduced but Ex.B.l was marked. 8' Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.13,3O,OOO/_ towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order and Decree dated 3r.t2.201g, the present appear is filed by the claimants. 9. Heard Ms. B. Roja Ramani, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 10' Learned counser for the appelrants has submitted that the Tribunar had wrongly assessed the compensation without appreciating the orar and documentary evidence adduced by thern aE-{ that it fa,ed to consider the income of the deceascd ." meager amount of per month and has taken Rs.2O,O0O/_ ETD,J MACMA No.162-2021 Rs.8,OOO/- towards earnings of the deceased. She further argued 3 that the Tribunal failed to grant consortium to petitioner Nos.2 to 5 who are the children of the deceased.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and that there is no need to enhance the compensation and therefore prayed to uphold the order and decree of the Tribunal

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whettrer the petitioners are entitled to enhancement 2. Whethir the order and decree of tl:e Tribunal need of compensation? any interference?

3. To what relieP

13. POINT NO.1: It is asserted by the petitioners that the deceased was a) working as a lorry driver earning Rs.20,o00/- per month. In support of their case petitioners have filed Ex.A.l4/income certificate issued by the Director of Litfle Gems Vidyasram, Ponnur stating that the deceased used to work as a driver of their school and that the deceased was possessing HMV driving license and that they were paying an amount of Rs.2O,0OO/- per month and also that his three children used to study in that school' Petitioners have also filed Exs.A.ll to A.13 showing that the deceased has passed l0tt' class and studied intermediate at Dr.E R.Ambdekar college at Tenali, Ex.A.12 is the TC issued by \- ETO,J MACMA No.152 2021 4 Z.P.High School, Nidubrolu, Ex.A.13 is the study and conduct certificate issued by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Junior college, Tenali and thus petitioner wanted to place it on record that the deceased had passed lotr class and that he was working as driver. Though, the author of the document/Ex.A.14 was not examined, the assertion of the petitioners and recitals of Ex.A.14 reveal that the children of the deceased were arso studying in that schoor and the deceased used to work as driver in Little Gems vidyasram. Ex.A.z /pME report reveals the age of the deceased as 45 years so the same has to be taken into consideration and petitioners further asserted that the deceased was hare and healthy prior to the accident and used to support his family with his earnings. petitioners herein are five in number i.e., wife, childreri and mother of the deceased. In Ramqchglndrappa vs- Dranoger, Royal sund.qram Ariance Insurance comtrtang Limited.t, the Apex court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs'4,500/- per month can be safery taken as the income. In the said case, deceased used to work as a labourer and accident occurred in the year 2oo4 but in the present case, deceased used to work as a lorry driver and the accident occurred in 2015. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,o00/- on a reasonable hypothesis. This court is of the '(zotr) t2scc236 ETD,J MACMA No.162 2021 opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income 5 of the deceased as Rs.8,OOOl- per month. b) As per the dicta laid down in Nqtlonq.l rnsurqnce comlrorng Limtted vs. Prqnag sethi & otlrcr*,25o/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 45 years as per P.M.E report, adding 25o/o towards future prospects would give Rs.10,0OO/- (Rs.8,OOO/-x 25/lOO = 2,OOO/-| per month, which comes to Rs.l0,OOOl- x 12 = Rs.L,2O,OOO/- per annum. c) The number of claimants herein are five and therefore, I f 4a deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.9O,OOO/- (Rs.1,20,O0O/- (-) Rs.3O,OOOl-l. d) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A.7 reveals the age of the deceased as 45 years. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sorla Vertnq. a. Delht TYansport Corporation3. The deceased being aged 45 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '14'. Therefore, the loss of dependency as calculated by the Tribunal holds good i.e. to the extent of Rs. 12,6O,000/- (Rs.9O,OOO / - X 14 = Rs. L2,6O,OOO / -1. ' \* 2017 scc 51s7 zoog (6) scc 12l 3 I ETD,J MACMA No.152 2021 e) In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.4O,OOO/- towards loss 6 of consortium, Rs.15,OOO/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It was further held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by 10% for every three years. In the light of the same, Rs.18,0OOl- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,0OO/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. 0 ln Magma. @nero,l insurance Compang Llmited u. Nanu Rc;m @Chuhttt Ram and otlrcrsa, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Seth!'s case and has further held that the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48 ,4oo I - each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.2,42,OOOl- (Rs.48,4OOl- X 5 = Rs.2,42,OOO/-1. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.13,3O,(XX)/- to that of Rs.15,38,OOO/- would be justified in the present case. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified and accordingly compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of [s. 13,3O,OO0/- is enhanced to Rs. 15,38,000/-. \ o 1zors1 l8 scc l30 /I ETD,J MACMA No.162 2021

15. POINT NO.S: 7 In the result, the MACMA filed by the petitioners is allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 31.L2.2o19 in o.p.No.543 of 2ol7 passed by the III Additional chief Judge, city civil court, at Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,30,ooo/- to Rs.15,38,ooo/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. on such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. Petitioners/claimants are also directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appear, sharl stand c[-osed. SD'- A.V.S.PRASAD REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additiona! Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Smt. B.Roja Ramani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N.Mohana Krishna, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ To, ^SINYB 4i/ f ( t ( HIGH COURT =i I t04t2025 HE S o o ? ['ii ?ifi * * JUDGMENT+DECREE ACMA.No.162 ot 2021 MACMA IS ALLOWED WTTHOUT COSTS 1 \b $ \\ l?44r.1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA PRESENT Between

1. Smt K Salomi, Wo Late K Sharath Babu, Age. 40 years, Housewife. 2. K Himabindu, D/o Late K Sharath Babu, Age. 19 years, Student. 3. K Balaiah, S/o Late K Sharath Babu , Age. 17 years, Occu . Student. 4. K Banu Prasad, S/o Late K Sharath Babu , Age. 16 years, Occu . Student. 5. Smt K Pushpavathi, Wo Late K Balaiah, Age . 65 yrs, Occu . Nil (P3 and P4 Being Minors rep by P1 mother and natural guardian) All R/o 184-21A, lndira Colony, Ponnur, Nidubrolu, Guntur-522124, T/R/O 17-1- 389/1/A' saidabad' Hyderabad -59 ...petitioners/ctaimant,s E[Tflr

1. Amith R Kurnar, And 2 Others, S/o. Ravikumar KM Age . Major, Occu . Business 309, Katyani Mansion House, LP Food Road, Thavarekera BTM Layout, 1st Stage, Bangalore

2. The Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep by its Senior Divisonal Officer, 4th floor, Snehalatha Bulding, Somajiguda Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad

3. Abeed lbrahim, S/o. Mohd SahiliAge . Major, Occu . DriverArkula Valachil, Farangipeta, Mangalore Appeat fited under section 173 of M.v.Act., "n",;rTiillffi::[:"tr;:::: dated 31.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P No.543 of 2O17 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunal-cum-lll 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 Smt B.Roja Ramani, Advocate for the Appellants and the Sri N.Mohana Krishna, Advocate Respondent No.2, and none appeared for Respondent No.1 .// This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioners ' be and is hereby allowed, Modiffing the Order and Decree and dated 31.12.2019 in O.P.No.543 of 2017i passed by the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,30,000/- to Rs.15,38,000/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization

2. That the interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited 3. That the Respondent No.2 is be and hereby is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest with a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

4. That on such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

5. That the petitioners/claimants are also directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount.

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

7. That there shall be no order as to cost sin this appeal SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies AS/I\N/B A. I\ II I HIGH COURT D t04t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.162 ot 2021 MACMA IS ALLOWED WTHOUT COSTS d w