The High Court · 2025

3. Thonukunoori Hinduja, D/o of late Venkatesham, Aged 13 years, Occ Student 4. Thonukunoori Varsha, D/o of late Venkatesham, Aged 11vears, Occ Student 5. Thonukunoori Yadamma, W/o Ramulu, Age 50 years, Ocr; Household 6. Ch.Andalu, W/o Srinivas, Aged 36 years, Occ Household 7. Naathi Lalitha, Wo Narsaiaha, Aged 35 years, Occ Household Respondent No.2 to 4 being minors Rep. by their Mother and natural guardian Respondent No.'l herein All are.R/o Sunkenepally Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District. Now Presently residing at H.No. 12:32-190, Malakpet, Hyddrabad. ...Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/petitioners 8. Puppala Seetha Ramaiah, S/o Raghavaiah, Age 55 years, Occ Business, F/o Plot No.47, Narsimharaonlgar, Shr=valayam Rdad, V'anasthalipuram, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District -5OO i)7O. (Owner of Lorry bearing No. Ap-16-TV-491) ...Respondent No. B/Respondent No. 1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 198g, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 11-12-2020 in M.V.o.p.No. 1603 or zo\i on the flle of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional chief Judge, iitv civir Court at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on.for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, .. the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the materiar pipers in tn" rrlVop ,/ r and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri C Mohan Prakash, Counsel for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACIVIA No. 252 of 2021 filed by tl'1e lnsurance Company be and hereby is dismissed; and

2. The MACMA No. 185 of 2021 filed by the claimants be and hereby is allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 11.12.2020 in M.V.O.P. No. 1603 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from 23,74,00Ot- to 33,02,300/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realizationi

3. That the interest for the period of delay, if any, be and hereby is forfeited; 4. That the appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee; 5. That the Respondents be and hereby are 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; O. That on such deposit, the appellants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective share as allotted by the tribunal;

7. That the judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment of deficit Court fee by the appellants.

8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal /ffRUE COPY// SdT M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Aciidents Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. (With records)

2. Two CD Copies I HIGH COURT DATED:18/06/2025 "i t Ot IL -.$, .t\ i,-\, D, ,1 , /1. ...1. ''4' -.c:. ,t.t it:,:il".* :j' COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.185 & 252 of 2021 MACMA NO. 252 OF 2021 IS DISM]SSED AND MACMA NO. 185 OF 2021 IS ALLOWED. {- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA ;rt r 85& oF 2021 Nos: 1 ot 2O21 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1ggg, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 11-12-2020 in M.v.o.p.No. 1603 ol 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional chief Judge, city civil Court at Hyderabad.

1. Thonukunool. Pgdma, Wo.Late Venkatesham, aged .2g years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. Sunken-epally Viilage, Chityal Mandal]trtatgonaa Oi-tritt, now presently residing at 12-32-190, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

2. Thonukunoori Sindooja@ Sindu, D/o.Late Venkatesham, aged 21 years, Occ. Student,

3. Thonukunoori Hindooja, D/o.Late Venkatesham, aged 20 years, Occ. Student,

4. Thonukunoori Varsha, D/o.Late Venkatesham, aged .11 years, Occ. Student, 5. Thonukunoori Yadamma, Wo.Ramulu, aged .S0 years, Occ. Household, 6. Ch.Andalu, Wo.Srinivas, aged .36 years, Occ. Household, 7. Naathi Lalitha, Wo.Narsaiah, aged .35 years, Occ. Household, All are..Rt/o..Sunkenepally !i!lage, Chityal Mandat, Nalgonda District, now presently residing at 12-32-190, Malakpei, Hyderabad. A2 No & A3 has been declared as 2 of 2021 . major vide Court order dated 01.03.2021 in lA .Petitioners/Claimants AND '1. Puppala Seetha Ramaiah, S/o. Raghavaiah, aged about. 55 years, Occ. Pusiness, Fl/o. Plot No.47, Narsimliaraonagar,-shivalayam Road, VanasthalipuraT, H.qyal! Na.gar Mandat, R:an6a Reddi Dist Ap-70. (Owner of any bearing No. AP-16-TV -491 ).

2. The Le-gal _Officer, HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Company Limited., ll Floor, 6-3-340/'1, Opp. Jalagam Vensal Rao park (above'Sc<itia Bank). RoaO No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34 vide policy N<j. 2315200619435200000 Validfrom10.O2.2O14to09.02.2015. ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri C Mohan Prakash Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy MOTOR ACCIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 252 OF 2O2'l Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, aggrieved by the award and decree daled 11-12-2020 in M.V.O.P.No. 1603 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its Legal Officer, Office at ll floor, 6-3-340/1 , Opp. to Jalagam Vengal Rao Park (Above Scotia Bank), Road No.3, Banjara Hil ls, Hyderabad- 34. .AppellanURespondent No. 2 AND

1. Thonukunoori Padma, Wo Late Venkatesham, Aged 28 years, Occ Household,

2. Thonukunoori Sindooja @ Sindu, D/o of late Venkatesham, Aged 14 years, Occ Student

3. Thonukunoori Hinduja, D/o of late Venkatesham, Aged 1 3 years, Occ Student 4. Thonukunoori Varsha, D/o of late Venkatesham, Aged 1 'tyears, Occ Student 5. Thonukunoori Yadamma, W/o Ramulu, Age 50 years, Occ Household 6. Ch.Andalu, Wo Srinivas, Aged 36 years, Occ Householcl 7. Naathi Lalitha, Wo Narsaiaha, Aged 35 years, Occ Household Respondent No.2 to 4 being minors Rep. by their Mother and natural guardian Respondent No.1 herein All are Rl/o Sunkenepally Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District. Now Presently residing at H.No. 12-32-190, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/Petitioners B. Puppala Seetha Ramaiah, S/o Raghavaiah, Age 55 years, Occ Business, Fl/o Plot No.47, Narsimharaonagar, Shivalayam Road, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District -500 070. (Ovner of Lorry bearing No. AP-16-TV-491 ) 8/Respondent No. 1 ...Respondent No. Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rray be pleased to stay the operation of the Order and Decree dated 11-12-2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1603 OF 2014 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. A Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri C Mohan Prakash The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.t8S & 2S2 OF 2O2L COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.185 of 2o2L is filed by the clairnants, seeking enhancement of compensation, while M.A.c.M.A.No.252 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance company, aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 1L.L2.2o20 in M.V.o.p.No.1603 of 2r)14 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad (for short ,,r.he Tribunal,,).

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 29.o5.2o14 at about 10:00 p.ffi., the cleceased wasr proceeding as the owner-cum-driver of an auto trolley bearing No.Ap-24 -TC-4637 with a load of lemon from Sunkenapally to Hyderabrrd and when he reached near L.B Nagar on NH.No.65, the auto went and hit the right rear portion of a stationed Lorry bearing No.Ap-16-TV-491, due to which the auto trotey was completely damaged and the deceased was stuck in the damaged auto and succumbed to injuries. The claimants i.e., the wife, children anrl 5i51.rs of the deceased filcd a claim petition before the trial c,1111 claiming a compensation of Rs.3O,OO,OO0/ _. \ 2 ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252 202L

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 liled written statement denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. Further, they contended that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased in not observing the stationed lorry which was parked at the extreme left side of the road and that there was no negligence of the driver of the lorry, which is insured with them.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

2. whether the pread.ed. qccid.ent had. ocanrred. on 29.os.20r4 at about 1o:oo p.m., u)as occurred due to rash and negrigent diuing of the driuer of the crime lorry bearing Wo.ap_1dfV_ 491 and uthether the decea.sed died in the said. accident? wrctler tlrc petitioners are entitred. for compensation and. if so, fo yhot quantum, if so what is the liabilitg of ttte respondents?

3. To wtnt relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined pwl to 4 and Exs.Al to A14 were marked. on behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.Bl was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.23,74,oool-. Aggrieved by the said award, the 3 ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2O2L claimants have preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.185 of 2C,21 while the Insurance Company has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.252 of 2Ct2l

9. Heard the submission of sri c.M.prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. The learned counsel for the claimants has subrnitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the de<:eased to be Rs.15,0oo/-, while the claimants stated it to be Rs.2o,ooo/-. He submitted that the deceased was doing Transport Business, he was the owner of two auto trolleys and was running the same for supplying goods and thus, he used to earn not less than Rs.20,oo0 l- per month. He further submitted that under the head of loss of consortium, the Tribunal did not award compensation to all the claimants, but has awarded only to the wilb. He therefore, prayed to au'ard the said amounts and enhance the compensation. 1 1. on the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance company has argued that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased in not observing the stationecl lorry and that he might ha.ve been driving at a high speed which resulted in a ghastly accident. He therefore, prayed to attribute some amount of contributory negligence on part of the deceased. H<: further argued that the income was assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.15,000/- 4 ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021. which is on the higher side and has prayed to reduce the compensation.

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

4. wlrcther lhere w,,s ana contributory negrigence on parr of the deceased in the occurrence of accident resulting in hrl aeaihl whether th.e compensation award.ed. bg the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Whether the order and decree of the Tribunat need. ang interfererrce? To what relief?

13. Point No.1: a) A 'perusal of the charge sheet shows that the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the lorry without any parking lights. The lorry was negligently parked on the NH.No.65 road near v.v.v.R Hotel without putting on the parking lights or any signals and indicators. Thus, in the darkness, the deceased who was going on the auto trolley cou{d not see the lorry and therefore, he'dashed the lorry from rear side, as a result of which he got stuck in the damaged auto and died. one Sukka swamy was examined as PW3 and he is cited as an eye witness in the charge sheet. A perusal of his evidence reveals that he has witnessed the accident. It is elicited through him that he is a Photographer by profession and used to go for outdoor photography on all occasions and that while he was proceeding to I i I 5 ETD,J MACMA No.185 &252 2O2L Hyderabad, he saw the auto of the deceased hitting against the lorry and so he stopped there and took the photographs. It is elicited through his cross examination that he has; shifted the deceased to the hospital. So based on the evidence of pw3 coupled with the charge sheet/Ex.A6, it is held that the acciient occurred as the lorry was negligently parked without any parking lights on National Highway. Therefore, it is held that there is nc, contributory negligence of the deceased. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. L4. Point No.2:- a) [t is argued by the claimants counsel that ;he craimants were not awarded amounts under the loss of consor-tium and the other conventional heads as per the guidelines laid down in Nqtional Insuro,nce comltang Limtted vs. pranag setht & othersl. The claimants have asserted that the petitioner used to earn Rs.2o,Ooo/- per month and the Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.l5,ooo/- per month which appears to be very reasonable, because PWl has filed the attested copies of RC,s of the auto trolleys which stand in the name of the deceased. Thus, it is elicited that he used to run the auto trolley for his livelihood and Rs.15,ooo /- per month is found to be appropriate. Based on that ' AIR 20 t7 scc 5157 6 ETD,] MACMA No.185 &2s2_2O2L under all the heads, the Tribunal has rightry calcurated the amounts. But it is brought to the notice of this court by the respondents counsel that petitioner Nos.6 and, T are the married sisters of the deceased, who cannot be held to be the dependents. considering the said fact, the deduction should be made by taking into consideration that the claimants were onry five in number, wherein the deduction should be r/4tn and not 1/5tr, as done by the Tribunal b) Therefore, the compensation is assessed by taking the said factor into consideration. c) The monthly income of the deceased is assessed supra as Rs.15,000/-. As per the dicta raid down in National Insurance compang Limited vs. pranag sethi & others2, 4oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 35 years, adding 4o%o towards future prospects would give Rs.2l,OOOI- (Rs.15,O0Ol_x 40/tOO : 6000/_) per month, which comes to Rs.21,000/- x 12= Rs.2,52,o0o/- per annum. d) The number of claimants herein are five and there fore, r f 4tn deduction need to be made to his income towards personal 2 AtR 2017 SCC 5157 7 ETD,] MACMA No.185 & 252 2021 expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,89,OOOl- (Fls.2,52,O00/- (-) Rs.63,OOO/-). e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.AS reveals the age of the deceased as 35 years. No other proof is filed in this regard. Therefore, the age as revealed under Ex.AS is taken into consideration. The multiplier should be chosen ',vith regard to i the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Vertna v. Delhi T?ansporA Corporatlon3. The deceased being aged 35 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '16'. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.30,24,1)OO/-. In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.15000/ - towards loss 0 of estate and Rs.15,0OO/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,00o/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by Lo%o every three years. g) ln Magma Genero,l Insurance Comgtang Limlted a. Nanu Ram @ chuhttt Ro,m and others+, the Apex court nas elaborately discussed the principles laid down in pranag setht's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants No.l to 5 would get Rs.4g,4oo/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount t zoos 61scc t2l 1zors1 l8 scc I jo o 8 ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021 '\ under this head would be Rs.2,42,ooo/- instead of Rs.4o,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,1s0/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,15O/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. h) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts : -

4. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Compensation towards loss of consortium Compensation towards loss of estate Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.3(),24,OOO/- Rs.2,42,OOO/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.33,O2,3OO/- i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.33,o2,300/- white the Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,74,000/-. Therefore, it is opined.that the petitioners arc entitled for enhancement of compensation. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- In view of the finding arrived at point No.1 and 2, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. The claimants are entitled for Rs.33,02,300/- towards just compensation, while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,74,000/-. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 9 ETD,J MTTCMA No.185 & 252_2O2t

16. Pe!s! ne.+: .Accident In the resurt, MACMA-N o.2s2 of 2021 fired ty the Insurance company is dismissed and MACMA.No.1SS of 2Ct21 filed by the claimants is allowed, modifying the order anc[ Decree dated l1'12'2o2o in M.v.o.p.No.1603 of 2or4 passed by the Motor claims Tribunar-cum-IX Additionar chief .Iudge, city civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation fr,tm 23,T4,OOO/_ to 33,o2,3oo/- and the enhanced amount of compensation sha, carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition t,l realization. However, the interest for the period of deray, if any, is forfeited. The appeilants shall pay the defir:it court fee. Respondents are 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 appeila_nts are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securit5r, as per their respective shares as alrotted by the 'rribunal. The judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment of delicit Court fee by the appellants. No costs. Misce'aneous petitions, pending if any, in this appear, sha, stand closed. To, 1 g{:!u.osMAN ALr BAtc ASSISTANT REGiBTHIF Z^(9 sECTloN oFFlcER IH Iifi :ii'ff!;;;flffiil':Ji;r.,,-,x Additior a, chier Judse, city ^ffi'lxT:iffi ["flYiil?$'i, l! ,t^+^_A . . //TRUE COPYII ; "' o'

2. One CC to Sri. A Ramr SyJ jtr si B";[ I .. .:i:..i-r.-Jr,. l ' '1'..:i: .'{*:'|. ':] "i'Ei...r; i, ri,. \i ti '',t, '-t7'iii ,oi,i,, -.$, s= * a o

1.,i1 ,i.: ,4 ).'l :::'":).'' HIGH COURT DATED:18/06/2025 % o !- COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.185 &252 ol 202'l MACMA NO. 252 0F 2021 tS DISM|SSED AND MACMA NO. 185 OF 2021 IS ALLOWED. v J +