The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appelants: SRt. RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTT Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 &2: NONE APPEARED Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI HARTNATH REDDY SOMA The court delivered the following: Judgment t., x TID HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.c.M.A. No.186 of 2020 JUDGM ENT: 1n wherein claimants / Petitioners The aPPeilants/ claimarrts filed the Present aPPeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman' Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal-cum-I Addl'District Judge' Karimnagar' (hereinafter referred M.V.O.P.No.188 of 2014' dated 06'06'20 19' to 'leamed Tribunal') had hled the claim Petition under compensation of Rs'20'00'000/- on Section 166 of M'V'Act seeking account of death o1 1st petitioner husband, namely Sri Sadanandam' (herein a,fter referred as 'deceased) who d'ied in Motor Vehicle accident occurred. on 06 04'20 l3' 2. The brief facts of the case are that aPPellants / claimants hled 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking M.V.O.P.No. 188 of 2014 under Section compensation for the death of the deceased' who d'ied in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Tata lorry driver. It is contended that on 06'04'2013' the deceased along with his friend were proceeding to Huzurabad on Hero-Honda SPlendor Motor Cycle bearing No'AP- 10-AG-8128 and when they reached near ( 2 high speed from rear bearing No.Ap_15_TB_ backside, as a result, the ground and sustained Thumanapally filter bed, the driver of Tata Lorry 8995 came in ,a. rash ald negligent manner with side and dashed to the deceased motorcycle from the deceased and his friend feli down on grievous injuries all over the body and the deceased died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2013 under Section 304_ A of IpC against the respondent No. 1/driver of offencling vehicle, wherein a charg,: sheet was also filed against the driver of the lorry and made responsibl,: for the accident. 3. The conterLtion of the petitioners was that, as on the date of accident the der:eased was aged about 31 years ancl \4,as Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as operator at Bridge, parkal Cross road, peddapapaiahpally. Due t the petitioners lost their dependency. The appellants an amount of Rs.:20,00,000/- under various heads a the death of the dt:ceased. s compensation for o the said accident, Ramla_xman Weigh /claimants claimed earnlng 4 Before the l<:arned Tribunal, the petition as against respondent No. 1 (driver of the Tata Lorry) was dismissed as not pressed. The 3 respondent No.2 remain ed' ex-parte' The respondent No'3 - Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited filed a counter-affrdavit' denying all the averments made in the craim petition, incruding the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that the driver of the offending Lorry was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident ald further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim Petltlon' 5. Basing on the plead.ings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: il Whether tle accident had occured on account of rash and negligent ,.ni.te i.." iare Lorry beanng No.AP-15-rB-8ee5' 'lr":ririii'"j diuen bY its diuer/ R-1? iil Whether tLrc petitioners are entitled to compensation os prayed for and against uLam? "ii.*1ns iii) To tuhat reLieJ? 6 After perusing the ora-l 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.6,74,8OO/- along with interest @ 9o/o pet annum' II i I 1 I i 4 7 . Being unsatished and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount a*'ardr:d by the learned rribunar, the present appeal is rrred on the ground that the iearned Tribunal ignored the ei,idence placed by the petitioners/ciaimants, that the deceased was eaming Rs. 15,000/_ by working as operator at Ramlaxman Weigh Bridge, parkal Cross road, Pedclapapaiahp.lry, but the learned Tribunal has raken income of the deceased at Rs 3,000/_ per month and the learned Tribunai has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads. S Learned c()unsel for the apperants/claima,ts submits that there is no dispute wth regard to accident, death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by the deceased. As far as compensation of the deceased is concemed, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 3l years and was earning Rs. 15,O00/_ per month by working as operator at Ramiaxman Weigh Bridge, parkal Cross road, PeddapapaiahpalJy However, the learned Tribunal hzrving accepted the fact that deceasecl died due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Lorry, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the deceased' the leamed Tribunal has fixed the'deceased,s income at Rs'3'o00/- per month a,d also not awarded compensation t-* , ; I { ! I i t , a a t{ , ,'/ 5 under the head of 'parental consortium and 'frlial consortium' as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court it Magma General Insurance Cornpang Limited Vs'Nanu Rolrr- alis Chuhrtt Raml ' g.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerreliedonthejudgmentpassed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rarrrachandrarppct Vs' Rogal Sundaram Alliance lrts-urrrnce Co'Lt& ' wherein in the absence of any income proof, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the income of a 'coolie' as Rs.4,500/- per month, however the learned Tribunal even without considering the said judgment has taken the deceased income as Rs.3,000/- which is very meager and prayed this Court to enhance the terms of the income of the deceased as Rs 4'5O0/- in RcrmrrchandrrrpPa 'Iudgment (cited supra) and prayed this Court to allow the Present aPPeal' 10. l,earned counsel for the respondent No'3 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record' the learned Tribr'rnal has awarded just compensation' which needs no interference' ' 2018 (18) scc 130 2 t lzou; 13 scc 236 6 -.1 ,.:. . 11 Since, the claim against respondent No.l (driver of the Tata Lorry) was dismissecl as not pressed on 2g.71.2014 before the learned Tribunal, notice to Respondent No. I is dispensed u"ith. None for respondent No.2. appeared

12. Heard Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Ms.Padmaja, learned counsel for the respondent No !i- Sri Ram General Insurance company Limited. perused the material on record

13. The respondents have not filed cross_appeal against the Award passed by the le,arned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondent No. 1, age of the deceased and accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioners are entifled for the enhanced compensatton, tf so, to whrtt exfenti Point No. 1

14. Admittedly,

06.04.2013. The operator at Ramlaxmal Peddapapaiahpall5,, however the deceased died due to accident occurred petitioners claimed that deceased was u,orking AS Weigh Bridge, parkal no documentary proof Cross road, is filed by rhe 7 petitioners to show that the deceased was working as a weigh bridge operator. The owner of the Ramlaxman Weigh Bridge has not been examined nor any document is hled to show that the said owner was paying a sum of Rs' 15,000/- per month to the deceased' It is apparent that no other documentary proof such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the deceased was earning Rs' 15'000/- per month. In the present circumstances, relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in RqmoLchand'rolPpa Vs' Rogal Sundara,m Atliance Insurance Co'Lt&' wherein the income of a deceased was taken as monthly income Rs'4'500/- per month in the absence of such documentar5r proof with regard to income of the deceased ald considering the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lortha Wodhwa us' State oJ Bihana wherein it was held that even the income can be when there is no proof of income and earntngs ' reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts.

15. The learned Tribunal frxed the monthlyfnotionar income of the deceased at Rs'3,00O/-, which appears to be meager' Hence consldenng r r {zotr; 13 scc 236 a zobt (e) scc tgz B \ _.1 ,i' \. t' ,: : :,' \_. the ground realities and following the judgment passed in Ramachandra.ppars case and Latha Wad.hua,s case (cited supra), the deceased u.ho was hale and healthy obviously would earn Rs.l50/_ per day and the monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.4,500/-. Hence, the deceased income can be notionally taken as Rs.4,500/-. Apart from that, as per the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Nqtional Insurq.nce Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi and. otherss and considering the age of the deceased as 31 years, additionai 4Ooh of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly i.come of the deceased. Therefore, the monthry income of the deceased would come to Rs.6,300/_ (Rs.4,SOO/_ + Rs.1,B0O/-). The arnual income of the deceased would come to Rs.75,6OO/_ (Rs.6,300/_ X 12) arrd, out o;. which, 1/4 has to be deducted torvards the personal expenses of the <leceased as the dependants are four in number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.56,700/_ (Rs.75,600/_ o Rs.1B,9ool-). I i 5 2017 ACJ 2700 ./ 9

16. As per the column No 4 of table in the judgment of the Apex Court insarlaVennau,DethiTransportcorporation6'andconsideringthe age of the deceased as 31 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for dependency would the d.eceased's age is'16' Thus' the total loss come to Rs.9,O7,200/ - (56,7OO1- x 16l' 'of 17 The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs' 18'150/- l}'/o + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs' 18' 150/- 167" + 10%) towards funeral expenses' as per Pranag (Rs.15,000/- + (Rs. i5,000/- + Sethi's Judgrnent (cited suPra)'

18. Further, considering the appellant No l being the wife of deceased' appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs'48'400/- under the head of 'loss of consortium' as per Pranag Sethi's Judgment (cited supra)'

19. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being children of the deceased' the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs'48,4O0 x 2) towards 'parental consortium" as per 6 2oo9 ACI 1298 (sc) 10 \ Magma General Insura.nce Chuhnt RamT Compang Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alis

20. Appellar-rt Nos.4 being the mother of the deceased, the appellant No 4 is entitred for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- tou,ards ,rrlial consortium, as per Magmars Jud.gment (cited supra). 21. In Sarlc Vertna,s case (cited aboae), the Hon,bje Apex Court, ''r,hile elaborating the concept of Just compensation, observed as under "Post contpensation is adequa.te compensation u,,hich is fair and equitobte on the fctcts 1yi "tri.r",-trr'"i{'"f ,n. case, to moke good the loss suffered as a.result of the wr"ing, os far os moneu can do so. bs apnts.ns, the *"u'".ittl,"iirii,,"i,ii"i,ii.,1" w:!'"'[,':ili:::;x"k1: i" ;; ;;;;;"uo' ,o'u" o oo.no"n.i, 22' on overall re-appreciation of the preadings, material on record ard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the aforesaid cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimarts are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above ald given in the table below for easy reference ' zora 1te; scc r:o ii) iii) i'u [i 11 o2 considering the above assessment made by this court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: ) Annual Income (of the deceased) n".+,SOO7- X iZ = Rs 54,OOO/' Tota-l Annual Income : Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annua-l lncome X 4O%o) = Rs.54,0OO/- + Rs.21,60O/- = nnual Dependency : Total Annual Income eduction iowards personal expenses of the d Rs 75,600/- A a + t l4 eceased Rs.75,600/- (-) Rs.18,9oO/ = Rs s6'7OO/ TJal Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multlplier = Rs.59,7OOl x16 .atai-;* Loss of Estate + FuneraL Expenses + loss of consortium + Ioss of hlal consortium + Parenta-l Consortium = Rs.18,150/ + Rs'18,150/- + Rs'48'400 + Rs 96'8oo + 48,400 to*"tds conventional heads "-rrtitt.rn.rrt Tota-1 I Rs.9,07,200/ l I Rs.2,29,900/- Rs. 1 1 ,37, 100/-

24. Thus, the appellants/claimants compensation of Rs.11'37,1OO/- as are entitled to the enhanced against the awarded amount of Rs.6,74,800/- by the learned Tribunal'

25. Considering the circumstances of the case' the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest atg ok per annum and the same needs no interference by this court. Hence, this court is of the opinion 12 that the petitr oners/claimalts are entitled to interest @ 9 7o on the enhanced amount. 26' Hence' t'e claimants are entitled for an enrranced compensatior-r of Rs. 1l,37,lOO/ -. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allou,ed in parr, enhancing tl-Le compensation from Rs. 6,T4,gOO/- to Rs. Rs. 11,37, loo/- (Rupees Ereven Lakhs Thirty seven Thousand and one Hundred rupccrs only) with interest at the rate @) 9 vo p.a. on the enhanced amo.rnt of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. .[he respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the said amount to;Jether with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount alr,:ady deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt ol a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apporl ioned arnong the appellarts/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs 27. Miscellaleous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR &, SECTION OFFICER To, Judge, at Karimnagar, (with records, if gnyl . . ^ . .

1. The chairman, lVlotor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District z bndcc to SRl. nlvAcnnuonR RAo VEMUGANTI, Advocate [oPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copit..s ! I 2/ {,**"*:e:a* *-.--r .t I HIGH COURT DATED: 1110412025 DECREE MACMA.No.186 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 4 ,/0 HIGH COURT DATED: 1110412025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.186 of 2024 ./ : r,' (i.., 2 2 StP 216 i: ... |:-,. .- 7 * 0 h 4 b, /l n' h E PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134431 FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPE AL NO: 186 OF 2020 Between:

1. Purella Radhika, W/o. late Sadanandam, aged 2l years, Occ. House Hold 2. Purella Srinath, S/o. Sadanandam, aged 6 years, Occ. Student 3. Purella Sriman, S/o. Sadanandam, aged 5 years, Occ. Student 4. Purella Yellamma, Wo. Yellaiah, aged 49 years, Occ. Household The petitioner No. 2 and 3- are minors, they are represented by their naturar mother, guardian and next friend purella Raahika All are R/o. H.No. 4-149, Dudenapalle Village of Saidapur lvlandal Karimnagar District. AND ...Appellants/Petitioners 1 Cheni Ravi, S/o. Kanakaiah, Aged 47 yea.rs, Occ. Driver of TATA Lorry lqgln-g No. AP-15-T88995, Fl/o. Gandhi Nagar, Vemutawada, now reliding at S.W. Colony, Huzurabad ( Post and lvlandal)-Karimnagar Distiict. IVglrrlrg9 Majid, S/o. Mohammad Mujibuddin, Aged Major, Occ. Not known to.the Petitioners, Owner of Tata Lorry 6earing No.=np_t S_iA'8gSS, No. 7-2-772, Mankammathota, Karininagar - Sri Ram General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, H,ead office, lll, E-8, RICO lndustiial Area, Sitapurb, Sitapura-Rajasthan"State 3929??, (lnsurance Policy No. 10003131113t372889 vati<i fron l+-OS-iOt27i 1 3-09-2013). 2 J 4 Purella Yellaiah, S/o. Narasaiah, aged 52 years, Occ. Nil (Died on 26_04_ 2016) (Amended as per order in memo daied 07-05-2019). ...Respondents/Respondents ...RespondenU Petitioner No.4 Appeal filed under Section 173 of tvlotor vehicles Act ' against the Judgment and decree, made in rvrvoirtlo'rae ii zol+ dated'06'06'2019 on the file of the -rriounal-cum- I Additional District Judge, at chairman, trl0tor Accideni' cruirn, Karimnaga r This appeal comlng on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal the judgment and decree of tfre Tribunal and the material papers in the tr/VOP and upon hearing the arguments ot SRI RAITIACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI' Advocate for if," np"p"lfunt. and SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA' Advocate for the Respondent No.3. This court doth Order and Decree as follows'

1. That the MACI\1/\ be and hereby is partly allowed 2. that the comperlsation amount awarded by the tribunal be and here by (Rupees Eleven enhanced tee ns O,Z+'aOOl- to Rs Rs'1'1 '37'100/- ho-'*nd and One Hundred rupees only) with Lakhs Thirty s "uu'i'f interest at thil rate @ g o/o p a ol. the enhanced amount of compensation 'orn ii'" Xate ot petition till the date of realization' 3 That the resPondent Nos 2 and 3 are directed to dePosit the said t after giving due credit to the n a period of two months from amount together with costs and interes u.ornt aliead y deposited, if any, withi ihe receipt of a copy of this judgment' That save as aforesaid, the decree of confirmed in a lother resPects; and That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal 4 5 the Lower Court shall stands SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY// ,hfk,,".* SEC To, 1 2 TheChairman,MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal.cum_|AdditionalDistrict .luJge, at Karimnagar, (with records, if any) Two CD CoPies