High Court · 2025

Petition under section I51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit fired in support of the petition, ite Hign court may be pleased to VACATE THE INTER|M STAY ORDER, dared: 2B_O1_ZO2O pr.sed in't.A No 3 of 2020 in M.A.C.M.A. No: 217 of 2020. Respondents / Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2020 Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleaseJ ro -affidavit gr_a1! srnv of all further proceedings including execution of the d-ecree dated 23- 05-2019 passed in o.p. No. 109 of 2014 on the fire of MACT - "r. - ixvil Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Counsel for the Appellant: SRt. SRtNIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MOHAN PRAKASH. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.2l7 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-lnsurarce Company under Section 173 of the M.V.Act, against the Award and decree passed by the XXVII Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No. 109 of 2074, dated

23.05.2079, wherein the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.23, 18,900 /- to the respondents herein.

2. Heard, Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the petitioner- M/s.United India Insurance Compally Limited ald Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents Perused the material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that Smt.Racharla Uma Devi filed frled M.V.O.P.No. 109 of 2014 under Section 166 read with Sec.455 of Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation of more than Rs.15,00,0O0/- for the injuries she received in a road \ ^^'1 2 - accident that took place on 16.06.2012. However, rluring the pendency of Tribunal proceeding, Smt.Racharala Uma Devi (herein after referred as 'deceased') passed away on 2l.ll.2ol4 and l-rer legal heirs i.e., petitioners Nos.2 to 4 were added for claiming comp(lnsation.

5. On 16.06.2O12, the deceased was procee,ling from Siddipet towards Mulugu on motor Cycle bearing No.AP-23 5-5032 as pillion rider and on reaching outskirts of Thouta Village rrear Dharma Kana, the rider of the TVS bearing No.AP-29-TT T /R 5247 , drove the vehicie in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from the opposite side. As a rt:sult, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body including severe head injury Immediately, the deceased u,as shifted to Government Hospital, Siddipet for treatmen t and thereafter, shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad ald later Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment, where the deceased was admitted as inpzrtient for more than one month and undergone several surgeries, however on 21.11.2014, the deceased was succumbed to injuries. The Police registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2012 against the rider of the offr:nding vehicle. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death ofthe deceased under various heads. 3

6. The contention of the claimalt before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 33 years and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing 'Saree business' which she used to contribute the same for the welfare of the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their conjugal happiness ald her company and there is no person available in the petitioners' home to do the household services including cooking of their lood and the petitioners lost their dependency. 7 . Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.3 - M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, hled counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that deceased was not holding valid and effective driving licences and the said vehicles were not road worthy to ply and further contended that the deceased was not in sound state of mind as such she is not fit for driving and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition

8. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counseis, the learned Tribunal re-framed the following issues after the death of deceased, which reads as under: 4 tie uehicle, i.e., TVS beaing No AP-29-TT Whetler the pteaded accident occuned resulting in injuies and 9L1U^ 19s.\ and negligent 5247 bg its ""/R subsequentlg diath of lst petitioner, du9 to iiri"g "f diuer? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to anA compensation and if so' Jrom uLhom and uhat quantum ol amount? iii) To ulnt relieJ? To prove the petitioners' case, PWs.l to 3 were examined' Ex'Al to 9 A11 marked. While on behalf ol Respondent Ncr.2, RWl examined, Ex.B 1 to 85 were marked

10. After perusing the oral and documentarJz 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.23,18,9OO/- along with interest @7 5%' per annum' ll.BeingunsatislredandaggrievedbytheCompensationamount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is hled by the appellant/InsuranceCompanyonthegroundthatthedeceasedwasnot holding effective driving license at the time of accident and the owner of the Motor Cycle bearing No.AP29 TT T/R 5247 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by allowing the rider to rider the vehicle without any driving license and further ,rontended that that Insurance Company-appellant shall be exonerated from the liability 5 when the rider of the motor cycle was not holding any driving Iicense which is a breach of conditions of the policy and the Tribunal have taken the deceased income at Rs.10,000/- per month, when there is no material evidence placed on record and also pleaded that Rs.1,00,000/- was granted under the head of 'love arld a_ffection' ought not have granted and the Tribunal erred in awarding excessive compensation of Rs.23,18,900/- when the claim was made for Rs. 15,00,0O0/- and prayed this Court to set-aside the Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal and allow the present appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.23,18,900/- which is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.

13. Admittedly, the claimants/ respondents herein have not filed cross-appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Tribunal. As such, the claimants are satisfied with the Award and decree and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: ' \ --'1 6 - "i) Whether the Tribunal had rightly consider the r:laimants petttion filed under Section 166 reod u,rith Section 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules 989 of MV Act 1988 and auarded just cornpensation." ii) Whether the appellant has mode out anlJ grLtund to in.terfere under this appeal to set aside the Award and Decree passed by1 the TribunaL." Point No. 1:

14. The petitioners claimed that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 16.06.2012 and the deceased died on

21.11.2O14 while undergoing treatment, however the Insurance Company claimed that there is not direct nexus between the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained during the accident and the deceased died naturally.

15. PWl was cross-examined before the Tribuna-l, and it is clear from the statement of Pwl that due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 the said accident occurred, which is also supported by the charge sheet and was marked under Ex.A2. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the said accident occurred due tc, rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.l and the Insurance Policy is subsisting as on the date of the accident, hence Insurance Company is also liable to pay compensation to the claimants. l

16. Admittedly, the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident occurred on 16.06.2016 and died while undergoing treatment and alleged to have caused the accident due to rash and negligent manner of the rider of motor cycle and the petitioners lost their beloved other (deceased) in an unfortunate accident. The petitioner claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, however there is no other documentary prove, such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioners/claimants. But Iooking at the records available and the averments made by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is evident from the Ex.A. IO-SSC Certihcate that she was aged about 32 years who was hale and health and the deceased was also educated person. In Latha Wadhwa us. State o;f Blhart, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts, hence the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notiona,l income of the decease @ Rs.10,000/- per month appears to be good and was assessed on ground realties, which needs no interference. The other compensation amount which was granted under conventional heads are 1 2001(8) SCC 197 \]-\'{--,1 8 in the light of the pronouncement of judgments in National Insurance Compang Limtted u, Pranag Sethi and othere; Sarla Venna a' Delhi Transport corporations and Magma General Insurance Compong Limited Vs.Ncnu Ram ctis Chuhru Rama and the same needs no interference by this court. However the Tnbunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/. under the head zind .Love and affection, which appears to be contrary to the judgm':nt passed by Honble Supreme court in united India Insurance co. Ltd. vs satinder Kaur @ Satuinder Kaur And Orss, wherein lt uas held that "The omount to be atuarded pr loss consortittm tuill be as per the amount ftxed in Pranay Sethi (supra)' At this stage, ue -consid.er it necessary to prouide unifunnttg with respect to the grant of consortium, and liss of loue and affection Scuerol Tnbunals and High Courts houe been auarding compensaton for both loss o/ coinsortium nnd loss of loue ond affectton. 'lhe Constilution Bench in Pranag Sethi (supra), has recognized onlu' three conuentional heads uider uhich compensation can be autarded uiz loss of estate, loss of consortium and funerol expenses ' In Magmo General (supra| this Court go'ue o comprehensiue interpr-etation to consortium to include spousal ':':onsortium, parental coniortium, as utell as filial consortium. loss 'y' loue and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed lo auard compensation .ifor loss of consortium, uthi:-:h is a legitimate conientionol head.. There is no justification to atuard compensation toLuard.s loss of loue and offection as o separat'? heod'" '7 zott 131 L.s. .r4 (s.c) r 2oo9 ACI 1298 (sc) 4 2018 (18) scc 130 s AIR zo20 supREME couRT 3076, AIRoNUNE 2020 sc 620 _-,7 9

17. In the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Ind.ia Insurance Co, Ltd. vs Satind.er Kaur @ Satwlnder Kaur And Ors (cited. supra), this Courr is of opinion that the compensation amount granted under the 'Love and Affection' ought not have been granted by the Tribunal and accordingly, the same has to be deducted from the compensation amount.

17. on overall re-appreciation of the preadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hontrle Supreme court in the aforesaid cited decision. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitred to compensation as modified and recalculated in the table below for easy reference. Amount arrlved at by the Trlbunal \ Loss of de Consortium Spousal Consortium @Rs.40,00O/- Parental Consortium (,) Rs.2O,O00/- each to petitioner No.2 and 3 Loss of Estate Funeral Ex Love and atlection Mcdical Bills Attendant Char es Tribunal Total arrived Deduct the amount granted undcr the head 'Love and affection" as per Sq.tlad.er Kqur case Compensatlon amount by this Court, in Total = modilied Rs.17 92 000 Rs.80,OO0/ - Rs. l5,OOO/ - Rs. l5,OO0 Rs.l oo,ooo/- Rs. I ,00,OO0 Rs.2, l6,O0O Rs.23, 18,900/ - (-) Rs. I,Oo,oOO/- 22,tA,9OO l - 10 !T

18. Hence, the claimants/respondents herein are entitled for arr compensation of Rs.22,18,9OOl-. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allon ed in part, by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.23,18,900/- to Rs. Rs.22,1g,9OO/- with @Z.So/; p.a. interest from the date of petition till the date of realization. 'l'he respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already depositcd, il any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the respondents/ claimants in thd same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There sha,ll be no order as to costs.

19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shzrll stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. A.V,S. PRASAD REGISTRAR \EPUTY SECTION OFFICER i\ J 1 The MACT - cum - XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. One CC to SRt. SR|N|VASA RAO VUTLA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRt. MOHAN pRAKASH,Advocate 4. Two CD Copies [OpUC] & .i '', ,.., :,r 1j:; i i I ! HIGH COURT DATED:27l03t2LZs a: 1 S TA O t\l\ ?t?5 j:1 )_:. s. { 8) /!' ) i.i * ED S P C. JUDGMENT MACMA.No.21T of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE APPEAL 6 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL M ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 217 OF 2O2O Between: M/s United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by its Regional Manager, R.O. TP Hub, Posnet Bhavan,2nd Floor, Tilak Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/Respondent No.2 AND

7. Racharla Uma Devi ( Died ), Racharla Uma Devi (Died ) B. R. Bhaskar, S/o Sayanna ,aged about 50 Years ,Occ. Govt, Service, R/o H.No 4-16 D.S Colony, I\ianedpally ,Secunderabad.

9. R. Sai Kumar, S/o R. Bhaskar,Aged About 26 Years, Occ. Student, R/o H.No 4-16 D.S Colony, Marredpally ,Secunderabad.

10. R- Sharath Chandra, S/o R.Bhaskar, aged about 23 Years, Occ. Student (The respondents Nos, 3 and 4 declared as lt/ajor by by discharging R2 vide C.O.21.09 2023 in l A.112022) . Respondents/Petitioners '1 'l .Sitha Bhupathi ( Died )

12. Smt S. Yellamma, Wo Late Sitha Bhupathi Aged. Major, Occ. Business, R/o H.No .2-92, Toguta, Medak District - 50213 Telangana State. (Respondent No.1 and 5 died during the pendency of the original petition before the tribunal) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section '173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment daled 23-05-20'19 passed in O.P. No. 109 of 2014 on the file of the MACT - cum - XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. ORDER: 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 ;/ Petition-and upon hearing the arguments of sri srinivasa Rao Vutla for the Appellant and of Srr C. Mohan Prakash for Respondents. This Court doth order and Decree as follows: 1 2 3 4

6. 7 That thc appeal bc and hereby is partly allowecl_ That this.court i'hile allowing the partly this appeal redur:etr tlrc compensari., amount lium Rs.2i. I 8,900 to Rs.22.18,9001. That thc compensation amount carry the interest ti-t 7.5uh ?.a.liorn the datc ol. pclition till the drtc of rcalization. 'lhat thc respondent are directed to dcposit the said amoutrt k)qctltL.r $ ith costs and intercst after giving due credit to the amount alreadr Jcprrsircd il anr. That the respondent are directed to deposit the said aniounL u itrrin a pcriod oltno monlhs from the rcceipt ofa copy olthisjudgment. That the cornpensation amount sllall be apportioned amonq thc respondents/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ortle'recl hi the learned Tribunal. That there shall be no order as costs. SD/. PT' '{; A.V.S. PRASAD ry REGISTRAR crloru off icEtL The Chairman, MAC'|-Cum-)O(VII Addl. ChielJudge. Citr i-r, il ( oLrn. Secunderabad. Two CD (lopies 7 t-, /+v HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 DECREE MACMA.No.Z17 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE APPEAL in( eh 1