The High Court · 2025

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants filed o.p.No.320 of 2017 under Section 166 of the M.v.Act, seeking compensation for the 2 .l\'i\m'J ttI.A. C. M. A. t Io. 2O 5 of 2O2O death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of driving of the Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 0401. It is contended that on 30.04.2017 at about

1.30 p.m., the deceased was proceedings on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 BA 3446 along with his wife from Sathupally towards Moddulagudem Village side. When they reached near Gattugudem Village outskirts of Dammapet Mandal, suddenly Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 0401, in rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased motorcycle from rear side. As a result, the deceased received severe head injury and other grievous internal injuries all over the body and he succumbed to injuries on the spot. The Police registered a case in crime No.78 of 2017 under Sections 304-A of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The contention of the claimants was that, the deceased was an agriculturist having l0 acres of agricultural land and he raised commercial crops and maintained cows and supplied milk to hotels and maintained one Tractor and was earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per annum and contributing the same for the welfare of 3 AII\IR,J DI.A.C.[II.A. I,b. 2O 5 of 2O2O his lamily and he was aged about 47 years and he was hale and health as on the date of accident and due to his sudden death, the petitioners lost love and affection and they were put to sufferance, mental agony, pain and irreparable loss and lost future dependency. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.l and 2 (driver and the owner of the offending vehicle) remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter affrdavit and denied the averments of the petition and contended that respondent No.2/owner has not intimated about the accident to respondent No.3 and sought protection under Section 170-B of M.V.Act. Further, contended that respondent No.l/Driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license and the Policy Number mentioned in the claim petition does not tally with the series of respondent No.3/Insurance Company and the offending vehicle is not fit or road worthy to ply on road and also does not have permit. Further, contended that the owner and Insurer of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 37 BA 3446 are necessary i 4 I'NR,J M.A. C. M.A. No. 2O 5 of 2O2O parties to the claim petition, non-joinder of necessary parties is fatal to the case of the claimants, as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed and sought for protection under Sections 147, 149 of MV Act and further contended that the compensation and interest claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues, which reads as under: l. Whether the pleaded accident occurred due to any rash or negligent driving of Lorry 'bearing No.AP 29 TA 0401? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3. To what relieJ?

7. On behalf of claim petitioners, PWl examined and Exs.Al to ,A.5 marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, its counsel reported no oral evidence. However, Ex.Bl policy was marked with consent. After perusing the oral and docurnentary evidences and going 1 5 ,{,\R,J &I.A.C,N,A. No,2OS oJ 2O2O into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the leamed 'l'ribunal concluded that due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tanker Lorry the said accident occurred and respondent Nos. I to 3 are made liable to pay the compensation and awarded a compensation of Rs.14,70,000/- along with interest @ 7 .5% per annum under various heads.

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the leamed Tribunal, the present appeal is hled by the Insurance Company/appellant/respondent No.3 on the ground that the leamed Tribunal did not consider that there is contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle and there is no liability for payment of compensation by the appellant/Insurance Company and driver of the motorcycle was not holding any valid and effective license to drive the motorcycle, even the driver of the Tank€r Lorry was not having any effective driving license. Further, there is no proof of income of the deceased and taking income of the petitioner as Rs.10,000/- per annum is on the higher side and prayed this Court to 6 J\Ii\IR,J fr .A.C.frI.A. r,b.2o 5 of 2O2O set aside the Award passed by the Tribunal and allow the present appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained and death of the deceased. PWI was examined and Exhibits A.l to A.5 were marked. Learned counsel further contended that PWl-who is the eye-witness to the accident deposed that on 30.04.2017 at about l:30 p.m., when they were proceeding from Sathupally towards Moddulagudem Village side, when they reached near Gattugudem Village outskirts of Dammapet Mandal, suddenly, the driver of Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 0401 drove the Lorry in rash and negligent manner and dashed from the rear side of the motorcycle and as a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot and PWI has specifically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending crime vehicle and further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable and there are no merits in the appeal. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the present appeal i') /': 7 MIIRJ tut.A. C. M. A. Ito. 20 5 of 2O2O I I I I : ] I I i I I i I j I I I ! I + I i i i i i I t ,i I I t I I i f i I i , I i i ; i :

10. Heard, Ms.Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the appellant - M/s.United tndia lnsurance Company Limited, and Mr.C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l to 3

11. Admittedly, the respondents/claimants have not filed any appeal and cross appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation. As such, the respondents/claimants appear to be satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the points, which arose before this Court in the present appeal is that: I) Whether the Trtbunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. 2) Whether the Tribunal has awarded excess compensation amount to the claimants, ,f to, to what extent? a

12. Learned rribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 14,70,0001- without any basis and without there being any income proof filed by the f '-4 claimants. She also contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the case of Ramachandrappu vs Manoger, Royal B JI'IIR,J M.A.C. M. A. I,b. %) 5 of 2{n2O n, Sundaram Alliance fnsurance Company Limilel and should have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month as the deceased was an agricultural coolie and as there was no oral or documentary evidence brought on record by the claim petitioners in support of their claim pertaining to income of the deceased, except the evidence of PWI and Exs.Al to ,A5, which are nothing but FIR, Charge sheet, Inquest report, PME report and MVI report respectively, and in the absence of such evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into account the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Admittedly, ro material is placed by the claim petitioners in support of their case, in view of the settled preposition of law and the learned counsel for respondents has argued that in such circumstances, while supporting the judgment of the leamed Tribunal and finding given by the Tribunal as to the income, he has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Syed ' 2ot t t: scc 236 ,,.\ 9 JVIIR,J M.A.C.M.A. No.2OS oJ 2O2O RaJique vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and otherl the relevant paragraph No.5 is extracted hereunder: "....5. Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurunce Company Limited determined an income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004 for a coolie. A constitution Bench in National Insurunce Compuny Limited vs. pranay Sethi and others found that there would be an incremental increase in the income which according to us would be reasonoble d ftxed at Rs.500/- per month for every successive year. In the present case, the accident occurred in thi year 2015, II years after 2004 and going by the principles stated in the afore-cited decisions the oppellant, an unskilled worker would be entitled to claim monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. In the present case, the claimant has asserted an income of Rs.9,000/- which can be safety adopted. The multiplier in the cose of a 25 year old as hetd in pranay Sahi would be I8 and not 17 as taken by the High Courl Thgfollowing award according to as would be ,just compensation'in the above case.....t' and the distinguished judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. pranay Sethi and otherl has specifically held that even in case of coolie and taking into consideration of the income as Rs.4,500/- per month as per Rqma chandrappa's case it is held that there would be an increment of Rs.500/- per month for every successive year in the income and 2 zozs rNSc oz3 3 2ot1 t6 scc 680 10 J\[IR,J M. A, C.bI. A. I{o. 2O 5 of 2O2O c accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein taken monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and in view of the claim therein ascertained as Rs.9,000/- per month which was adopted in the said case. Taking the income of the deceased therein at Rs.9,000/- per month. Though the petitioners have claimed the earnings of the deceased at Rs.1,50,000/- per month and considering the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners and judgment, the accident occurred in the year 2017 and even if the said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments, in considered herein, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded Rs.14,70,000/- by taking into account loss of dependency at Rs.13,00,000/-, spousal consortium at Rs.40,000/-, loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-, funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and love and affection at Rs.1,00,000/- and the learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head love and affection.

13. In the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Setht's case, this Court is of opinion that the compensation 11 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A- I{o.2OS ol 2O2O amount of Rs.1,00,000/-granted under 'Love and Affection' ought not have been granted by the Tribunal and accordingly, the same has to be deducted from the compensation amount.

14. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision, this Court is inclined to reduce the compensation of Rs. 14,70,000i- to Rs. 13,70,000/- keeping other amounts intact.

15. The Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, granted interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, which appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. f6. [n the result, the appeal is allowed in part by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.14,70,000/- to Rs.13,70,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs seventy thousand onty) with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum. The appellant is directed to deposit the t \ said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to \ \ the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months t / I j 12 .!{ItR.' M.A. c.M. A. te. 2O 5 of 2O2O from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. However, it is made clear that, if the claimants have already withdrawn the said award amount, the appellant-insurance company is not entitled to recover the same from the claimants.

17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. To, M. OSMAN ALI BAIG REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, MACT, city civil court, secunderabad.

2. One CC to Sri. P.Satya Manjula, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri C.Mohan Prakash, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KVR/gh w- HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 \ t THE S c () ? 12 0Er iili * * : l-'. \1:.f) JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.205 of 202O [2 DRAFTSI PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARS]NG RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCID CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEA NO: 205 OF 2O2O Between: M/s United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager, HUB Office, 2nd Floor ,Posneet Bhavan, Near Church Building Tilak Road, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondent No.3 AND

6. Smt. Dondapati Laxmi, Wo. Late Satyanarayana Aged- 45 years, Occ- Housewife Presently both resident of H.No. 1 1-12-1 558, Bhoudda Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad

7. Mataparthi Jansi, Wo. Nagaraju, Aged about 28 yearc, Occ- Housewife 8. Dondapati Kishore, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Aged- 25 years, occ- Agriculture Native Place R/O H.No. 3-14, Moddulagudem village And Mandal, Khammam District. Presently both resident of H.No. 11-12-1558, Bhoudda Nagar, Warasiguda, SeCunderabad. ...RespondentsrPetitioners

9. Mr. Akula Saidulu, S/0 Bhadraiah, Aged about 38 Years, Occ- Driver, R/O Adluru village

10.M/s. Radhika Enterprises, Rep. by its (A. Vindya Rani, R/O Plot NO. 2, Block No. 14, Autonagar, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad - 500 081 ...Respondents/Resp.Nos.1 &2 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 320 ol 2017,dated. 02.08.2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 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 Sri. P.Satya Manlula, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri C.M. Prakash, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and none appeared for the respondent No.4 to 5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.14,70,000/- to -7 Rs'13,70,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) with interest @ T .S%p.a.; 2' That the appellant be and hereby is directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit and interest after giving due credit to the amount arready deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of a this Judgment; the same without furnishing any surety; 3' That on such deposit, the claimnants be and hereby are permitted to withdraw 4' That the ctaimnants have already withdrawn the said award amount, the appellant insurance company be and hereby is not entifled to recover the same from claimnant; 5' That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and 6' That there shail be no order as to costs in this appeat. SD/ M. OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXVil Additionat Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, MACT, city civil court, secunderabad. 2. Two CD Copies KVR/gh # \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2510712A25 DECREE MACMA.No.2OS of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. \