The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m ry be pleased to stay the operation of the Order and Decree dated 20-08-201( passed in IVI.V.O.P No.493 OF 2016 on r.he file of the Court of the Chairpr:rson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, K:rrimnagar. Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMtTGANTI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT w THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.25l of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This MACMA is hled under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 by the Appellant/ Insurance Company/respondent No.3 against the Aq,ard and decree passed b;, the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum Prl.District Jr-rdge, Karimnagar, (hereinafter relerred to'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.493 of 2016, dated 20.08.2O19, q,herein claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation ol Rs.25,00,000/ on account of death of 1sr petitioner's mother, namely Sri Akula Damador Rao, (herein after referred as 'deceased') rl,ho died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 06.05.20 14.

2. For the sake of convcnience, the parties q,i1l be hereinafter relerred to as thcy are arral,ed belorc the Tribunal

3. The brief lacts of the case are that claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.493 of 2016 under Section I66 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seekir-rg compensation lor the death ol the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the Tipper Lorrj, driver. It rs contended that on 06.05.2014, the deceased along with her children wl-rile returning to Hanmakonda lrom Hyderabad in a Car bearing 2 I{]VR,J M A-c M-A No-251 of 2o2o No.AP-36-UG-296 1 being driven b-r' deceased's :;on and r'r'hen thel. reached opposite Shamzr. Petrol Purnp at Chinnapt:ndyetl Village, driver of the Tipper l-orry bearing No.AP 24 TB 9797 tlr,rve in tr rash and negligent manner rvith high speed came from opposite <lirectton dasl-red to their car, as a resuit, the deceased sustained severe injuries all over the body ald diecl on the spot. Thc Police registcrt:d zr case in Crime No.178 ol 2Ol4 trnder Seclion 30:l A of IPC agirrr)sl the rcspondent No.1/driver of offt:r-rding vehicle arrd afte r complclirrtt r;I investigation, charge sheet was also filcd against thc driver ol t:re lorry and made responsible for the accidcnt.

4. The contention of the claimants \\'as that , ,rs on the date of accident the deceased n,as aged about 54 years ,rnd rvas hale and healthy. The deceilsed r.r'as a family pensioner an I gel ting pension of Rs. 12,000/ per month as deceased husband u,orkc 1 as Circle Inspector of Police. The deceirsed rvas also having agriculturiil lanci to an extent of Ac.6O-00 gts and earning Rs.2,16,000/- per annLlln from agriculture and was contributrng the samc for the ri'elfare of tlrc cleLimants. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, tl-re claimants h:rve lost the source of their future support and dependency, motherly lor.e and affection and earning of the cleceased. The claimants claimed an amount of ""ffi.,7 -:_i;e,:r., 3 ,VI\II,J M-A.c.M.L No.25 I of 2O2O Rs.25,0O,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 (driver of the Tipper Lorry) and respondent No.2- Ou,ner of Tipper Lorry remained ex-parte. The respondent No.3 - The Cholamandalam MS General lnsurance Company Limited filed a counter-affid avit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took p1ace, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that the driver of the car and the driver of the offending lorry were not holding any driving licence as on the date of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petiiion.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the rortd traff.c r.tccident betuJeen the car beaing No.AP-39- UG-2961 and Tipper Lornt bening No.AP-24 TB-9797 on O6.O5.2014 at 5.45 AM., had taken place and i,f so, is lt due to the negligence in diuing of the car or tipper lorry or it is due to contributory negligence? it) WhetLer the petitioners are entttled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and front ,,uhich of the respondenls? tii) To whal relieJ? 4 ,VAR,J M, A.C.M-A-No,25l of 2O2O \.tr" \

7. After perusing the oral and documentarl' evidcnces and going into the entire recorcl rir-rd tl-re evidences placed b1' both the parties, tl-re learned Tribunal alLorved the claim in part and granted compcnsation of Rs.2O,4O,4OO/- alc,ng rvith interest (u 7 .StYo per antr\rm B. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved b5' the colrssal compensatlon amount arvarded bv the learned Tribunal, the presc:l' appeal is filed by the Insurance Company / appellant/ respondellt No 3 on the ground that the learned Tribunal erroneousll' came to conclttsi:l:-r t har thc income earned from agncultural land and mango garden (:r11not be taken into consideration because the claimants can Still get lh(] sanle income even after the death of the deccasecl, but thc lcarned 'lr bunal has took the income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- towards the int r,mc o[ thc deccased in the shape of Supervisory Charges. g. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submiLs that there ts no dispute with regard to accident, death of tllc dcceased arld the injuries sustained by the deceased. ln cross Exarni ration, PW 1 & PW2 were examined and trxhibits A. I to A. 10 rvere markc'd. Learnecl counsel further contendeci that PW. 1 is the daughter of thc deccasecl, narrated the whole incident, but she is not eye-u'itness. l)'.v2-u-ho is the eye- t- 5 !l1vR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.25 I ol 2O2O witness to the accident and he deposed that the deceased died due to rash ad negligent driving by the driver of lorry

10. Learned counsel lor the claimants relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another u. Jasbir Kaur & othersr and iVeur India Assurance Compang Limlted. u Charlie &, otherd ald further contended that in case of death of an cleceased who is having agricr-rltural land, the legal heirs are entitled for sr.rpervisory expenses and the income of the deceased is to be taken while estimating the future loss of dependencv and further contended that the Tribunal has rightl_v auarded compensation under the head of supervisory charges to the claimants lr,hich needs no interference by this Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the present appeal

11. Heard, Sri A.Rqmakrishna Reddg, Iearned counsel for the appellant - Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Company Limited and Sn Ramo,chandar Roo Vetnuganti, learned counsel for the respondents

12. Admittedly, the respondcnts have not filed any appeal and cross appeal against the Au,ard passed by the learned Tribunai. As such, the ' 2oo3 ACI 18oo '? zoos no tt3t 6 MW,J M A,C.M.A No.251 o! 2O2O respondents appears to be satisfied w,ith the co r pensation amount aq,arded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the points q'h cit arose belore tiris Court in the present appeal is that: I ) Whether the Tnbunal has iglhtlg a-sse-s-seci tltt: irtcorne of the deceased. 2) Whether the Tibunctl has autarded e-rcc-s: corll e,/ tettso t ion emoLull to the c\aimant.s, r/ -so, to uhat ertent? Point No.1& 2: 13. Admittedll', the cleceased died duc to ac'riclen I ot:cutrred on

06.05.20 14. The deceased was pensioner and hzu,rng agricr-rltural land to an extent of Ac.5B-26 gts as per Ex.A l8-pattrrclar passbook and Ex.A 10 is the copy of statement showing details of expencliture and income from the agriculture land u'hich shon,s rh,rt the deceased u,as getting net income of Rs. 1,79,966 per annum ar.ci the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.6,000/ per month tori ards rncotne of the deceased in the shape of Supervisory charges, ho ,i'er.er the I n surance Company/appeliant claimed that the Tribunal ought not have granted such compensation amount because the claimar-rts r:a.n still gct the same income even aJter the death of the deceased. Befori: procccding further, it is imperative to look at the Iau, laid by Hon'b1e Apex Court in similar cases, u,hether the claimants can claim comperlsatl,lrl for Ioss of income Tffi 7 M. A.c.M.LNo.25 I oJ 2o2O or other operational expenses on account of death of the deceased who was having agriculture land.

14. In Sta.te OJ Haryana And Another us Josbir Kaur & Ors:, the Hon'b1e Supreme Court held that in cases where the deceased was an agriculturist, and the land continues to be cultivated by the family, compensation should be limited to supen,isory charge. The Court stated in the order, u.hich reads as: " ...The Lond possessecJ by the deceased stitl remalns uith the claimonts os his Legal hetrs. 'l'here Ls ltotucuer a possibililg that the cLaimants mcty be required to engage persons to look after agiculture. Therefore, the normol rule abouL the depriuatlon of income is not stictLA applicabLe lo cases tuhere ogria tural income is the source. Attendant circumstonces houe to be considered."

15. The Honble Supreme Court has also taken the similar view in Neur India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs.Charlie< and. Neu Indla Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Kagaluizhi and otherss.

16. Hence considering the above judgments, it is arrived that in view of the established principles that claimants are entitled to claim supervisory charges in respect of agricultural land of the deceased and j t ' etn zoo: sc :6go o 2oo5 no tt3t 5 zoto no zs:o B ^']VRIJ t4.A.c.M A.No.251 oJ 2o2o the Courts can gralr t compeusatiot't uuder the lre ad of 'supen,isory charges' to the c laimants.

17. Considering the facts and circumstanccs of ti:c case, this Cortrt ts of the opinion LheLt claimants may be'required lo cngagc persou for supervisory to lool: after the agriculture land due -o suclden demise of the deceased and also in vieu, of the above judgnre nts ol tl'rc Honble Supremc Court citr:d above, this Cor,rrt is ol the corr:;iCc'nrcl vicrt that the Tribur-ral has ri11htl,r' conside red ancl granted just (rcrnl)cllsali()n to the claimant.s / respo nden ls Nos.I to 4 herein and the appcal lrlccl b1 tl're Cholamarrdalam M.S.()ener-al Insurance Company Lirnitecl fails and lalls to lhc ground. As; such, no interference is required ltr' thrs Court Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable 1o be dismissed Accordingly, M..A.Cl.M.A. is dismisscd by confirm r.rg the r\u'ard and decree passed br, the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.-193 ol 20 16, dated

20.o8.2019.

18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand r;losed sd/- sRt M. O SMAN ALI BAIG NT REGISTRAR I \i*i:^ \ 'becrot't oFFrcER //TRUE COPY// To, s> GR 1 . The Chairman, IVACT-cum-principal District Judge. 2 One CC to SRI A RAI\4AKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [ODUC] 3 One CC to SRI RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTT Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies --:-.-.. { -i::r:-.3?f; HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.251 of 2020 .-rTAia .' r,.i'.: :{ .../.i ) ) :,\ I q NtN [tl5 ::" ls).. .^.:i. (. . \'. : , ll '_ !l ':.. .,j SF',,1i .ir' DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \, J L IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 251 OF 2020 Between: Cholamandalam M.S. General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Branch lt/lanager, Branch Office, Karimnagar, Kothirampur, Hyderabad, Karimnagar ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND

1. Akula Pranahitha, D/o Late Akula Damodar Rao, Caste. f\,4unnuru Kapur, Occ L.L.M Student, RJo H.No.2-'10-415, Jyothinagar Locality, Karimnagar Town 2. Akula Ramu @ Sai Sridhar Ramu, S/o. Late Akula Damodar Rao, Age. 31 years, Occ. L.L.M Student

3. Yelagonda Lavanya, Wo Krishna, Age. 35 years, Caste. Munnuru Kapu, Occ Govt. Employee

4. Boppa Kalyani, W/o lVlohan Krishna, Age.36 years, Caste. Munnuru Kapu, Occ, Govt. Employee All are Rio H.No.2-10-415, Jyothinagar Locality, Karimnagar Town. RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4/PETITIONERS

5. Manda Narsimpha, S/o Yellaiah, Age. 42 years, Caste, tr/adiga, Occ. Driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP 24 TB 9797, Rio H.No.2-49, Gudur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District

6. Chaprla Gopala Murali Krishna, Age. 52 years, Caste. Kamma, Occ. Owner of Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP 24 TB 9797, Business and lrlanagaing Director of Sunlite Cellular Blocks India Pvt. Ltd., H.No.90/A, Kapra Lake Road, Eshwarapuri, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, R/o S.No.228lA, D. No.5/68, Chegurinarasimha Farms, Nemarugomula Village, Bibinagar ...RESPONDENT NOS. 5 &6/RESPONDENT NOS.1&2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.493 OF 2016 dated 20.O8.2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims f ribunal-Cum-principal District Judge, Karimnagar. The appeal coming on hearing and upon perusing the !lr,luncls of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the materia capers in the MVOp and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A RAMA KRISHNA R.EDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri RAI\,4ACHANDER RAO VEMUGA\TI, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows 1 2 That the lrlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed by confirming the Award and Decree passc:d by the Tribunal in M.V.O PNo. 493 of 2016 dated 20.08.2019. That save as aforementioned, the decree of the Tribunal sl-rall stands confirmed in all other respects. sd/- M_ os ASSIS\AN MAN ALI BAIG T REGIST //TRUE COPY// \r. TION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman. It/ACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Karirrnagar 2. fwo CD Copies GR 9\ HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 DECREE MACMA.No.251 of 2O20 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t^ J