The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA NARSING RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.237 OF 2O2O JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/ petitioners aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 30.lO.2olg passed in O.P.No.1959 of 2015 by the II Additional Chief Judge-cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. (for short "the Tribuna_l") seeking enhancement of the compensation 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinaJter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal J Brief facts of the case are as follows : On 14.06.20 15 at about 6.30 p.m the deceased and the petitioner No. 1 were going on motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 AT 8377 towards Kapra side and when they reached near ice Factory, Eurtonguda, Malkajgiri, the Tata Indica car bearing No.TS 15 UA 3169 driven by respondent No.l in a rash and negligent manner and came in opposite direction from wrong l l ANTR,J M./.C.Il. A.No.23 7 OF 2O2O side and dashed the motorcycle, due to rvhicl., the deceased and also the petitioner No. 1 fell down from rnotorcvcle and sustained inj uries. The deceased was shiftcd to Jalaji Hospital, Kompally and she was treated as inpatient, wh e she was undergoing treatment, she succumbed to rnj,ries on 22.O7.20t5.

4. It is further contended that the said acctdent occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respon<le:nt No.1. The police have registered a case in crime No.411 of 20,15 under section 337 of Indian penal Code, subsequentlr tite same was altered into Section 304_,{ of IpC and filed charge s;heet against the driver of the said car. The deceased rvas c oing tailoring work and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month ilnd used to contribute her entire earnings for the. r.r,elfare of the familv However, due to the sudden death of the ceceased. the petitioners have suffered loss of dependence and rrLental agony and claimed Rs.30,OO,O00/_ towards compensation.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 remained expartc before the Tribunal Respondent No.3-lnsurance compan). filed counter, denying the averments made in the petition and contendecl J MUR,J M-A-C-M.A-No.237 OF 2O2O that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and therefore there was a contributory negligence on the part of deceased. Further, the manner of the accident that took place was also denied ald further contended that respondent No.1 never drerv the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner, though admitting that the issuance of the policy in respect of the said offending vehicle and subsistence of the said insurance as on the date of the accident and that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are not at all the dependent on the deceased and also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the petition

6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1 . Wlrctller the death of the decea.sed G. Srilatha alias Dhanalaxmi, uas due to the rash and negligent driuing of the Tata Indica car beaing I[o.1"S ]5 UA 3169 diuen by it diuer?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to uhat extent and from uhom? 3 . To u.thot reliej? 4 IVI]R,J M..r. ta. M. 4..No.237 Of 2O2O

7. To prove the petitioners' case, petitioncr No.l himself examined as PW. 1 and relied on Exs.A1 to Al2. 'the petitioners also examined Pw.2 who is the Billing Exe,:utive of Balaji Hospital, where the deceased was treated. O n behalf of the respondents Insurance company examined Ru,. I 216 marked Ex.B. 1. After hearing both the counsel and :onsidering the entire material placed before the Tribunal, the 'lribunal came to conclusion that the said accidcnt occurred only ,lue to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata India car rvhich was driven by the respondent No.1 and made him responsible for the said accident. B. As far as computation of compensatio e am o unt, the Tribunal having gone into the material placed on record and after assessing the compensation basing on th: income of the deceased have came to conclusion that the petitioners were entitled for the total amount of Rs. 16,43,95{}/t- against the re spondents

9. Being aggrieved and unsatisfied with tht: compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have pr-eferred present appeal on the ground that the cEnpensation a$,arded by the - ]VI\IR,J M-A-C.M.A.No.237 OF 2O2o Tribunal is very meagre and that the learned Tribunal granted less compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and erroneously taken the income of the deceased on the lower side without appreciating the evidence of the Pw.1 & Pw.2.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that deceased was a skilled worker and was working as a 'lailor' and though she was earnrng Rs'12,OOO/- per month' the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased on lower side and awarded the meagre compensation and the Tribunal has failed to award just compensation under other heads and contended that after the accident' the deceased was under medical observation for nearly one month after the accident and the petitioners suffered huge expenditure and the deceased treated regularly treated in the hospital' In ail the Tribunaldidnotawardedtheamountwhichthepetitioners haveclaimedar.rdawardedthemeagreamount,assuchthe present aPPeal is tiled. 1 1. Heard Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appeliants/ petitioners and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma' 6 N.IVR,J M A.C.M.A.No.237 OF 2O2O -'l ! learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Fleliance General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the materal on record

12. Admittedly, the respondents have not li ed cross appeal agarnst the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only porr,t arouse before this Court in this appeal is that: l) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to tuhat extent?

13. Admittedly, the deceased died due to iniuLries sustained by him in the accident occurred on O'7 .O2 .tl,O 12 . The petitioners claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 12,000/- per month on the ground that th e deceased was working as a tailor, upon perusal of records it reveals that petitioners have examined PW.1 in support of the case to prove that the deceased was working as a tailor. Exc:1tt the evidence of PW. 1, who is the husband of the decease d, there are no records to show that deceased was a Tail;r and earning Rs.l2,0OO/- per month. . 1 H]\R.J M.A-C-M-A.No-237 OF 202O

14. Though it is a settled principles of law that in a case of a self employment, expecting of income proof would not be proper for the reason that there would not be aly specific rncome proof for such avocation, which the deceased was undertaking, i.e., 'Tailoring'. In the absence of any lncome proof, the Tribunal had fix a notional income relying on the judgments passed by Honble Supreme Court in Atttn Kumar Agarwal u, National Insurance Compang Limitedt and Hema Raj u, Oriental Insurqnce Compang Limited and othersz, wherein it was it was held that in the absence of any income proof, it is just and necessary that an appropriate and a notional income has to be taken basing on the ground realities.

15. The learned Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000i -, hence considering the ground realities and facts of the case, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal in flxing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-. However, the Tribunai has deducted 50% towards persona-l 20loAcc2r6r ,2018 ACJ 5 6 M. A.C.M-A.No.237 OF 2O2O r!\. N]IR,J 1 expenditure. u,hich appears to be contrary to the ludgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nqtional Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and o.thers3 and also not aru,arded j ust compensation under vario.rrs conventional head s i6. In viern'of the same, this Court is inclinec .-o r€:assess compensation by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. Apart from that, as per the ,lecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insur<tnce Compang Limited Vs, Pranag Sethi and othersa and considering the age of the deceased as 21 years, an additiolal 407o of the income has Lo be added towards future pr osper:ts to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore , the monthiy income of the cleceased would come to Rs.9,800/ (Rs.7,00O/ + Rs.2,800/ ). The annual income of the decea:;e:d would come to Rs.1,17,600l (Rs.9,800/- X 12) and, our of ,vhich, t/4 rras to be deducted tor.l,ards the personal expenses o:. the deceased as there are four dependants in number. Thr:n the actual 3 2017 ACJ 2700 4 2017 ACJ 2700 ,'-a I 9 tflvR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.23 7 OF 2O2O -/ annuai income wouid come to Rs.gB,20O/_ (Rs. l,IZ,600/_ o Rs.29,aOO/-) for assessing the compensation. 17 . As per the column No.4 of Table prescribed hxed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sq.rlq Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporations, and considering the age of the deceased as 21 years, the approoriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is .18,. Thus, the total loss of dependency to the petitioners would come to Rs. 15,87,600 /_ (BS,2OO/_ x 1B) (Annual Income x relevant Multiplier). I 8 . The appellants/ claimants are further entitled to Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 15,000/- + lO%o + 7Oo/o) towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,OOO/- + lOVo + 1O%l towards funeral expenses, as per pranag Sethi,s Judgment (cited supra).

19. Further, considering the appellant No.1 being the husband of deceased, appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of .loss of spousal consortium, as per Pranag Sethf,s Judgtnent (cited supra). 5 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) IO NNR,J M..r.ta.M.A. No.237 OF 2O2O I

20. Appeliant Nos.2 & 3 being are in-laws to dec,eased and the Tribunal believed that appellant Nos.2 & ii are depended on deceased and there is no material before this Cor-rrt to show that the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are not deor:nde:d on the deceased. IJence, appellant Nos. 2 & 3 e,re entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,B0O/- (Rs.48,4OO .x 2) under the head of ioss of consortium', as per Mlagma General Insurance Compang Limited Vs.Na,nu Rarn alis Chuhru Ram6 21 . Appellant No.4 being the mother of thr: deceased, the appellant No.4 is also entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs. 48,400 under the head of '1oss of filial cot.rsortium' as per Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

22. In Sarla Verma's case (cited aboae), tirr: Hon'b1e Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of Just. com.pensation' observed as under "Post compensation is odequate compensatio,t which is fair and erluitable on the facts and circumstantces <;.f the case, to rnake good lhe lo.ss suffered as a rest t of the wrong, as far as moneA cant do so, by applginq, the tuell settled prurciples relating to auard of compen.sation. It u 20 l8 ( t8) scc l]o II JVXR,J M.A.C,M.A, No.237 OF 202O is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit "

23. On overall re appreciation of the pleadings, materia-l on record and the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table belorv for easy reference .

24. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) Annual Income (of the deceased) Rs,7,OOO/- X 12 = Rs.84,000/- Total Annual lncome = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X 4O%) = Rs.84,000/- + Rs.33,6OO/- = Rs.1,17,600/- iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - l/4 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs. I, 17,600/- (-) Rs.29,aO0l- Rs.88,200/ - v) ir) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Appli Multiplier = Rs.88,2OOl- x18 Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal consortium + loss of consortium + Filia] Consortium = Rs. 18,150/, + Rs.i8,l50/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.96,800 + 48,400 "al vi) Medical Bills Total ./ Rs.1 5,87,600/- Rs.2,29,9OO/- Rs 5,15,558/- Rs.23,3 3,058/- 12 MIUR,J M.,l-t).M. A..No. 23 7 OF 2O2O '.j

25. Considering the circumstances of the ceLse, the learned Tribuna-l has rightly awarded the rate of intere st r'e', at 7 5 ok per annum, which needs no interferen.e' Her''t", this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/ claimants are entitled to interest @ 7 .5'>1, on the enhanced amount.

26. Accordingly, the M A.C.M.A is allon'e<l in part The claimants are entitled for an enhanced cclnpensation of Rs.23,33,O58/-, enhancing the compensatlon from Rs' 16,43,g58 l- to Rs. Rs.23,33,O58/- u'ith interr:srt at the rate (al 7.5 ok p.a. on the enhanced arnount from the rlate of petition til1 the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said ainount together u'ith costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already dt:prosited, if any, within a period of trvo months from the dat: of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation rtrnount shall be apportioned among the appellants/ claiman 's in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned 'lribunal There shall be no order as to costs. 13 A'I\IR,J M.A.c.M.A.No 237 oF 2O2O r

27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending' shall stand closed SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ ECTION OFFICER I I TheChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunalCumllAdditionalDistrict Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad' b;a'c1o sRt. P RAMAKR1sHNA REDDY Advocate [oPUC] 2 3. One CC to SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies To, BA HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 .\ :,: -l1:tffiN. - vc:l\. ,.-\\,\. .i....1 (.) ?i rirI ?tffi ?jl;i .'/tu -k L:T ! .: JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.237 of 2020 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED elltole,/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARS!NG RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 237 OF 2020 Between: 1 2 J 4 G. Raju, S/o G. Yadaiah, Aged 29 Years, Occ. Nit, Rl/o H.No.1-1-175, Gandhi Nagar, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District- 500 062, Presently R/o H.No.3-2-1916, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad G. Sathemma, Wio G. Yadaiah, Aged. 54 Years, Occ. Household, H.No.1-1-175, Gandhi Nagar, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District- 500 Presently R/o H.No.3-2-1916, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad G. Yadaiah, S/o. Late Narsimha, Aged.64 Years, Occ. Nil, R/o H No.1-1-175, Gandhi-Nagar, Kapra, Ranga Reddy Diskict- 500 062, Presenfly R/o H.No.3- 2-1 9/6, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad B. Venkamma alias Venkatamma, Wo. Late Narsimha, Aged. 54 Years, Occ. Household. R/o 062, All are Rio H.No.1-1-175, Gandhi Nagar, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District- 500 062, Presently R/o H.No.3-2-1916, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad AND ...APPELLANTS

1. P. Manoj, S/o P.Arjun, Aged. Major, Occ. Driver, R/o H.No.1670, Risala Bazar, Bolaram, Secunderabad. (Driver of the Tata lndica Car bearing No. TS-15UA-3169)

2. K. Srikanth Reddy, S/o K DheerathRedddy, Aged. Major, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.'16-7419, Balaji Nagar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District - 502001. (Owner of the Tata lndica Car bearing No. TS-15UA-3169)

3. The Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, (a Anil DhirubhaiAmbani Group) Reptd.by its Divisional Manager, 4-3-327 to 337, Sagar Ptaza,4th Floor, Abids. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal under Sectron '173 of Motor Vehicles agair st the judgment and decree in M.V.O P. No 1959 of 2015 daled 3011012019, c,n the file of Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum ll Additional District Judge, City civil Court at Hyderabad. This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perLrsing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower court and t1e material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. P Ramakrisl-rpa Reddy, Advocate for Appelllants and of Sri. Harinath Reddy Soma Advocate for F:espondent No.3 and None Appeared for Respondent No.1 and 2. This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the [ilotor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be ard hereby is allowed in part;

2. Thal the claimants are entitled to an enhanced r;ompensation of Rs. I,37,2001- to Rs. 23,33,058/- enhancing the compensation from Rs. 16,43,958/- to Rs.23,33,0581 with interest @ 7.5% pa orr the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization; 3. That the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amounr already deposited, it only, within a period of two months from date of recr:ict of a copy of this Judgment; 4. That the compensation amount be shall be apporlioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as orciered by the learned Tribunal.

5. That save as aforesaid the decree of the Tribunal shall s;tands confirmed in all 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. other respects; and SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum ll Additional District 2. Two CD Copies Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. To, BA HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 DEGREE MACMA.No.237 ot 2020 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED 4 t I1,0lx-