The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.N0.280 0F 2020 JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the appellants- claimants being not satisfied with the Award ard decree' dated O2.12.2olg, in M.V.O.P.No.l27 of 2017 pe'ssed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, the TribunalJ, whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,O5 ,600 I - with interest at the rate of 7 .5o/o Per annum

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are the legal heirs of Nunavath Babu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). At the time of ztccident, the deceased was aged about 48 years and he was working as driver, doing agriculture work, vegetable business zrnd also as milk vendor and used to earn an amount of Rs'llO,OO0 /- pe.r month. On 05.01.2017 at about 7:OO PM while 'he deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No'AP- t O-AF-9510 along with one Narsaiah as a pillion rider from Padkal Village to Munipally Village on left side of the road an:l when they reached in the limits of Padkal Village, a tractor bearing ., NNR, \ Vacma 7EU lu.'o --*I - No.AP-2SAA_1246drivenbyitsdriverCameathighspeedin a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the tractor and dashed against the motorcycle, due to which the deceased ald the pillion rider fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries' Immediately after the accident' they were shifted to Government General Hospital' Nizamabad where the deceased was given first aid and from there they were referred to Gandhi Hospital' Secunderabad and while the deceased was succumbed to at 12:30. A case in Crime No'3 of injuries on 06.Ol .2017 2017 was registered by PS Jakranpally under Sections 304 A and 337 of I.P.C. The accident has occurred due to rash and Respondent No. 1 is negligent driving of driver of tractor' owner ald respondent No'2 is insurer appellants, who are legal heirs of the deceased' are claiming undergoing treatment, of the vehicle. The compensationofRs.|2,oo,oool-withinterest(i)24o/oper a-nnum from the date of petition till the date of teaJtzatton'

3. Respondent No'1 remain ed' ex parte' Respondent No.2 hled counter-a-ffidavit denying the allegations made in the claim petition including the marrner of accident' involvement of the crime vehicle and negligence on the part of 3 NNR,J Macma 280 2020 the driver. He is also disputing the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is further stated that the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and hence, he prayed to dismiss the O.P.

4. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on recorct, found that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing No.AP-25-AA-1246 ar,d awarded compensation of Rs.5,O5,600l- in favour ol appellant Nos.1 and 4 herein and dismissed the claim petition insofar as appellant Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No,1 is owner and respondent No.2 is insurer of the tractor and as the policy was in existence as on the date of accidenl,, the respondents are jointly and severally iiable to pay compensation to the appellants 1 and 4

5. Learned counsel for the appellartts contended that the Tribunal while awarding compensation did not choose to consider the income and age of the deceiased. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded consortium to the appellants. He further contended that the Tribunal erroneor.rsly dismissed the claim petition insofar as appellant 4 t.INRJ Macna 2AO 7O2O ..1 Nos.2 ald 3 herein stating that they are aged about 25 and 23 years. But, the Honble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and othersr it was held that even major manried and earning sons of deceased legal representatives have a right to claim for compensation and it would be bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider claim petition irrespective of whether they were fully dependent on the deceased or not. placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal awarded meagre compensation under the head of future prospectus and hence, he prays this Court to enhance tl-re compensation. 6- Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, Iearned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company, appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record. ' (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 356 i'.] 5 NNR.J Macma 280 2020

7. Having heard both sides the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is; "Whether the appellants have made out any case for enhancement of compensation?

8. POINT: The main grievalce of the appellants in the present appeal is that the Tribunal, having gone thror.rgh the entire evidence on record and considering the submissions made by both parties, came to the conclusion that the subject accident had occurred due to rash and negligent drivirLg of driver of respondent No. 1. Further, there is no dispute that the said vehicle is insured with respondent No.2. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000,r- per month, and as the deceased was aged about 55 yea-rs, loyo is taken as future prospects of life as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civilr No.25590 of 2074 and assessed the monthly income of thc deceased at Rs.4,400/- and the annual compensation would come to Rs.52,800/-. 6 I.INR-J Macma 280 2020

9. As seen from the record, the said accident has occurred in the year 2OI7 . It is the case of the appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as an agriculturist, doing vegetable business arrd also milk vendor. To substantiate the said contention, the appellants have examined P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 1 is wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the pillion rider, who spoke about income of the deceased. But, no documentar5r evidence was produced before the Tribunal in support of their contention. In the absence of aly evidence put forth by the appellants, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions, the Tribuna-l can make assessment basing on the ground realities and considering the facts and circumstances of the cases. As no rncome proof was produced by the appellants before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,400/- per month i.e., Rs.52,800/- per annum. But, taking into consideration the facts artd circumstalces of the case and as the accident has occurred in the year 2Ol7 and also considering the ground realities, this Court is of the opinion that the income*yrhich is taken by the Tribunal needs to be revised for the reason that in the year 2017 obviously 7 NNR.J !{acma 2E0 2020 the agricultural labour would earn minimurn amount of Rs.200/- per day. Taking the said aspect into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month to re-assess the compensation basing on the notional income of the deceased

10. There is no dispute rega-rding age of the deceased, which was taken by the Tribunal. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly applied the relev,alt multiplier '11'as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Corporation2 considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, whi,:h needs no interference. If the monthly income of the dect:ased is taken at Rs.60O0/- per month, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.72,OOO/- (Rs.6O0O x 12). Cc,nsidering the age of the decease d, loyo amount is to be added as future prospects on the annual income of the deceased as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in fipecial Leave Petition (Civil) No.2559O of 2014. If the same irs applied, the future prospectus of the deceased would come to Rs.79,2OO ' lzoosy s s.c.R 1098 8 I{NR] Macma 280 2020 \ (Rs.72,000+7,200). Since the dependents are four in number, if 1 /4th is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income of the deceased come to Rs.59,400 (Rs.79,200 x lla\. Since the age of the deceased was 55 years at the time of accident, the relevant multiplier is '11' and after applying the same, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.59,400 x 11 : Rs,6,53,400/-. Apart from the aforesaid amount, the appellants are entitled to arl amount of Rs.18, 150/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs. 18, 150/- towards loss of estate.

11. The further contention of the appellants is that the Tribuna-l has not awarded consortium to the appellalts. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N<rtional Insuro,nce Compang Ltd. a Pranag Sethi and others3, 107o consortium would be added for every three years. If the same is applied, appellant No.l is entitled to an amount of Rs.48,400/- AS spousal consortium, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to an amount of Rs.48,400/- each as filial consortium and appellant No.4, being mother of the deceased is entitled to an amot.rnt of Rs.48,400/- as parental '(2or?) 16 scc 860 9 NNR.J Macma 280 2020 consortium. Thus, in all the appellants are entitled to following compensation. S.No. Description Amount awarded (in Rupees) 1 2 4 Loss of dependency consortium 6,53,400-OO Spousal, frliaI and parental consortium to appellant @ Rs.48,400/- each Loss of Estate Funeral expenses Total amount 1,9:],600-00 18,I 50-00 18,I 50-OO 8,8i!,3OO-OO

12. In view of re-assessment made by this Court, appellalt Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to tota-l crtmpensation of Rs.8,83,300/- as against the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.5,05,600/-. Considering the aforesaid reasons, I hold that this point is answered accordingly in I I favour of the appellants.

13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.8,83,3OOl- (Rupees Eight Lakhs eighty three thousand three hundred only) enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,05,600/- to Rs.8,83,300/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Out of which, appellant No.l 10 }IN&J Macma 280 2020 I I 1 .1 (wife of the deceased) is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,83,000/-, appellant Nos.2 arrd 3 are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,OO,0OO/- (Rupees one lakh only) each and appellant No.4 is entitled to receive arr amount of Rs.1,00,000/- The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest @ Z.S% per annum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the sarne as per the aJoresaid apportionment. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad(With records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri S Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A Rama krishan Reddy, Sc [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK,/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 310312025 I , l'z' ..-ta=: -:==-.:- . ,; i,.Lt. S-rAfa\. r tr^.,,!. ';- r':, .,., 1l i, I !:i 2t25 a,il I', 'i : t"' ..: -,....:', ': . jt.' JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.280 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS -.]* IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCE LLANEOUS APPEAL N O: 280 OF 2020 Between: l.NunavathDooliBaiW/o.N.Babu,Age.4Syears,OccHousehold'Rio H]loO-rSla, Munipally Village (Thand-a), Jakianpally Mandal, Nizamabad District.

2. Nunavath Srinivas, S/o. N. Babu, Age. 25 years, R/o H No'6-15/4, Munipally - Vittage (Thanda), Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. 3. Nunavath Sridas, S/o. N. Babu, Age 23 years, R/o H'No6-15/4, Munipally - 4. Nunavath Malu Bai, Wo. N. Tarya Naik, Age.68 years, Occ Household' R/o' Sl+, Munipally Village'(Thanda)I Jakrdnpally Mandal, Nizamabad Vittage (Thanda), Jakranpally Mandal' Nizamabad District' 'if"frfo.O-f District. AND 1 Badavath Jeevan, S/o. Badavath Hari, Age. Major, owner of tractor-bearing G. nF.z5,qn .liqa, arc H.No.9-663, P-adkal Village, Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad District, T.S. ...AppellanUPetitioners

2. Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. byi!9 B1a1c.[$an999r' - -giancn office, Abids, Hyderabad. (Policy No. 100031311171013455 valid trom 29 10412016 to 28104 120 1 7 ). ' . '. ResPondents/ResPondents Appeal filed Under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Award and deciee in M.V.O.p.No.127 ot 2017 daled.O2l12l2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad. Thisappealcomingonforhearinganduponperusingthegroundsofappeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and up6n hearing the arguments of Sri s surender Reddy, Advocate for the A Rama krishan Reddy, sc for the Respondent No.2 hnd none Appellants and of appeared for the resPondent No.1 -sri This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.8,83,i100i- (Rupees Eight Lakhs eighty three thousand three hundred orrly) enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,05,600/- to Rs.8,83,300/- ra,ith interest @ 7.Syo per annum,

2. That out of which, appellant No.l(wife of the deceased) be and hereby is entitled to receive an amount of Rs 5,83,0001, appeilant Nos,2 and 3 are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,00,000^ (Rupees one lakh only) each and appellant No.4 is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,00,000/_ ; 3, That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest @ 7.5o/" per annum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

4. That On such deposit, the appellants are permitted tc withdraw the same as per the aforesaid apportionment;

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stahds confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ \ \ \ / SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (principal District Judge) at N izamabad 2. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 310312025 DECREE MACMA.No.280 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WTTHOUT COSTS f) 2 LD