High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A'V'K'S' PRASAD ."ResPondenUResPondent No'l THE HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.183of2o2oisfiledbytheCholamandalam M.S.General [nsurance company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No'317 of 2O2O is filed by the claimants against the Award and decree passed by the IX Additional Chief Judge-cum-FAC II Additionat Chief Judge (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P'No'2528 of 2016' dated 16. 10.2019. The claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs'2O'O0'0OO/- on account of death of Sri T.Brahmaiah, (herein after referred as 'deceased') who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 23'07 '2016'

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased was standing by the side of the road near white House, in ord.er to cross the road and at that time, the driver of the DcM van bearing No.AP-24-TA-2447 drove it in rash and, negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result the \ 2 AA+.b1.i*N"".]ry "4 sl? ,ffi deceased fe, down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to osmania Generar Hospitar and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries. The police, have registered a case vide crime No.536 0f 2016 against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 304-A of Ipc. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs.2o,00,ooo/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads in the clarm petition before the learned Tribunai. Amt 'r' t ne contention of the claimants before the Tribunal r,l,as that as on the date oi accident, the deceased was aged about 22 years anci was earning Rs' 10,oo0/- per month by working as Mason and due to untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners have become destitute and lost their dependency for which claimants claim R.s.2o,oo,0oo/_, as compensation 5' Before the rearned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed counter_ affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took prace, age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the relationship of the deceased and the 3 ITAR.J M.A.C.M.A.Ibs.183 and 317 of 2O2O claimants and further contended that the compensation 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: i) Whether the aeident took place due to rash and negligent driuing of the DCM Van bearing No.AP-24-TA-2447 musing death of deeased T.Bramiah?. ii) Whether tlrc petitioners are entitled for umpensation? If so, to uthat ertent andfromwlam? iii)To what reliep

7. After perusing the oral and documentary 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.15,1(),1OO/- along with interest @9V" per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.317 of 2O2O seeking enhancement of the compensation and the respondent No.2 - Insurance company prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.183 of 2O2O for reducing the compensation amount. 4 uA.c"W AIliR.J 9' Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contend.ed that the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 22 years, but there is no cogent evidence to substantiate that the deceased was aged about 22 years as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,o0o/- per month basing on the Ex.A6 Certificate which was issued by Building Construction Workers Union and the said Ex.A5 was brought into existence in orcler to facilitate the claimants to claim higher compensation and further contended that the rate of interest at 9o/o p.a. awarded on the compensation amount is on higher side ancl ought have granted 6% p.a. on the compensation amount and prays this Court to sef aside the Tribunal order and pass appropriate orders.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, death of the deceased and. the injuries siistained b:r, ti-re deceased. As far as compensation of the deceased is concerned, the deceased was hale and health and was aged 22 years and was earning Rs. 10,00o/- per month by doing Mason work. In cross Examination, PW3 who was eye witness and deposed before the Tribunal that on the date\-qf accident, he was coming in an auto from 5 Jv.,.n.J tI.A.C,tI.A.Itos.783 and 317 of 2020 Hayathn agar to Koti and when he reached. the White House Building, he witness the accident and submits that only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending DCM van bearing No.AP-24-TA- 2447 , which caused the death of deceased. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died for the injuries sustained in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of Motor Cycle and considered the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the d.eceased, however failed to grant future prospects in the notional income of the deceased as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurqnce Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and othersl.

11. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the insurance Company - Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company limited in MACMA No.183 of 2O2O and Sri A.V.K.S.Pra,sad., learned counsel for the claimants in MACMA No.317 of 2O2O. Perused the material on record.

12. Admitted.ly, both the parties have preferred separate appeal before this Court against the Award passed by the Tribunal. As such, there is 1 2017 ACJ 2700 6 We.C.A.a.mt,rcA arrd Sfi oW2O dispute regarding liability of the respondents and also income of the deceased. The point arose before this court in this appeal is that: i) "whether the appeilants in both the c,rses haue made our ang ground. to interfere withthefindings made bg the Tribunal." ii) whetler the Tibunal has not granted just compensation to the claimants iii) wrcther the Tribunar h,,s wronglg fixed the riabilitg on the respand.ent No. 2 - Ins ruance C omp any.', Polnt No.t to B: 13' Since, all the points are interconnected with each other, they are being dealt commonly. Admittedly, the deceased died to the injuries sustained due to accident occuri'ed on 23.a7.2arc. The claimants claimed that the deceased rvas earning Rs.1o,00o/- per month as 'Mason'' As per Ex.A6-Certificate issued by Building construction (Mason) workers Union shows that deceased was getting income around Rs.10,ooo / - per month, however there is no other documentary proof to show that the deceased was earrring Rs.10,0oo/- per month. In r.atha wadhua us. state cf Biharz, 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 for assessing the notional income of the deceased, the learned rribunal has taken the monthry income o{' the deceased 2 zoor(e) scc 197 @ 7 N'tR.J M.A.C.II.A.I&Is. 783 a nd. 3 17 of 2O2O Rs.10,000/- per month seems to be based on the ground realities and this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased @ R".10,O00/- per month which needs no interference. However, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under other heads.

14. The claimants claimed that the age of the deceased was 22 years as on the date of the accident, however claimants have not filed any evidence showing the age of the deceased as 22 years, but as per Ex.A2- Charge Sheet and Ex.A4 Postmortem examination, wherein the age of the deceased was shown as 22 years as on the date of the accident, hence, the contention of the Insurance Company regarding the age of the deceased cannot be accepted. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 22 years as on the date of the accident.

15. As per the decision of Honble, Supreme Court in No;tiono'l Insura.nce Compang Lintted Vs. Pranag Sethi o:nd oth;ersc and considering the age of the deceased as 22 years, additional 4Oo/o of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would 32017 ACJ 2700 B It'ItR.J W.*9.ff.a.l&.s.tSS and 317 of n% come to Rs.14,OOOl- (Rs.1O,OOO/- * Rs.4,000/_). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,6g,000/- (Rs.14,ooo/- x 12) and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as there are three dependants in number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs. 1, r2,ooo / - (Rs. 1,6g,000/- (-) Rs.56,000/-) for assessing the compensation.

16. As per the column No.4 of Table f-r-xed in the jucgment of the Honble Apex Court in Sarla Vertna a. Delhi Transport Cotporationa, and considering the age of the deceaseci as 22 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is ,1g,. Thus, the total ross of dependency to the petitioner wourd come to Rs.20, 16,000/- (1,12,000/- x 18). L7. The claimants are further entitled to Rs. ig,ls0/- (Rs.is,ooo/_ + loo/o + Loo/ol towards loss of estate and Rs.lg,150/- (Rs.1s,oo|/- + loo/o + Loo/ol towards funeral expenses, as per pranag sethi,s Jttdgment (cited supra). 18' Further, considering the appellant No.1 being the wife of deceased, appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.4g, 4oo /- (Rs.40,o0oi - + loo/o + 2oog Acl 1298 (sc) * --. 4 9 fr . A. c. u. A. No t. I gg orrd, g t z o Y2 o 20 10%) under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium' as per Pranag Sethi's Judgmcnt (cited supra).

19. Appellant No.2 being daughter of the deceased, the appellant No.2 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,4ool- (Rs.40,00o/- * lOo/o + lo%l under the head of 'loss of parental consortium', as per Magma General rnsurantce compang Limited vs.No;nu Rorm alls Chuhnt Ro;tns

20. Appellant No.3 being the rnother of the deceased, the appellant No.3 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,4ool- @s.40,00o/- + LOo/o + lOo/ol under the head of 'loss of frlial consortium' as per Magma's Judgnent (cited supra)

21. In Scrla Verrnq.'s cq.se (cited aboae), the Hon'lele Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of Just compensation'observed as under: "Post compensation is adequate compenscltion which is fair and equitable on the facts and ciranm,stances of the @sq to make good the loss suffered as a result of the u)rong, as far as moneA can do so, bg apptging, the uell settled pinciples relating to award of compensation. It rs not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit." s 2018 (18) scc 130 _ir 10 AINR.J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.783 and. 377 of 2O2O

22. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record. and. the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions. [ €un of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference 23- Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) ;i\ nual lncome (of the deceased) .10,OO0/- X 12 Rs.1,20,OO0/- Tota-l Annual Income = Annual Income + putui-c Prospects (Annual Income X 4O%l = Rs.i,2O,O0Ol-+Rs.48,0O0/- Rs.l,68,OO0,r- iii) Annual Dependency: Total Annuai Income - | l3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs. i,68,O00 / " (-) Rs.56,OO0/- Rs. 1,12,0OO1- iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier: Rs.1,I2,OOO/- x 18 I i I I I : i I l i Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral E4penses + loss of spousal consorfium + + loss of Parenta.l Consortium + loss of filal consortium = Rs.i8,15O/- + Rs.18,15O/- + Rs.48,4O0 + Rs.48,4O0l- + Rs.+8,4OO l - Total i___- > ,_l I I ; i -.,] I Rs.2O,16,000/- Rs.1 ,81 ,50A1- Rs.21 .97.5OO1- 11 IYIT&J ff.A.C.U.A.Nos-la3 and 3l7 of 2020

24. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.21,97,5OO/- as against the awarded amount of Rs-15,10,100/- by the learned Tribunal.

25. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest i.e., at 9 Yo pr altnum, which needs no interference. However, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5 o/o or:r the enhanced compensation amount.

26. Hence, claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of RS.21,97,5OO/- Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No.183 of 2O2O is partly allowed in so far as interest portion on enhanced amount is concerned and other ,ground raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is rejected and accordingty dismissed. The appeal hled by the claimants i.e., M.A.C.M.A. No.317 of 2O2O is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15,10,10O/- to Rs.2lrg7r5,00l- (Rupees l\renty One Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Rupees onlyl with interest at the rate @ 7.5 o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same marlner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. The \ \ !2 &a.S.O".*". r", ""d Ar r rfffi respondents a-re directed to d.eposit the said cornpensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within three months from r.he date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. on such deposit, the claimants are perrnitted to withdraw the sarne without furnishing any suret\r. There shall be no order as to costs.

27. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalr stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY'/ SDi. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ ECTION OFFICER ./ To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll l\dditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SriT.Mahender Rao, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SriA.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I NVBw R THE S c 0 3 0E[ 202t * or) 'r( HIGH COURT DATED:24103t2025 ll lnnn trf,tr vvya/tltl.at a MACMA.Nos.l83 and 311 ot 2020 MACMA'S ARE PARTLY ALLOWED.

6."6"\ Vr- d(w [ 34431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.C.M.A.Nos:183 ANO 317 0F 2020 M.C.M.A.No:'l 83 ot 2020 Between M/s. Cholamandalam MS General lnsuran@ Co. Ltd.,, rep. by its Manager, MIG-74, Dharma Reddy Colony, Above Canara Bank, Phase-l, APHB Colony, Venkatpally, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND

1. Smt. M. Pochamma, Wo. T. Brahmaiah, Aged about 24 years,Occ- Housewife All are R:/o. H.No.23-5-1075/1/A; Gowlipura, Hyderabad 2. Kum. T. Pallavi, D/o. T. Brahmaiah, Aged about 2 years, Occ- Nil (Minor) 3. Smt. T. Lakshmamma, Wo. T. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 59 years, Occ- Housewife,(Respondent No.2 being minor is rep. by her mother and natural guardian, the respondent No.1 herein) All are R/o. H.No.23-5-1075/1/A, Gowlipura, Hyderabad

4. Sri. V. Shanker @ Shankeraiah,, S/o. V. Tirupathaiah,Aged about Major, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No.2-213, Main Road, Ramula Banda, Nalgonda, Telangana State, (Driver-cum-owner) ... Respondents/Petitioners ...RespondenUResPondent No.1 Counsel for the Appellant :SRl T.MAHENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.V.K.S. PRASAD M.C.M.A.No.317 ot2O2O Between:

1. M.Pochamma, Wo.T.Brahmaiah, aged about 24 years. 2. T.Pallavi, D/o.T.Brahmaiah, aged about 6 years, 3. T.Lakshmamma, Wo.T.Venkateswarlu, aged about 60 years, Occ Housewife, (All petitioners are R/o.H.No.23-5-107 511 I A, Gowlipura, Hyderabad) ...Appella nUPetitioners AND

1. V.Shanker, Shankeraiah, S/o.V.Tirupathaiah, aged Major, Occ Business, Rl/o.H.No.2-213, Main Road, Ramula Banda, Nalgonda, Telangana State. 2. M/s. Cholamandalam MS General lnsurance Company Limited, MIG-74, Dharma Reddy Colony, above Canara Bank. Phase-l, APHB Colony, Venkatpally, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.2528 ol 2016 dated.16/10/2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Mahaender Rao, , Advocate for the Appellant in the MACMA.No.183 of 2020 and Respondents in MACMA.No.3'17 of 2020, and Sri A.V.K.Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent in MACMA.No.'t 83 ot 2020 and Appellant in MACMA.No.183 of 2020. This Court doth Order and Decrce as follows: 1 . That the MACMA be and hereby in part enhanced compensation of allowed and the compensation awarded Rs. 15,10,100/- to Rs.21,97,500/- (Rupees twenty One Laks Ninety Seven thousand and five Hundred Rupees only) with interest at the rate @ 7.5o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

2. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal.

3. That the respondents are directed to deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due cred it to the amount already deposited, if any, within three months from the date of receipt of a cop of this judgment.

4. That on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety.

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in allother respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD //TRUE COPY'/ TION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies fr-- SNJAIVB .( ..:,.o4:'-. 7 HIGH COURT DATED i2410312025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.183 AND 311 of 2020 MACMA'S ARE PARTLY ALLOWED df" \.(- h*