The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is frled under Section 173 o the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellants-clairi ants being aggrieved by the Award and decree' dated 26 t1'2018' in M.V.O.P.No.477 of 2016 passed by the Mot'r' Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Niz tmabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claimants wer(r awarded an arnount of Rs.15,42,000/- as compensatiol 'r ith interest @7 .5o/o Per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28'06'2016 Bodire Prashanth (hereinafter referred to as 'tlr: deceased') was travelling as a pillion rider on a motort" cle bearing No.AP-16-CN-9678 along with one Prakash' wLr was riding the said motorcycle and when they reached I :ar Sainath Society on the outskirts of Quthbullapur' at at" ut 2:OO PM the driver of the truck lorry bearing No'AP-24-W -083 parked the vehicle in the middle of the road at t'' rning point negligently without putting any signals, indicator': etc'' due to ith the said which rider of the motorcycle came in contact " --\* _. *-.=.._€rEi .i \-l 2 NNRJ Macma-301 2020 l truck, as a result of which the deceased along with the rider of the motorcycle fell down from vehicle and received injuries all over the body. The deceased also sustained fracture of skull, fracture of nasal bone and other multiple and grievous injuries all over ttre bodY.

3. Immediately a-fter the accident, the deceased was shifted to Narayana Hrudayala Hospital, Secunderabad' where the deceased died on the same day at about 7:40 PM while undergoing treatment. The appellants-claimants incurred an arnount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment and transportation of the dead body. The appellants, being father' deceased stated that the mother, sister and brother of accident has occurred due to negligent parking of lorry bearing No.AP-24-W-4083, by its driver in the middle of the road without taking any precautions' The police Dundigal registered. a case in Crime No.339 of 2016 under Section 304- .the A of IPC.

4. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years, pursuing B'Tech final year in Malla Reddy College of Engineering and Technolory and he also received offer of appointment in M/s' Micro Spark Solutions' The J NNR.J Macma 303 2020 deceased also used to earn an amount of F s.40,000 /_ per month and contributing the sarre to t re family for maintenance. Due to the death of the Ceceased, the appellants lost their love and aJfection, financ i rl support arrd suffered menta.l agony, as such the appellar ts claimed an amount of Rs.3O,0O,OOO/_ towards comperi ation for the death of the deceased.

5. Respondent No. 1 remain ed ex pc,; fe before the Tribunal. Notice sent to respondent No. i ,r,as returned unserved. Hence, notice against respondent No is dispensed

6. Respondent No.2 lnsurance c( mpany filed r the petition counter-alfidavit denying the averments made and also denied as to the nature of the i ccident and involvement of the crime vehicle. It is also plez ded that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle u,i rout holding ary valid ald effective driving licence. It is ste ted that the compensation claimed by the appellants is e r :essive and hence, he pravs to dismiss the O.p.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, tt e Tribunal frarned the following issues for consideration: 4 NNR,J Macma 303 2020 Whether the accident took place due to rash arrd negligent driving of &iver of Truck lorry bearing No.AP-24-W-4083 by its driver causing death of Bodire Prashanth?

2. Whether ttre appellalts are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent artd from whom? To what relief."

3. 8. On behalf of the appellants, P'Ws' 1 and 2 were exanined and marked Exs.A. 1 to A. 12' On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W. 1 was examined and Ex'B' l-copy of insurance policy was marked.

9. Having considered the entire material placed on record, particularly the evidence of P'W'2 coupled with Exs.A. 1 to A.4, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to negligence of driver of truck lorry bearing No.AP-24-W-4083 stationed in the middle of the road, as suph he is responsible for the accident and accordingly, granted an amount of Rs'15,42,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 7 -5o/o per annum from the date of the petition till the date of reaTizatiofi' Being aggrieved ald unsatisfied with compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants preferred the present appeal' -7 f: 5 NNR,J Macma 301 2020

10. Heard Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, lee rned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Venkata Rami Fl ddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2_Insuance Jompany.

11. Learned counsel for the appelkr Tribunal submits rts-claimants appreciate the career of the deceased, who r ,as studying Engineering and Technologz final year and he is future in his life ald he may get good sala4, r Rs.50,0OO/- per month. Learned counsel furr that the Tribunal should have awarded monthlv i deceased at Rs.3O,OOO / - having held that there on the part of driver of the truck lorry. He fur.r that since Ex.B.1-policy is in force as on the date the Tribunal ought to have granted total corr; Rs.3O,OO,O0O/- as claimed by the appellants counsel further submits that the Tribunal also di any arnount under the head of pain and sufferinE appeliants have incurred an amount of Rs.2, l treatment of the deceased and the Tribunal i amount of Rs. 15,OOO/- towards loss of Rs. 15,O0O/ - tovr.,ards funeral expenses. However. t- raving bright f more than her submits rcome of the s negligence her submits of accident, ,ensation of Learned I not award though the ),000/- for warded an state arrd the learned \ \ 6 NNR.J Macma 301 2020 Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to negligence of driver of lorry, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has hxed the deceased's income at Rs.lO,0OO/- per month and also not awarded compensation under the head of larenta-l consortium and filial consortium' as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma Genero,l Insurance Compang Llmited. Vs. Nanu Ram alls Chuhrtt Ro,ml. lcarned counsel further submits that Tribunal has granted very meagre compensation though the appellants are entitled for more than the claim and hence, he pray prays allow the appeal. L2. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record, has awarded compensation as per entitlement of the appellants and that the assessment made by the Tribunal cannot be found fault and therefore, there are no grounds to enhance the same and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 'zors 1te1 scc rio -1. 7 NNR.J \lacma 303 2020

13. Considering the submissions madr by both the counsel, the point that arises for the conside ration in this appeal .is whether the appellants have rr rde out any ground for enhancement of conpensation, as prayed for? 14, POINT: It is not in dispute that no cross appeal r; preferred by the respondents challenging the award p r ;sed by the Tribunal. As such it is deemed that the resporL, lents have no grievance with regard to the award passed b1 the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 has not disputed the liability, i rvolvement of vehicle in the accident and the alleged negliger r e on the part of driver of crime vehicle, it can be taken th: r there is no objection for respondent No.2 in respect of tlr. same. The only objection raised by respondent No.2 is that the appellants are not entitled for enhancement of c( mpensation.

15. It is the case of the appellants that r t the time of accident the deceased was aged about 20 years rnd studying B.Tech final year and he also received offer o' appointment from M/s. Micro Spark Solutions on 20.06.201O. The said letter is marked as Ex.A. I I . It is also not ir dispute that prior to the accident, the deceased used to earn rl amount of \ -\ t., 8 NN&J Ma(na 303 2O2o T I '..1 Rs. 15,OOO/- per month. Ex.A. 1l letter was received by the deceased eight (8) days prior to the date of the accident. If the said accident could not taken place, the deceased would have joined in the said company and he will get monthly salar5r of Rs.20,000/-. But, in paragraph No.7 of the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not arr employee and he was studying B.Tech., fmal year as per the evidence of P. W. 1 , as such Ex.A. I I was not useful to the appellarts as deceased was not doing any job and he is not ar earning member as on the date of the accident. Considering the fact that the deceased being B.Tech student, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month.

16. In support of contentions of the appellants, the appellants also relied upon the Judgments of the Hon,ble Supreme Court between Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & ORS2, wherein the Honble Supreme Qourt by considering the various judgments in the case of Lata ltradhawa and others v. State of Bihar and '?(Arising out otsLp (c) No.5345 of20 t 9 9 NNR,J Macma_10] 2020 otherss and further relying on the judgme.r . in the case of Taff Vale RIy. V. Jankias+ wherein consid ,: rng the case of Kishan Gopal and aaother v. Lara and othr:.ss, the learned Tribunal in the said cases has accepted the r otional income of Rs.30,000/- including future prospectus ir rd applied ,15, multiplier considering the age of the petitioner_ therein who is aged about 12 years. 17' But, in the present case, as the receased was more than 20 years as on the date of the accri:nt and there being an offer of appojntment received by him to assess his income of i.e., Rs.2o,ooo/ -, which clearly shou that the said offer of appointment was given by M/s. vlicro Spark Solutions.

18. Admittedly, the deceased is pursuin; 3.a year II semester as on the date of accident. This Cor rt is of the opinion that though the finding given by the Trib_ nal appears to be correct, considering the age of the father zur I mother of the deceased about 4O years ald 3g years and ttr y lost their son who is -at the age of 2O years obviously, Ur: deceased '(2oor)8 scc te7 " 19 t3 AC I t 1zott1 t scc zta \ I l0 NNR.J Macma 303 2020 would have been earned an arnount of Rs.2O,OOO/_ even after completion of B.Tech, which would be in the year 201g. Considering the same, tlis Court is of the opinion that the notional income of the deceased can be taken at Rs. 15,000/_ per month .

19. It is now well settled that even for the self_ employed, future prospects are to be included in assessment of the compensation. Considering the age of the deceased as 2O years, additional 4O%o of income has to be added towards future prospectus to the monthly income of the deceased as per the decision of pranag Sethl, ccse. If added, the monthly income of the deceased would be of Rs.2 1 ,OOO/_ (Rs. 15OOO +6OOO) and the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.2t,OOOx l2). As per judgment of Sorrtc Venna a. Delhi Tvansport Corporatione , 5Oo/o of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of ttre deceased as the deceased being bachelor and aged about 2O years. After deducting the same then the actual annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,26,000/_ (Rs.2,52,ooo/- (-) Rs. r,26,ooo / l. u 2oo9 ed 1298 (sc) 2a- -.ii: . NNR.J Macma 30.1 2020

20. As per the column No.4 of table pres :ribed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Se rla Verrna,s case and considering the age of the deceased as 20 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceas: 1 age is ,1g,. Thus, the total loss of dependency woul I come to Rs.22,68,000 / - (\,26,000 /- x 18).

21. The appellants/ claimants are furthr.: entitled to Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 1g, l:)/- towards funeral expenses, as per Pranag Sethi,s ,htdgm,z fi (supra).

22. Further, considering the fact that a;, ,ellant No.1 being the father and appellant No.2 being m; .her of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/-eact under the head of 'loss of consortium'as per pranag Selihi': Judgment (supral.

23. Appellalt Nos.3 and 4 being sister anr brother of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation r r a sum of Rs.96,8OO/-.(Rs.48,40O x 2) towards larental conr ortium,, as per Company Limited v. Nq.nu Ro;m alis Chuhn Ram and otherz . F\:rther, the appellants also spent an emount of '2ott 1t sy scc r:o t2 NNR.J Macrna 303 2020 t. ..1 Rs.17,327 l- towards treatment of the deceased. In proof of the same, they l-rled Ex.A. 12 -Medical bills, which show that the deceased was admitted in the hospital at Malla Reddy Narayana Multi Speciality Hospital. Taking into consideration the same, this Court is inclined to grant al amount of Rs.17,327 /- towards medical expenses.

24. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the aJoresajd cited decisions, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modilied and recalculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference:

25. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: ) ii) iii) iu) ual Income (of the deceased) s. r5,OOO/- X 12 = Rs. 1,80,OO0/- Total Annua.l Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income + 4O7o) = Rs.1,80,000/-+Rs.72,000/- = Rs.2,52,000/- The deceased is below 2O years Soyo is to be deducted towards personal expenses Rs.2,52,000/- (-) Rs. 1,26,0Oo/- = Rs. 1,26,o00/- Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Rs.22,68,000.00 r. +IV 13 NNR.J Macma 301 2020 v) lairrrants' entitlement towards conventional heads rMultiplier = Rs.1,26,OOO/- x 18 1lc ; lrss of Estate + F\-rneral Expenses + loss of i consortium + loss of filial consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.48,40C +48,400 + 48,400 Medical Expenses Total Rs.2,29,900.00 Rs.17,327.00 Rs.25,15,2271-

26. Thus, the appellants/claimants arr entitled to enhanced compensation of fts.25,15,227 l- against the awarded arnount of Rs.l5,42,OOO /- by the learnt., L Tribunal.

27. Considering the circumstances of r I e case, the Iearned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate ( f interest at

7.5 o/o per annum and the same needs no interf(.. ence by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinio r that the ) I appellants/claimants are entitled to interest @ 1 5 o/o on the enhanced compensation. ( (

24. Accordingly, the appeal is allou r d in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,.1 Z,OOO /- to Rs.25,15,227 /- (Rupees Twenty Five Lal<hs Fifte: r Thousand Two Hundred ald Twenty Seven only) with inte - .st (@ 7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the dat : of petition t4 NNR,J Macma 303 2020 t till the date of reaJization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount sha-tl be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to Misceilaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal+u - Principal District Judge , //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER at Nizamabad. (With records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri. Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KH/gh HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.303 ot 2020 [ 2 DRAFTS] ,l rH: s14 /€ \; t, ,<, * 3 0 JArl 2026 t_/ .: .),- n )( PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. 5 * t [ 34431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 303 OF2O2O Between: '1. Bodire Shglkar, And 3 Others, S/o Rajanna, age 44 years, Occ. private work, R/o H.No.9-7, Bodiregatty, Bheemgal Village and Maridat, Nizamdbad Diskict. 2 Sm! Bodire Laxmi, Wo Bodire Shankat, age 42 years, Occ. House wife, R/o H.Nd9-7, Bodiregally, Bheemgal Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. 3 Bodire- Ganga Jamuna, D/o Bodire Shankar, age 24 years, Occ_ Student R/o H.No.9-7, Bodiregally, Bheemgal Viilage and Mandal, Nizamabad District 4 Bo.dire^ Pradeep, S/o Bodire Shankar, age 22 years, Occ. Student (All R/o H.No.9-7, Bodiregally, Bheemgal Village and Mahdal, Nizamabad District ) ...Petitioners/Claimants AND ,| 2 Jyothi Mu.nagala:|ld 4rn-ot!er, D/o not known, major, Owner of Truck lorry ' bearing No.AP^24_-W-1083, R/o H.No.25-13-373, Datta Srinivasa Nilayam Apartment, N.G.Os. Colony, B.V. Nagar, Nellore Rural, Nellore Distri6t, Andhra Pradesh. The New lndia Assurance C-ompany Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office at APSFC Building, 1st Floor, Subadhnagar, Opp. Zp office, Nizamabad (Policy No.62010731150'100000695 valid from ta.Oj ZOtO to 13.01.2017) Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 477 ol 2016 dated. 26/1 112018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at Nizamabad. t Respondents/Respondents 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. Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri V. VenkSta Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for lhe respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal t r and hereby is parfly allowed;

2. That the compensation amount awarded by the trit rnal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.15,42,0001 to Rs.25,15,227t- (Rupe, s Twenty Five Lakhs Fifteen Thousand rwo Hundred and rwenty Seven Rup res only) with interest @ 7.5To p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the r ate of petition ti the date of realization;

3. That the respondents be and hereby directed to dep ,sit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit t r the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from th, receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

4. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of th,: Tribunal sh.all stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. A. S1 EEN IVASA REDDY T REGISTBAR SII iTAN //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum Prrr cipal District Judge ' at Nizamabad. (With records, if any) Two CD Copies 2 KH/gh HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.303 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. i