The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI C MOHAN PRAKASH Counsel for the, Respondent No.3 : SRI N S BHASKARA RAO The Court delivered the fotlowing: Judgment THEHoN,BLEsRIJUSTICEGADIPRAVEENKUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.192 of 2024 ]UDGMENT: Heard Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.S.Bhaskara RaO, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and perused the record'

2. The Motor Accidents civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.414 of 2019 on the file of the chairman' Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda' (for shoft,.theTribunal),dissatisfiedwiththeAwarddated20.09.2023, grantingaSumofRs.9,92,000/-towardscompensationtogetherwith interest @7.5% per annum, as against the claim of Rs'15'00'000/- claimedunderSectionl66(1Xa)oftheMotorVehiclesAct,l9BBon accountofthedeathofthedeceased'viz''MaluguRamulu'

3. The appellants lrerein are the petitioners before the Tribunal, while respondent Nos.1 to 4, driver of the car, owner of the car, insurer and owner of the motorcycle, respectively, are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2

4. Th: facts leading to filing of the instant case before the rearned Tribun;rl are that on 19.06.2018 at about 6.00 AM, while the deceased viz., Malugu Ramulu, was going on motorcycle bearing No.Ap 24 Ap 8730 from Kistapuram Village to Nalgonda Town, wherein the deceased was driving the motorcycle in normal speed on extremely left side of the road by observing traffic rules and when he reached Jamstlranpally X Road of Munugode Mandal at about 6.45 AM, one car bearinr] No.AP 29 AV 5778 and also the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 A 7509 were stopped their vehicles in the middle of the road without taking any precautions and all of a sudden, the driver of the car wes turned to Munugode side in a rash and negligent manner and dasherl to deceased's motorrycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell dcwn on the road and received multiple injuries and fractures. Subseriuently, while undergoing treatment at yashoda Hospital, MalakJret, Hyderabad, the deceased died on 22.06.2018 at about 8.47 PM. Therefore, the claimants, who are wife and daughter of the decea:;ed, had filed MVOP No.414 of 2019 craiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest at 18o/o per annum.

5. It is contended that prior to the accident, the deceased, aged about 55 years, was hale and healthyperson and was doing agriculture / -r-.''- ,,ii 3 and also taking others lands on lease and cultivating cotton, paddy along with other seasonal crops and earning an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, and that the deceased was also doing milk vending business and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same for the maintenance of the claimants.

6. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit. It is stated therein that the insurance policy issued in favour of the respondent No.2 was valid from 26.05.2018 to 25.05.2019 midnight and is in the possession of the insured. It is further stated that the MVOP is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties; and that the petitioner No.2, being marri'ed daughter of the deceased, is not dependent on the earnings of the deceased and therefore, her claim is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving licence and that the claimants are put to strict proof as regards the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The respondent No'3 specifically denies the amounts claimed by the claimants under various heads as excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated and the claimants are not entitled for the same and prays for dismissal of the MVOP. ]*---=id 4 (\;

7. Thr: learned Tribunal basing on the pleadings framed the following issues lbr consideration : "1. Whether road traffrc accident occurred on 19.06.2018 at abott 6.45 p.m. near Jamsthanpally X Road of Munugode Mandal of Nalgcnda Distric| due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing No.AP 29 AV 5775, and also due to fault parking of a motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 A 7509 in the middle of the road without taking any preczutionary measures (such as parking lights etc.,) by it's rider-R4 and whether one Malugu Ramulu s/o Shivaiah, aged 55 yearc old, died n the said road traffic accident?

2. Whether R.2 is the registered owner of Car bearing No.AP 29 AV 5778, if so, the vehicle is insured with R.3-Insurance Company and whether there are any violations of the fnsurance policy conctitions?

3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the Owner and Insurer of the Motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AP 8730 and Insu,er of Motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 A 7509?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, rrom which of the respondents and what is the quantum of com,tensation? 5. To what relie?"

8. During the course of trial, to substantiate their case, on behalf of the claimants-appellants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and docuemnts- Exs.A.l to A.B were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3, RW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R.1 - cqpy of insurance policy. + 1)') 5 g. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal failed to accept the income of the deceased, who was aged about 55 years, hale and healthy, was earning an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per annum by doing agriculture and other activities, and was also earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month by doing milk vending business, and used to contribute the same to the welfare of the family, however, the learned Tribunal accepted only an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month, which is arbitrary.

10. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.40,000/- under the head'Consoftium', but as per the judgment of this Court in 2020 (6) ALD 619, each person is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consoftium i.e. 40,000 x 2 - 80,000/- with enhancement for every three Years.

11. Learned counsel also contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered at least the minimum wage of a labourer determined by the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide its notification dated 31.05.2010, wherein in S.O.1258(E), it is stated that in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1B) of Section 4 of the Employeet compensation Act, 1923 (3 of 1923), the central Government hereby 6 r\ specifios for the purpose of sub-section (1) of the said Section, an amount of Rs.8,000/- as monthly wages.

12.In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants relies upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.ltrational fnsurance Company Limited v/s. Aggidi Raiithl, wherein the Tribunal accepted the claim of the claimants therein that the deceased therein was doing vegetable business and was earning an am()unt of Rs.10,000/- per month, and accordingly, learned counsel prays tbr enhancement of the monthly income of the deceased in the present case as Rs.10,000/-. [3. Orr the other hand, Sri N.S.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for 'respordent No.3 vehemently contended that the award passed by the learnerJ Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference by this Court. He fufther contended that the Tribunal erred in calculating the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- in the absence of any material available on record and after deducting U3'd ,out Rs.6,000/- towards his personal expenses, the income of the decea:;ed was taken at Rs.4,000/- per month, which is just and I Law f'inder Document ID 2054898 'i) 7 reasonable. Learned counsel also contended that the married daughter is not entitled to claim any amount towards compensation'

14.AsperEx.A.6-chargesheet,admittedly,there.is4odisputeasto mannerofaccidentandthatthedeceaseddiedon26.o2.20t8,on account of the injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 19.06.2018, while undergoing treatment' PW'4' who is the eye- witness, categorically deposed that the accident was occurred only due torashandnegligentdrivingofC-arbearingNo.AP29AV5778and alsonegligentparkingofthemotorcyclebearingNo.AP2gAT50gin the middle of the road without taking precautions' Therefore, the Tribunal by taking into consideration the evidence of Pws'1 and 4 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.6, held that the deceased died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and rider of motorcycle.Further,theTribunal,bytakingintoaccountEx.R.l-copy of insurance policy, which shows that the respondent No.2 had insured thecarbearingNo.APzgAVsTTSwiththerespondentNo.3- insurance company. As regards violations of the insurance policy conditions, since, RW.1 did not depose anything and did not adduce anydocumentaryevidencethattherespondentNo.2violatedthe 8 r'\ conditions of the insurance policy, the Tribunal held that the responrlent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation.

15. Thr: Tribunal basing on Exs.A.3-certified copy of inquest report and A.4-certified copy of post-mortem report, calculated the age of the deceased as 58 years and in terms of the decision of the Hon,ble suprenre court in Sarla verma u/s. Dethi rranspoftation corporatiorl, to the age group of 51 to 55, the applicable multiplier is "09",

16. corrsidering the age and avocation of the deceased that he was doing agriculture by cultivating personally seasonal crops such as paddy, cotton, red gram, mirchi and earning an amount of 'Rs.2,50,000/- per annum and also by doing milk vending business was earniryl an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.6,000/- per month as the notionar income of the deceased, after deducting 1/3'd towards his personar expenses, the monthly income of the der:eased was arrived at Rs.4,000/-.

17. sirce the deceased was earning income by doing agriculture and taking others lands on lease, seasonal crops etc. and also doing milk vendin,J business, this court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in 2 2OO9.{CJ 1298 (SC) J 0 9 calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, which is meager and not even equivalent to the income of a labour or workman which was determined by the Government of India by way of circular referred to hereinabove. That apart, in the case of Aggidi Raiitha (Supra),whereinthedeceasedthereinWaSavegetablevendorandthe Tribunal took the income of the vegetable vendor as Rs.10,0001., therefore, keeping in view of the said judgment, the Tribunal ought to havetakentheincomeofthedeceasedmorethanRs.6,000/-. \ ( ( l8.However,tomeettheendsofjustice,thisCourtdeemsit appropriatetotakeintoaccounttheincomeofthedeceasedatleast Rs.8,000/- per month, equivalent to minimum wage of a daily labour as.perthecircularinstructionsissuedbytheCentralGovernmentand 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards living and personal expenses whichcomesto5,360/-(8000x1/3-2640).Further,10o/otowards future profits is added, which comes to Rs' 5,360x12x9 = 5,78,880+ 57,888 ( 10o/o of 578880 )=6,36,7 68/-; towards loss of estate to Rs.15,000/-; and funeral expenses Rs'15,000/-; and ross of consoftium to Rs.40,000/- each (40,000x2=80,000), and medicalexpensesof4,90,000/-totalingtoRs'12'36'7681- (6,36,768+ 15,000+ 15,000+80,000+4,90,000)' l0 r' ,\

19. Accordingly, the MACMA is allowed enhancing compensation from Rs.9,92,000/- to Rs. 12,36,7681-. The same shall be apportioned to the claimants equally. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at

7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. No costs.

20. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPYII SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -?(?- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (principal District Judge) ^ { Natg_onda.(With records, if any) 2. One CC to SRI C MOHAN PRAKASH, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRt N S BHASKARA RAO, Advocate iOpUCi 4. Two CD Copies ADK s - .: ;:tl!qi {Er. ' 1_rt.r i '.! : .t ,.1 I I HIGH COIJRT DATED i2'111112025 ii* "::)rJ Ll $ \ihfi tt6 1 6) .l> * * 6959:i, i JUDGMENIT+DEGREE MACMA.No.192 of 2024 ALLOWING THE MACMA 2L o t3487 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Between

1. Mulugu Bujjamma, wo. Late Ramulu, aged -50 Years, occ- Houshord, R/o. Kistapuram Village of Munugode Mandal of Nalgonda District.

2. Dende sujatha, w/o. Venkatesh, aged -30 Years, occ- Houshold, R/o. plot !o.658, Prasanth Nagar colony, Saibaba Nagar, vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District. ...Appellants/Clai mants AND

1. Dadi laja vikramarka @ Dadi Raji Reddy, s/o. sathi Reddy, aged- 32 years, 9".-99$. Fmplgygg and Car Driver, R/o. Palvela Village oi Munugode Mrq9gl N_alg.onda District. Pin code No.508218.(Diver of tne Car b6aring No.AP- 29 -AV-5778)

2. Dadi Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Sathi Reddy, aged- Major, Occ- Business, R/o.Rathnanidhi 4 Builders, Flat No.G-3, A-Block, Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam of Hy_derabad, Pin code No. 500070.(owner of the Car bearing No.AP- 2e -AV-5778)

3. P.ajaj Allianz General lnsurance company Limited, represented by its Manager in Legal, Branch Office, R/o. North East Plaza, 4th Flooi, Beside B.M.W. Show Room, Opp- RTA Office, Hyderabad. (Policy No.0G-19-1813- 1801-00000290, valid from 26.05.2018 to 25.05.2019)

4. Murtha Venkanna, S/o. Maraiah, aged -32 Years, Occ- Business, Fl/o.Jamasathanapally Village of Muingode Mandal of Nalgonda District(owner-cu m-rider of the motorcycle No. AP -29-A-7509)(Amended as per the orders in 1.A.No,273 ot 2022 0310312022). ...Respondents Appeal fiied Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order decree in tr4.V.O.P.No.41 4 of 2O19 dated.2Ol}gl2023 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nalgonda. This app-.al coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal,' the Judgmentend Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI C MOHAN PRAKASH, Advocate for the Appellants and cf SRI N S BHASKARA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed enhancirrg compensation from Rs.9,92,000/- to Rs. 12,36,1681-;

2. That the same shall be apportioned to the claimants equally; 3. That the enhanced compensation shall carry interest al 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

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

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRARG SECTION OFFICER /TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nalgcnda 2. Two CD {)opies !} ADK I ( HIGH COIJRT DATED iz',t 11112025 DECREE MACMA.lrlo.192 0f 2024 ALLOWII{G THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS )A