The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri T. Mahender Rao Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri C. Buchi Reddy Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT i:/ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDI.Y 2 M.A.C.M.A .No.32O of 2O\9 JUDGMENT: Thrs appeal, under Section i73 of the Motor Vehir I rs Act, 1988, is filed by the appcllants- lnsurance Company, chailen1l -tg the order and decree dated 08.11-2018 passed in M.V.O.p.No.2Ci of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum. l I Additional DisLrict Judge, at Warangal (hereinafter referred to as ,,tl- whercby the Tribunal avi,arded compensaLion of R s together with interest at 7.syo per annum to responden herein / claimants for the death of one Bandi prac : Tribunal"), 22,2o,4Oo I - \os. I anct 2 :ep Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased,,) in a motor vehr: : accident.

2. The brief lacts of the case are that the deceased r i.e_, respondent No.1 herein went to Bangalore to attend in a Multi-National Company_ On 27.O3.2O12 at abol I near Hosur Road, TVS Show Room, Service Roacl. Agrahara, r.r,hile r-espondent No. 1 and thc deceased were , road, tt Tavera vehicle bcaring No.KA_S1_g4gg being I driven rn a rash and negligent manner dashed the decea which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died nd his rvife Lt-r intervicrv

8.15 P.M., Konappana rossing the i ts drive r: ied, duc to A criminal case vide Crime No.69 of 2Ot2 was registered against the ( river of the Tavera Vehicle for the offences under Sections 27g,33g. ) and under Sections 134 (Al, (B), 187 of Motor Vehicles,\ )4-A of IPC

1. Statrng I I t \ \- 3 that the deceased was 32 years old at the time of his death, he was working as a Process Associate at Gentac-p, Hitech City, Madapur, H1,'derabad, his annual salary u,as Rs.2,30,OOO/- and hc had best opportunity o[ promotion in his profession, the claimants (respondent Nos. I and 2 herein) i.e., wife and mother of ihe deceased hled the aforesaid claim petitron before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.25,OO,O00/- against Lhe owner ald insurer of the crime vehicle.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein remained ex pdrte. Respondent No.3 in the claim petition/ appellant herein i.e., the insurance company filed counter denying the manner Ln which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceascd. It is also stated t]lat the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective licence at the time of alleged accident and that there was no rash and negligence driving on the part of the drivcr of crime vehicle and prayed to dismiss the peLitron.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tavera Vehicle ancl accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.22,2O ,4OO / - in favour of claimants-rcspondent Nos.l and 2 herein together with interest (@

7.5%o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein jointly and severally. l 4 Challenging *re samc, the present appeal came to b'r fl1ed by the insurance comPany Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5. Insurance Company vehemently contended thaLthe clailr examine the company's accounts-officer or produce bar of the deceased to establish credrt of the amount shov and in lhe absence ol such proof, Ex A 9 {salary cer deceased) is unreliable; there is no crcdible evidence I finding that the deceased's income rvas Rs 12'0OO/- pe as such the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appellants- ents failed to k-statements n in Ex. A-9 ificate of the support the ' month; and is excessivc, disproportionate and unsustainable counsel aPP€E.ing 6. On the other hand, learned herein contcr.t ed that the claimants-resPondent Nos l and 2 compensation au-arded by thc Tribunal is just and -' asonable :rnd for the needs no interference by this Court'

7. At the thrcshold, the finding recorded by the Tri runal that the deceased died in the accident occurred duc to the rasL alri negligent driving of the driver of thc crime vehicle is justified by I re material on record

8. Coming lo the question of quantum of corl lensation' the Tribunal assessed Lhe notional income of the deceasc<l at Rs 12'OO0/- per month. Keeping in view the object and purp':rr;' of the Motor \F 5 Vehicles Act, in order to afford just and fair compensation to t}le dependents of accident victims, the notional income as assessed by the Tribunal, in the facts of this case, cannot be said to be excessive or contrary to settled pnnciples.

9. In vie.,v of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, irregu larity or perve rsity in the impugned judgmcnt, so as to warrant interference in this appeal. i0. In the result, the appeal is dismissed As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, i[ an1,, shall star-rd closcd. No order as to costs. SdA M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge at Warangal.

2. One CC to Sri T. lt4ahender Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri C. Buchi Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KVR k, HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED:2811112025 ,4 t: i. i ,) 'i:jl:'*. ,,' .-:. .::, ' : ).:,. "-a,"a " i t'ht\ lttt, ! --:. . .._ JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.320 of 2019 DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS 5 .i-( s t0 1', L e IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACC IDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 320 OF 2019 Between:

1. Reliance General lnsurance Co. Ltd., rep by its Branch Manager, 41311 and 32m, I1th main 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 061 .

2. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager, H.No.1'1-24-13111 and2, 1st Floor, SSS Plaza, M.G.Road, Warangal. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT Nos. 2 & 3 AND

1. Bandi Arpitha Wo. late Pradeep Kumar, Aged 34 years, Occ Post Graduate, 2. Bandi Vasantha Kumari W/o. late Saraiah, Aged 58 years, Occ Household. Both are R/o.H.No. 24-1-1O7, Darga Kazipet, Warangal City. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

3. Sagaya Jayarani, wife of not known, aged about 38 years, Occ Business, RJo. H.No.AS, Behind Sri Vidya College, Kammasandra, Electronic City, Bangalore-100. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.'l Appeal filed under Section '1 73 of MV Act against the Order and Decree dated 8-1'1-2018 in Ir/VOP No.207 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge at Wa ra nga l. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Mahender Rao, Advocate for the appellants and Sri C. Buchi Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 'l and none appeared for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 either in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Motor Accident Civil lvliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is d ismrssed; 2 That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sha I stand confirmed in all other aspects; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Sd/. NI JAWAHAR REDDY -'$..-- ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// s{c\roru OFFICER To, 1 2 The chairman, Nllotor Accidents ctaims Tribunal-cum- [ Additional District Judge at Warangal. Two CD Copies KVR P HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 2811112025 Fi .HE S T4 ( oI1 CrJ -1' ,) ,' t itr ? 2l]2q 2 t ! >ATC DECREE MACMA.No.320 of 2019 DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS 4 Jrs tol,]-a