Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transporl )orporationl and future prospects are added at

Sri. P. Balaiah for an amount of Rs.45,OO,O00/- '!,ith interest and costs due to the accident occurred on O4.05.it( ,14 at about 10:00 p.m.

4. On O4.05.2O14, at about 10:O0 p.m., P. Bz laiah was a piliion rider of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing \ c.AP 29 AK 2394, aJ.oog with his son P. Ramesh, they were pr() eeding from Jwala village of Rajapet mandal, Nalgonda disrr ct, towards Hyderabad on the left side of the road by followirrg, :raffic rules. 2 BRMR, J Macrna 64 2022 _1 When they reached HPCL, Aushapur, Ghatkesar, the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 29 AD 1698 and troiiey bearing No.AP 24 A 8417 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, lost control of the vehicle and dashed the motor cycie. Due to the said impact, P. Balaiah and P.Ramesh, fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and P.Balaiah u,as declared as brought dead. The Ghatkesar Police registered a case in Crime No.238 of 2Ol4 under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC against the driver of the said tractor and trolley. The deceased P.Balaiah was aged about 46 years on the date of accident and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.24,979 /- as GHMC worker. The deceased used to contribute his earnings for the welfare of his family, but due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their bread winner, love and affection and prayed to allow the O.P.

5. Respondent No. 1 - respondent No.4 herein remained ex parte befote the Tribunal.

6. Respondent No.2 - appellant herein filed counter and contended that the claimants are put to strict proof that the driver of the tractor and troiley was having a valid driving licence and prayed to dismiss the O.P. uL- -.J I ) BRMR, J \ act,r-a.64-2022

7. The Tribunal framed the following issues

1. Whether the deceased Panga Balaiah S,/o. Panga Sailu died on 04.05.2014 due to the rash and nelJ igent driving of the driver of tractor and trolley bearirtg l'l t. AP 29 AD 1698 and AP 24 A8417?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled tb comp: rsation, if so how much and from whom?

3. To what relieP

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidenc,t adduced by the parties emd the documents thereon, has allorv :d the claim petition in part holding tlat respondent Nos. 1 an<l 2 are jointly and severallv liable to pay the compensation of Rs 33,s7,296/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rar€ of 7 .SVo per annum from the date of petition tiil the date of dep; ;it.

9. Appellant counsel submitted that resp: tdent No.4 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, hence, he i:, not zr proper party in the zrppeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant subrr I -s that the Tribunal errr:d in awarding the compensation anc passed the award on surrmises and conjectures. He lurther : ubmits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that as per thl evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A.6-salary certificate, the deceased v'r s drawing a gross salary of Rs.24.979 /- and the net pay aft(l clecluctions 1 *,.,- 4 BRMR, J Macma 64 2022 r-) was Rs.22,171/- and as such, the Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.22,171 /- as the income of the deceased for computation of loss of dependency. He also submitted that the Tribunai believing Ex.A.4-PME report and other documents, ought to have considered the age of the deceased as 55 years instead of 46 years and applied lhe multiplier as 1 1 instead of 13 ald ought to have added 107o towards future prospects instead of 25%o and awarded amount is excessive. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record and awarded the compensation which require no interference of lhis Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

72. Heard learned counsels. Perused the record.

13. Now the point for consideration is: whether the appellant- Insurance company has made out any case to set aside the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal.

14. The Tribunal has observed in paragraph Nos.24 to 3O of tJ:e impugned order that the deceased was a GHMC worker and earning Rs.24,979 / - per month and was aged about 46 years as per Ex.A.7, appiied multiplier 13 as per the judgment of the .7 -// 5 BRMR, J 1,1. tcrr.a_64 2022 Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transporl )orporationl and future prospects are added at 25o/o as per thr: judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Comparl Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi ancl others2. As the dependents are I in number, deducted 1 / l}'d torvards personal income. 15- The Tribunai has properly appreciated tht facts of the case and rightly applied the multiplier and othe - calculations and arrived at Just compensation. There are no r rerits in the appeal deserve s no consideration and the same liable Lo be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. N( )osts Mrscellancous petitions, if any, pending sha1l stancl closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL Dt PUTY REGISTRAR t---'' - SECTION OFFICER

1. The XXVAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at H1'r erabad 2. One CC to Sri. A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [O ']UC]. 3. One CC to Sri. E. BALA KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC]. 4. Two CD Copies I To, TTSiPSL ' 2oo9 acJ 1298 (sc) 1 7oi7 AcJ 27cD I .,...1 HIGH COURT I { : SI4 r- 3 ?t tANzozt 7 C)\ * ,l ).{iC ) DATED: 0410812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.64 ol 2022 MACMA IS DISMISSED \o