The High Court · 2025

Judgment

TI'ris M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants/clai nants/ petitioners under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award anrl decree passed b1, the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-VlII Additior a-l District Judge, Nizamabad (hereir-rafter referred to as ,the Tribunal,) .r M.V.O.p.No.4O0 of 2016, dated 21.06.2019, seeking compensarion of Ii ;. 35,00,000/_ on account of the death of Macha Sudhershan (hereinaf er referred to as "the deceased") in an accident that occurred on 1 1.0 L 2 C 16. 2

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter r.r ferred to as thet, are arrayecl before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant / :laimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.40O of 2016 under Section 166 (1) (: of the M.V.Acr, 19BB and Rule 455 of M.V.Rures r989, seeking com[ ensation for the death of the deceased, *.ho died in the accident allel :d to ha'e been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver )f the lorrv. It is contended that on 1 1.01.20 16, the deceased was retu.r .g on his T.V.S. X-L motorcycle beanng No.AP2S-AR 1533 from Nizamrr )ad to Dichpally and when he reached near Beedi Company Godorvn, I) chpally Railway 2 rq4r1 MAcl"rA.No-373 oLLo2q ,l carne in a rash and Station, a lorry bearing No.AP-16-TX-2124', negiigent manner with high speed being driven by its driver lost control over it and dashed against the TVS X-L motorcycle of the deceased from its rear side. As a result, the deceased fell down and offending lorry rar] over his head. As a result' the head of the deceased was crushed and died on the spot. The Police, have registered a case vide Crime No' i2 of the offending vehicie The 2016 against the driver of appeliants/claimalts claimed an amount of Rs 35'00'000/ as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads'

4. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunai' \ ras that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 44 years artd w'as earning Rs.40,000/- per month by working as Beedi Commission Agent at Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Product Limited and maintaining a diary farm. Due to the said accident' the petitioners lost their dependencY.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No' 1- the ou'ner of the offending Lorry remain ed ex-parte Respondent No'2 - United India Insurance Company Limited, hled a counter-affidavit' denying a1l the averments made in the ciaim petition and contended that the offending I i 3 !48 .2 MACMtl.lto. 313 of 2O2o lorry driver was not having varid and subsisting cr: iving ricense at the time of accident and the said offending rorry was 1ot involved in the accident and the said accident occurred due to th: negligence of the deceased and further contended that the comp 3 rsation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6 Basing on the preacrings arrd averments made t y both the counser, the learned rribunal framed the fo[owing issues wh r h reads as under: "1. Whether the qccident ho.s taken place on 1l.1.201t at about 9.45 *!: -l"".to rqsh and negllgent driuing of the Lorry tter nng No.Ap_ 16_ TX 2124 by its diuer?

2. Whelher lhe otuner and No Ap- 2 s -AR t s3 3 a re ; ;:tr[T:;,:: X;l'r:{*:::,7 3. Wltether lhe resporudent No.1 has uiolated the temts o.F he policg: 4..Whether the petitioners are entitled. to claim comper::Ltion, if so, to Luhat amount? / s XL beains

5. To what reliep" 7 . To substantiate the petitioners, case, pWs. 1 tc 3 were examined and marked trxs.A I to A 1 3. None examined rn behalf of the respondents, hou,ever trx.B l_copy of the insurance p,) icy was marked.

8. After considering the material on record and rl e evidence placed by both the parties, the learnecl Tribunal allowecl tlL, claim petition in 4 part and granted compensation of Rs' 10,98 '75,O1- 7 .Sok per annum. ltNR"l MAcMrtNo.313 o,L2o29 along with interest ('' g. Being unsatisfred and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is hled on the following arnong other grounds that as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged about 44 years and was earnihg Rs'40'0O0/- per month as Beedi Commission Agent in Prabhudas Kishore Das Tobacco Product Limited and was contributing the same to the welfare ol the family, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the above averments and lrxed the income of the deceased at Rs'6'50O l- per month and the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads' 10. Heard Mr. Amrutha Sanjeeva' learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners and Mr'M'satish Reddy' learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company' Perused the material on record' 1 1 . Admittedly, the respondents have not fried cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal' As such' there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents' age of the deceased and accident' I / 5 IJhlR,J M^CM1LNo.313 of 2O2O Considering the rival contention raised by both the learned counsels, the onll,point arose before this Court in this appeal i, that: i) Whether the petitioners ore entitled compensation., if so, to uthot ertent? fo, \e enhanced

12. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants r ubmits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries susta ined and death of the deceased. [n cross examination, PW1 to P\l': were examined. Exhibits A. 1 to A. 13 rvere marked on behalf of pet tioners. In cross examination, PW.l was examined, but she was not he eye witness to the accident. PW.2, who was the eye witness deposecl before the learned Tribunal narrated the said accident and submits r hat the offending crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 16-TX -2124 cz me in a rash and negligent manner n,ith high speed ald dashed ag r nst the deceased from his back side and the lorry ran over his head. as a result deceased died on the spot. The learned Tribunal having acc,: deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of cf rted the fact that 'ending Lorry, but without considering the evidence in proper manr ( r vr.ith regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fi> income at Rs.6,500/ - per month and also rr, :d the deceased's ,t awarded just compensation under the various head as per as pel the judgment of \ 6 rq4r1 !49M-4e4Lel2!29 i Hon'ble Apex Court rn National Insl.trance Compang Limited Vs' Pranag Sethi and otherst.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference' t4 None appear for resPondent No.1 Point No. 1:

15.Admittedly,thedeceaseddiedduetotheaccidentoccurredon ll.0l.2016, alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. The petitioners claim that the deceased was workingasBeediCommissionAgentatPrabhudasKishoredasTabacco Product Limited and was earning Rs'40,000/- per month' however as per Ex.A7 i.e., the bank statements of the deceased ftom 24'04'20 10 to 22.01.2016, it shows that the income of the deceased was starting from Rs.4,910/- in the month of April 2015 ald gradually increased to Rs.6,732/- by January, 2016, which clearly establishes that the deceased was getting a salary Rs6,7321- as on the date of accident and I 2017 ACJ 2700 7 !141 MACMA- tlo,3 r 3 of 2O2O the Tribunal though considered the Ex.A7, but t rken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/-, a reducti,r t of Rs.232/- per month, which appears to be unjustifiable with rLr reasons and the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income f rr the deceased as Rs.6,7321-. Hence, considering the ground real 1 .es and that the deceased was aged about 44 years who was hale art healthy, as such, the deceased income can be notionallv taken r?r Rs.6.l 321 - per month.

16. Apart from that, as per the decision of the Hor' r1e Supreme Court in National Ins'urantce Compang Limited. Vs. )) 'andu Sethi and othersz and considering the age of the deceaserl as 44 years, an additional 25Yo of the income has to be added towarc s future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, thr: the deceased would come to Rs.8,415/- (Rs.6,731 The annual income of the deceased would comr: monthly income of /- * Rs.t,683l-). to Rs.1,00,980/- (Rs.8,a15l X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to b: deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as there inr: e five dependants depending on the deceased as claimed by the petitio: rers at the time of 2 2017 ACJ 2700 B ,vtY8-J 2020 the accident. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs'75'735/ (Rs. 1,00,980/ - ( \ Rs.25,2a5 I -l'.

17. As per the column No.4 of the schedule prescribed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma u' Delhi Transport Corporations ' and considering the age of the deceased as 44 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is'14'' Thus' the total loss of dependency wouid come to Rs 10,60,290 l- 175'7351- x A\' is further entitled to Rs. 18, 1 50 / - 18. The appellants / claimants (Rs.15,000/- + loyo + 10%) towards loss of estate arrd Rs' 18' 150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + loo/o + 10%) towards funeral expenses' as per Pranag Sethi's Judgment (cited supra). lg. The appellant No.1 being the spouse ofthe deceased' the appellant No.1 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs'48'4O0/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium', as per Magma Gcneral Insurance Compang Limited Vs.Nanu Ro:m alis Chuhnt Rama ' 2(.. Appellant Nos-2 to 4 being the children of the deceased' they are entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs' 1'45'200/- (Rs'48'400 x 3) 3 2oo9 ACJ 1298 (sc) 4 2018 (18) scc 130 lrr\rR.J A4YLliS LleI .2429 under the head of '1oss of parental consortium' ls per Magnta's 9 Judgment (cited supra)

21. Appellant No.5 being the mother of the deceari' cl, she is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under t-,l: head of 'loss of lrlial consortium'as per Magma's Judgment (cited srl >ra)

22. In Sarla Vernta's c<rse (cited aboue), the H,r r'ble Apex Court, u'hile elaborating the concept of Just compensation'ot served as under "Posl compensation is adequate compenscttion uhicn is lair and equitable on the facts and ctrcumstances of the case, to t uke glood the loss suffered as a result of the u-'rong, as far as moneLl un do so, by applging, the tuell settled pinciples relating to auard ol ctmpensation- Il is tlot intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of p r fit."

23. On overall re appreciation of the pleadings, matc rial on record and the lau, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in t-re aforesaid cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claiman t ; are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recr t:ulated as above and given in the table for easy reference

24. Considering the above assessment made by thi; Court, appellants rr,ould be entitled to as follows: ^ 10 !44J a4!,44.!e..?!Le12929 i) -l i) L lAnnua.l lncome (of the deceased) Fs.6,7321- X 12 = Rs 80'784/ Total Annual lncome = Annu Prospects (Annual lncome X Rs.80,784/- + Rs.20, 196/ Rs. 1,00,980/ - iii) Annual DePendencY = Total Annual Income - I /4 deduction towards Personal expenses of the deceased al Income + Future 2s%\ = L I 'ul Itt Rs.75,735 / - Rs. 1 ,00,980 / - (-l Rs 25'2as / - Total DePendencY Annual DePendencY x APPlied Multiplier = Rs 75 ,7351 - x 14 Claimants' entitlement towards conv t oss of Estate + Funeral ExPenses + consordum + Parental Consortium + consortlum = Rs. I8. l5O/- + Rs l8,15O/' + Rs 48'4OO/ Rs. I,45,200/- + Rs 48'400 ention:1l heads = loss of sPousal loss of hlal Total Rs.10,60,290/' Rs.2,78,300/- Rs.13,38,590/-

25. Thus, the appellants/ claimalts / petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensatlon of Rs.13,38 ,SgO I ' as against the awarded arnount of Rs.10,98,750/- by the learned Tribunal'

26. Considering the circumstances of the case' the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7 5 o/o per annum and the sameneedsnointerferencebythiscourt'Hence,thiscourtisofthe opinion that the petitioners/ claimants are entitled to interest @ 7 '5 o/" on the enhanced amount J .1 i I 11 MACMA. !44,J 2020

27. Hence, the petitioners/ claimants are entit t d for an enhanced compensation of Rs.13,38,59O1-. Accordingly, the 4.A.C.M.A is allori'ed in part, enhancing the compensation from I ls. lO ,98,7 50 I - to Rs.13,38,59O/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty I ight Thousand and Five Hundred and Ninety Rupees onlyf with rnterest at the rate Cgt,7.5 n,6 p.a. on the enhanced amount from the dz te of petition ti1l the date of realization. The respondents are directec to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after grr i rg clue credit to the arrrount already deposited, if any, within a perioc :f trvo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgmer-rt. The compensation amount shail be apportioned among the a 1 pellants / claimalts / petitioners in the same manner ald in the same r;r io as ordcred by the learned Tribunai. There shall be no order as to cosr:.

28. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, s r rll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDr- M. OSMAN ALI BAlc ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cur _ (Vlll Addl District Judge) at Nizamabad. (With records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri. Amrutha Sanjeeva,Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri M. Satish Reddy. Advocate [OpUCl 4. Two CD Copies SNJigh HIGH COURT DATED:1 0/03/2025 -_ .- ^ -. -.:_-- i'l D IAi {:- ' '.,.j . ro( o , I il | JLt' .,r I l.r I.LLJ C,:i i'- ..,' -".t.' '| JUDGMENT+DECREE [2 DRAFTS] MACMA.No.313 ot 2020 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED t" J \ \ [ 34431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCI1 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO:313 oF 2020 Between:

6. Macha Kavitha, Wo Macha Sudharshan, Aged 43 Years' Occ' " 7. Macha Maruthi, S/o Macha Sudharshan, Aged 24 Years' Occ' iii-" otr,p"tiyvlttage, and Mandal, District Nizamabad O"npiltV Villagb, and Mandal, District' Nizamabad oiinpirtvVillage, and Mandal, District Nizamabad

8. Macha Arun, S/o Macha Sudharshan, Aged.22 Years' Occ' - 9 Macha Navva, D/o Macha Sudharshan, Aged 19 Years' Occ - oiinpittv v'[lage, and Mandal, District Nrzamabad '10.Macha Bhulaxmi, Wo Macha Komuraiah, Aged 62 Years' Occ '" ii;Dthpriy viltig", and Mandal, District Nizamabad House Hold, Student, R/o Student, Rl/o Student, Rio House Hold, ..Appellants/Claimants AND J 4 Tiruoathi Rao Tummala and another, S/o T Pedda V-enga1ah, Maior' Owner of ilrrffi;ffi N".ni-io 1x-2124, R/o-H N-o 48-.17. Ram Reddv Nasar' a;idirilil;i Ranga Redov District-501 359 t (Not necessary Partv) United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd, Kukatpet, Rep by its Divisional Manger' 6iffi;;iofii;, F.e.No.er5' Bi:sides Hotei Mavur' Godown Road' iliii;a6ad. iR.iponoent No. 1 is not necessary partv) ...ResPondents/ResPondents Counsel for the Appellants Sri Amrutha sanieeva Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M V O P'No 400 of 2016dated.21-06.2019onthefileoftheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum.(Vlll Addl District Judge) at Nizamabad' This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' theJudgmentandDecreeoftheLowerCourtandthematerialpapersintheCase and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Amrutha sanre -.va,Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M. Satish Reddy, Advocate for the Resp,r n6sn1 No 2 and none appeared for the respondent no.1 //TRUE COPY// SD/- T,I. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASS STANT REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-curr - (Vilr Addr District Judge) at Nizamabad. (With records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies SNJ/gh HIGH COURT DATED:10/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.3'l3 ot 2O20 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED t\