The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is hled by the Insurance Compalr. aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 19.03.2020 in M.V.O.F. '1o.68 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Trib rnal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the I ribuna1,,).

For convenience and clarity, the parties hereir. rre referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tnt unal was that on 14. 1l.2Ol4 Lhe deceased was returning from lL; s agricultural Iields by walk and when he reached near Guntur Car Lp of Paidimal Village at about 10:30 p.m., one Tractor bearing lr o.TS- l6-ATR- 7792 clriven b), its driver in a rash and negligent me.r speed, dashed against the deceased from behrnd zr ner at a high !, d the tractor turned turtle, fe1l on the deceased, as a result rf which the deceasecl died on the spot. The petitioners sought a ;ompcnsation of Rs.20,00,OOO/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 hled counter denying av:.ments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the a:cident, age, \ ,I .. \.] "E-ll 1 2 ETD,J MACMA No.354 2021 avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that - the driver of the tractor was not holding a valid driving iicense and thus, they are not liable to pay compensation. 6 Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occttn-ed due to rd_sh (rnd negligent d.riuiig of taclor bearing No.TS-6-A-TR-7792 bA its driuer? 2) Wethq the peLitioners o.re enttfled for compensation ? If so, to what omoutlt and frorn uhich of th,e respondents ? 3) To whdt relieP

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined pWl and 2 and Exs.A 1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and 2 got examined and Ex.B1 to 83 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,82,8O0/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insura.r.. Co-p"rfy.

9. Heard the submission of Srr A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counscl for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted thaL the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence. He further argued that the Tribunal has committed error in quantification of compensation and that it has come to a wrong -/ -./ 3 ETD,J MACMA No.354 2021 conclusion with regard to the income of th: deceased. In the absence of any proof, the Tribunal ought to nr,,, taken Rs.4,5oo/- as notional income of the deceased, but the Trib. rnal has taken the income to be Rs.B,0Oo / - per month which is ery excessive. He further argued that the future prospects also czri rnot be taken into consideration as there is no hxed income to thc deceased and the Tribunal ought to have awarded onry 60/o interes. nstead of 7.5yo.

11. Learncd counsel for the respondents on th: other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just c tmpensation and therefore, pra-ved to uphold the same. He furtt t r submitted that rvith rcgard Lo consortium, the Tribunal failed to onsider the legal principles and therefore, prayed to enhance the sa d amount.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this lourt frames the following points for determination, Wethcr the reasortuble? compensation granted bg. tle Tribun tl , rust anrl n 2 Whethc:r the order intct lerdre ? and decree of th,e Tibunal need ang

3. 'fo ultut rellef?

13. POINT NO.1 :- a) The case of the appellant is that the Tribrr ral has granted huge compensation by assessing the .income of thr deceased to be Rs.8,OOO/- per month in the absence of any prooi ilcd by them. it islasserted by PW1 that her husband used |, e.rrn around 4 ETD,J MACMA No.354 2021 Rs.20,O00/- per month by doing agriculture. No proof is liled in this regard. The deceased was aged about 35 years as per the pME report under Ex.A4. He was running a famiiy of six persons i.e., his wife, three children and parents. It is asserted by pW1 that he was qiite hale and healthy prior to the accident. Considering all the se factors, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,OOO/ - which appears to be just and reasonable. b) The Tribunal has considered the principles laid don n in National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi and. Otherst, and has awarded 40%o towards future prospects and has also deducted 1/4e towards personal expenses as the number ol dependents are six. It is further observed that the Tribunal has taken the right multiplier as '16'since the deceased was aged.35' years as per the PME. Thus the compensation arrived by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency as Rs.16,12,6OO/- is *,ett justified. c) To the said amount the loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate have to be awarded. I d) In the light of Pranag Setht's case, Rs. 15O00/- towards loss estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ' AIR 2otz scc 5157 5 ETD,J MACMA No.354 2021 Rs.40,O00/ towards loss of consortium have to tt awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% ever1, hree years. e) In Mdgmd. General Ins-urqnce Compang Lir tited u, Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others2, the Apex Court l discussed the principles laid down in pranag Sethi,: as elaborateiy case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parent of the deceased are also entitled to 1oss of consortirr in thc present case, the claimants would get Rs.z towards loss o[ consortium, hence, the compen]j , and chiidren n. Therefore, 8,400/- each Ltion amount under this head would be Rs.2,90,400/_ instead c,l Rs.40,O00/-. Further an amount of Rs. lg,l50/- towards funeral :xpenses and Rs. 1 8, 150/ - towards Loss of Estate have to be awarc r d. 0 The present appeal is preferred by the Insuril rce Company and there is no appeal or Cross Objection filed by t re claimants. Now the question is whether the compensation can lrr enhanced in lhe absence of any cross appeal by the claimants. g) ln Sc,nobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and Ors. Vs, Ahmedabad. Municipal Trd.nsport Senrd.ce3, the claimants whc are the iegal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before tht lribunal and the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,51,3O0/- along r.ith interest rlzotnl rs scc t:o ' (20 r.1) 16 SCC 7 t9 6 ETD,J MACMA N0.354 2021 towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment the respondents has filed an Appeal before the High Court and the High Court has partly allorved the Appeal of the respondent and reduced the compensation to Rs.2,51,8OO/-. Being aggrieved by this Judgment, the legai representatives of the deceased hled Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has awarded the compensation more than that claimed by the petitioners and further has held that, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legai re presentatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony. It has further held that without a claimants appeal also, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation. h) Similarly, in Surekhrr and Ors. Vs. Santosh and. Orsa, the claimants case was allowed by the Tribunal' awarding a t compensation of Rs.40,17,6021-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has flied an appeal before the High Court wherein, the High Court has held that the claimagts are entitled to Rs.49,15,376/-, but has held that the High Court cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal and cannot enhance the compensation more than that awarded by the Tribunal, in an appeal fi1ed by the Insurance Company. However, the appeal preferred by the ' (zozry too scc +oz 7 Insurance Company claiming reduction of con dismissed. When the matter reached Apex Court, i in the matters of Motor Accident Claims, the Court I hyper lechnical approach and ensure that just rrr awarded to the claimants. By holding so, the 1,1 modified the order passed by the High Court to th: compensation amount payable to the appellants isr Rs.49,85,376/- with interest thereon as awarde I Court. ETD,] MACMA No.354 2021 )ensation was has held that hould not take mpensation is rex Court has effect that the determined as by the High i) In And.hro. prad.esh State Road. Transpcn t Vs. Dusqri Pramila and AnotheF, the Tribunal has awarded i1 compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and aggrieved by the same, l1e lnsurance Company has preferred an appeal before this HigL Court which has held that even in the absence of Cross Atrr1 eat or Cross Objection filed by the respondents, it is pertinent t,r gonsider the jurisdiction of this Court to grant just compens 1 .ion and has enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,OO,0OO/_ to l<;. 15,g2,600/- with an interest of 6oh per annum from the dale r f petition till realization. j) Applying the above cited decisions, conr rensation is enhanced in the present case, though the claimants rave not filed any appeal or cross objections_ ' MACMA.No.88 nf 20l1 8 ETD,] MACMA No.354 2021 k) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensatlon amounts I 2 3 4 Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Compensation towards loss of consortium Compensation towards loss oI cstate Compensation tolvards funeral expenses Total Rs.16,12,8OO/- 2,9O,4OOl- Rs.ra,150/- Rs.1a,150/- Rs.l9,39,5OO/- l) It is held that the enhancement of compensation from Rs. 16,82,800/- to that of Rs.19,39,500/- would be justihed in the present case. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:- In view of the hnding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modihed. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 16,82,800/- is enhanced to Rs. 19,39,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5o/o. This Court also has been consistently awarding interest at the rate of 7.5o/" in al1 cases. Hence, the same is upheld. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is disposed of upholding the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and nefligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing No.TS 6 A-TR- 9 ETD,J MACMA No.3S4 2021

7792. Further, the compensation is enhanced from to Rs. 19,39,5O0/- and the enhanced amount ofconr carry interest @ T.S% per annum from the date of cl realization. However, the interest for the period ol forfeited. The respondent No.2 is directed tl compensation amount with accrued interest within r months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ..1 deducting the amount if any already deposited. Orr the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said arr furnishing any security. No costs. ts. i 6,82,8O0/- rensation shali Lim petition till lelay, if any is deposit the period of two rdgment after such deposit, ount without Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII S D/-A.V.S. PRASAD E,I ,UTY REGISTRAR \p \ J :CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 BGS \ t""1 " i d e n t s c r a i m s r ri Vn a r - c L n - V r r r A d d i t i o n a r ",{, y;1,': 3 [?l3ii::l One CC to SRt A.RAIT/AK*.t:l_.t|4 REDDy Advocate [OpLl, )] one cc to SRTAKKAM esnwni nuill",Jr?iIlti ,, Two CD Copies Lvrvul "y;1 M, HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: 1010612025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.354 of 2021 {/ c O r! * ihfi S T4 t- rf0r[zffi z * -r4l .:,; 0 DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS , b v\ D I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 354 OF 202'l Between: tMagma HDI General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Magma House, 24 Park Street, Kolkata, West Bengal State - 700 0'16. ...APPELLANT /RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 1 2 4 6 Azmeer Kamili Bai, W/o Late Azmeer Suresh, Age. 28 years, Occ. Household, Azmeer Narendhar, Sio Late Azmeer Suresh, Age. 11 years Azmeer Surendhar, S/o Late Azmeer Suresh, Age. 9 years Azmeer Surekha, D/o Late Aznteer Suresh, Age. 7 years, Azmeer Maruthi, S/o Late A. Hatya Nayak, Age. 62 years, Occ. Nil, Smt. Maruni Bai, W/o Azmeer Maruthi, Age. 57 years, Occ. Household, (Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are minors and are being Represented by their Mother and Natural Guardian Azmeer Kamili Bai i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) All are Rl/o H.NO.2-84l2, KOKALDAR Thanda, Vami Mandal, Nizamabad District, Presently Residing at Bibipur Thanda, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. I

7. Sri Azmeer Babu Singh, S/o Hatya, Age. Major, Occ. Owner of the Tractor ...RESPONDENT NO. 1 to 6 /PETITIONERS bearing No. TS 16 ATR7792 (Engine No. 3100EL143GG435136F3, Chassis No. EZYSE43795B53), Fl/o H.No.2-91, Kokaldas Thanda, Pedmal Village, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS NO. 7/RESPONDENT NO. 1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 68 of 2015 dated 19/03/2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad. ORDER: The 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 A.RAIvIAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 to 6. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the Motor Accide "?,, r,"fl .i..iblil,,e.ool_ yl ;i:,iT ifl : i,t 3 ,. ifil,,innJ,n"Jl,llx,gn,:r,n" o,i,",Li riaciJiiJZr.i"g No.-rs j_A-rR_77ei. o f u p h o ro r n !' i n ; ;# ;t Rs.19,39,500/_ is be and hereby enhaniuJi.i, :s.,i ? i l;l,t J., s, ii ?: : fl . : ili'liifi:il?iffiH#,![?,ilifJ::','::iHl,.x3, , erest @ 7 5% pa 4. That the interest for ihr u 1si iil 'il;,;il:ti:,fi,l:i:i:.i:,Jl3.d#"'3,I.l,ijft,,, to deposit the compensation amounr with accrued int"i".t #iit i" a period c r two months from or a copv or ttiiil,ii!"i,"rit ,il"io"or"ting he amount, if any, ^ $r"":5l,"r""t "Tapt 6' That on such deposit. the,appellant is be and hereby entit r d to withdraw the . :?,0. j ,iiiiti::i,':,,T,?,.SI:!l:k1;i[" *'r# or the Lower rcurt sharr stands 8. That there be no orderJ as to coiiJ in this appeal. amount without furnishing any.u"riiir].." "' //TRUE COPYII Sd/- Si IA.V.S.PRASAD *:::lsrRrB .1" \r,,,r'o* oFFrcER a 3ll?iiSiiil!;Yil",i yil:t",1'" ide n ts c ra i m s rii b u n a r-c u nr v, A dd i t i o n a r Two CD Copies W,/ To, 1 Z BGS HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: 1010612025 DECREE MACMA.No.354 of 2021 t t , DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I "tt