The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Sharadha, Wo. Laxman Housewife R/o. 29-1-3 {) rinagar Sainikpuri Secunderabad

3. R.Sandhya, D/o. Late K.S.Ramesh Kumar R/o. 29-1-3 iainagar Sainikpuri Secunderabad .... Ac rellanb/Petitioners AND

1. Robo Silicon Ltd.,, Rep. by C.V. Subbarao Robo House Flat no. 126 Road No 71 Navanirman Nagar, Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad 33 2, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPAIII /, 608 ANd 609, 2Nd Floor, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016 .... Respondents/tl 'spondents 1 & 2 Counsel for the Appellants : MR. S. SUDARSHAN REll )Y Counsel forthe Respondent-2 : MR. T. MAHENDER R/\ ) The Gourt delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMEN I HONOIIRABLE SMT.WSTICE M.G.PRIYADIIRSINI M.A.C.M-A.[oS.3O82 OF 2Ol2 and 75O of 2OL4 COMMON JTIDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.06.2012 . (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned orderJ passed by the learned Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civif Court at Secunderabad (hereinafter will be referred as TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.225 of 2008, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company preferred MACMA No.3082 of 2Ol2 to set aside the impugned order and whereas the petitioners/claimants preferred MACMA No.760 of 2014 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. Since both the Appeals have been filed by either of the parties against same impugned order arising out of the same accident, this Court is inclined to adjudicate both the Appeals bv way of 'Common Judgment'

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under I l I I I i ! i I I I I I I I : I t I I I ! ,1 -t I aI 2 lrcrld] NG.30a2/2o.r2 & ?60l2or4 a) The petitioners, who are mother arrd sis r rs,of 'I(.R.Arun Kumar' (hereinafter will be referred as tecease lJ respectively, filed claim petition under Section 163-A ofthe 14 rtor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/ - agains . .he Respondent Nos.l and 2 for the death of the deceased in .he road traffrc accident. The reason assigned by the petitionr:: s for the death of the deceased is that on 77 .O7 .2OO8 the decr:, sed along with his father K.S. Ramesh Kumar and brother-in-l rw Chakrapani from Sainikpuri was proceeding towards Rajendr r Nagar in Auto bearing registration No.AP 1 | U 5752 and whe r they reached near AOC Gate, a Tipper Lorry bearing regist ation AP 29 U 3435 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicl ,J came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto in' rhich deceased along with I'ris father and brother-in-law were p I )ceeding. As a result, the father of the deceased died on the s: >t and whereas the decearscd died in thc hospital. b) A case in Crime No.l32 ol 2O08 of Tukarer r Police Station was registered .rgainst the driver of the lorr1. I rr the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Pr:; :aI Code. The deceased was u,orking as auto driver and earr ing Rs.6,OO0/- per month prior to the accident. The accident < ccurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle lt ' its driver and 3 ulcrlr.ilG 30a2 / 2012 & 7al / l0 L1 thus, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs'a,O0'OOO/- from the respondent Nos.l and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition averments, the respondent No.1 remain d' ex-Parte arld whereas respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments inctuding the manner of the accident, age and income of the deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving license as on the date of accident and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highl-v excesslve In order to establish the claim before the learned 6. Tribunal, PWs I and 2 were examined and Exs'Al to AlO were marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, RWI rvaLs examined and Exs.Bl to El4 were marked.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the irnpugned order awarding Rs.3,83,OOO/- as compensation to the petitioners' the impugned order, the respondent Aggrieved by No.2/lnsurance Company preferred MACMA No'3O82 of 2Ol2 to l i I I I i I I i I i l I i l I I I I I I I I I I i I j i MGPJ !r\ Naz 3aa2l2ae e 7@lzota t impugned order and vhereas the set aside the petitioners/ claimants preferred the MACMA N c 760 of 2Ol4 seeking enhancement of compensation'

8. Heard both sides and perused the materi' I available on record including the grounds ofAppeal' g. There is no dispute that trx'B 1 copy of i I ;urance policy was subsistent as on the date of the accident'

10. The first and foremost contention of the k:r rned Standing Counsel for the respondent No 2 is that the 1': rned Tribunal ought to have rejected the claim application on t -re ground t'Jrat the owner and insurer of the auto in which tt t deceased was travelling were not made parties and should rave held that there is every possibility of making a separal claim by the claimants against the owner and insurer of the ir lto'

11. It is to be observecl that only when there :; negligence on the part of a vehicle in causing the accident, tee insurer and owner o[ such vehicle will be impleaded in the claim petition' But in the instant case there is no such evider ce to hold that the acciclent occurred due to the negligence on t Ie pa-rt of driver of auto in which the deceased was travelling' Moreover, the 5 I'GPI x cxANs.3o32/2or2 6 7t /2or4 Iearned Tribunal by relying on the evidence of PW2 (eyewitness) and documentary evidence under Exs.Al to ei i.e., f'IR, Charge-sheet, rough sketch, scene of offence panchanama, inquest report, Motor Vihicle Inspector Report and postmortem examination report answered issue No.l holding that the accident occurred due to the ilvolvement of the tipper lorry beanng No.AP 29 U 3435. Moreover, it is to be observed that mere probability of filing another claim petition against the driver of the auto cannot be a ground to implead the driver the auto, more particularly when there is negligence on the part of the driver of the auto in which the deceased was traveling even as per the record. Hence, the above said contention of the Iearned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company holds no water.

12. The other contcntion of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company is that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident. 1 3. In order to establish that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding vatid driving license at the time of ttre accident the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company got examined its _t, ) .l I I 6 r v\ No! n)8r/m,2&76./?o14 Assistant Manager as RWl and documentary : 'idence under Exs.B2 ald E}3. Ex.B2 is the notice issued to tlr: owner of the crime vehicle to submit necessary documents to establish that the said driver was having valid driving license. Ex.B3 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.B4 is the ratrcr card- These documents do not establish that the driver of 1L t crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. If at all the driver of the crime vehict, had no valid driving license, then certainly the concerned Po i :e would have registered case against the said driver not c I ly under the provisions of Indian Penal Code but also under t.l : provisions of Motor Vehicle Act for not holding valid and t I ective driving license to drive the said crime vehiclc. The ,r t1y competent authorities to ascertain on the issues relating tc iriving license are t}re Road Transport Authorities. In the ins ant case, the respondents failed to examine any of such li,eid Transport Authorities to prove that the driver of the <:rime ehicle had no effective and va-lid driving liccnse to drive the r t me vehicle at the relevant point of time. [n the absence of an1 uch evidence, mere issuarce of notice to the owner of the crirn: r'ehicle by the insurance company to produce relevant doc..: rrents is not sumcient material to establish that the drive r of the crime 7 MOP,I MAcr\{ .No.-ro.2/2or2 d ?6olmr4 vehicle had no effective ald valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. Hence, the above contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance L4. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal failed to see that a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act should be in accordance with the second schedule and the amount of compensation should not be on presumptions.

15. It is settled law that once the Tribunal frames an issue with regard to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle ald answers the said issue in favour of the claimant/s, it is immaterial as to whether the petition was filed under Section 166 or 163 - A of the Motor Vehicle Act, to award just and fair compensation to the claimants. Thus, the above contention of the learned Stzrnding Counsel for the Insuralce Company is untenable.

16. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Comparry argued that the learned Tribunal erred in taking income of the deceased as Rs.54,0OO/- without any basis. a MGPJ l'rM1 Nos ro32/2o'2 & 760120t4 17 . The claimdnts alleged that the deceas : I was earning Rs.6,0O0/- per month by driving the auto. Th: e is absolutely no doubt that the claimants have not filed a: 7 documentarSr evidence to substantiate the same. : In such crrc rmstances, the learned Tribunal by relying on the decision of he Honourable Supreme Court in RamachandraPPa v. III Lnager, Royal Sundaram Nliance Insutance Company Lirn ited 1 and also relying on the driving Iicense of the decease I under Ex.A10 considered the income of deceased at Rs.4,Sor /- per month. Hence, the above said argument of the Le z rned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsuran< t Company is untenable.

18. The learned counsel for the claimants cor ended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider future ;,; tspects of the deceased. i9. As seen from the impugned order, the r arned Tribunal did not consider future prospects. Since the de t:ased r,r"'as aged below 40 years ald self employed, he is e r t tled for future prospects @ 40% as per the decision laid < r rn in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sett i and others2. L 2011- SCC-5-536 2 2017 ACJ 2700 i I I

5. I I /t 9 X6PJ x^cu rl.r 3o32/2o t2 & 7601 2ol. l l j I l I I i I I I j I I I I Thus, the monthly income of the deceased with future Prospects comes to Rs.6,3O0/- per annum (Rs.a,sOO/- + Rs. 1,8O0/-). Since, the deceased is a bachelor, half of his income is required to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and thereby the alnual income ol the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.3,150/- (Rs.6,300/- Rs.3,lso/-) and the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.37,8O0/- (3,150/- x l2 months).

20. Now coming to the muttiplier, the learned Tribunal fixed the multiplier as '14'by considering the age of the mother of the deceased as 43 years. But it is settled law that even in case of deceased, who is a bachelor, it is the age of the deceased bachelor that has to be considercd for arriving to relevant multiplier but not the agc of his parents. The appropriate -- ' ^- multiplier for the persons, who are aged between 21 to 25 years would be "18", as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sorrla Venna u. Delhi Transport Corporotion3 - When the annual salary of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SCt IO M.c a N6 3o3l/20t2 d 760l20r4 Rs.6,S0,400/- (Rs.37,8OO/- x 18). Thus, the loss r f dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is Rs'6,i1 t,4OO/-' %-. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs'2,5OO/- t; vards funeral expenses ald Rs.2,50O/- towards loss of estate However' as per the principle laid down in National Insurar ce Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi aad othersa, since tht leceased is a bachelor the claimants/petitioners are entitled '' Rs 33,OOO/- under the conventional heads i.e., Ioss of estat and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled for c'r npensation of Rs.7,13,400/- (Rs.6,SO,aOOl- + Rs.33,0OO/-)'

22. In view of the above facts ald circumstanc :s, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent I'J r.2/Insurance Company failed to establish any of the grounds ' impugned order passed by the learned Tri'; set aside the rnal. Thus, M-A.C.M.A.No.3O82 of 2Ol2 is devoid of merits it' rd liable to be dismissed. However, the claimants could estrr learned Tribunal failed to consider future 1 conventional heads while arriving to the compensation, as such, the impugned order ; )lish that the rospects and quantum of assed by the ' 20t7 ACJ 2700 . i I I I W To, w II t&P) learned Tribuna-l is liable to be modified only to the extent of cgnsidering future prospects and conventjonal heads.

23. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.3082 of 2012 is dismissed and whereas M.A.C.M.A. No.76O of 2014 is allowed in part by enhencing the compensation from Rs 3,83'000/- to Rs.7,13,4O0/-, which shall carry interest at 7.5o/o per .rnnum from the date of petition titt the date of realization. The petitioner t'lo-. f, *to is the mother of the deceased is awarded RS.5,O0,OO0/- and remaining compensation of Rs 2,13,400/- shall be shared equally by petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The respondent Nos.l and 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively are lointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the ctaimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount awarded to them with accrued interest without furnishing any security. There shali be no order as to costs- Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha-tl stand closed. ITTRUE COPY// -A. REENIV ASA RE TANT R ECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, MACT-Cum-l Addl' Chief Judge' Crty Civil Court' Secunderabad (with records rf any)

2. One CC to SRl. T MAHENDER RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC tO SRI. SUBEAGARI SUOARSHAN REDOY AdVOCAIE IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. P RAJA SRIPATHI RAO Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies --:-- HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 'jjst E5?B 1)() 'lt6 J iii,q 6't .} &,'il ..ljl.ii: .<,,'..)' -:2' COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.Nos.3O82 OF 2012 & 760 0F 2014 DISM ISSI NG THE MACMA.N o.3OBZt20t2 PA RTLY ALLOWTNG THE MACMA.N o.7 60 t'). ) I 4. + IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD TIJESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTORACCIDE NT clVlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 3082 OF oF 2014 20 1 2&760 M.A.C.M.A.No.3082 OF 2012: Betl reen: BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 608 and 609, 2nd Floor, \A/hile House, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016 ...APPELLANT/2d Respondent AND

1. R.PADMA Wo. Late K.S.Ramesh Kumar Widow R/o. 29-1-3 Sainagar Sainikpuri Secunderabad

2. Smt. Sharadha, Wo. Laxman Housewife R/o. 29-1-3 Sainagar Sainikpuri Secunderabad

3. R.Sandhya, D/o. Late K.S.Ramesh Kumar R/o. 29-1-3 Sainagar Sainikpuri Secunderabad. Respondents/Petitioners

4. Robo Silicon Ltd.,, Rep. by C.V. Subbarao Robo House Flat no. 126 Road No 71 Navanirman Nagar, Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad 33 ...RESPONDENT/ I Respondent M.A.C.tl.A.No.750 OF 2014:

1. R.PADMA Wo. Late K.S.Ramesh Kurnar Widow R/o. 29-1-3 Sainagar Sainikpuri Secunderabad

2. Smt. Sharadha, Wo. Laxman Housewife R/o- 29-1-3 Sainagar Sainikpuri Secunderabad

3. R.Sandhya, D/o. Late K.S.Ramesh Kumar R/o. 29-1-3 Sainagar Sahikpuri Secfunderabad Appella nts/Petitioners AND

1. Robo Silicon Ltd.,, Rep. by C.V. Subbarao Robo House Ftir no. 126 Road No. 71 Navanirman Nagar, Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad 33

2.BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CoMPANY, 6I) i and 609, 2nd F|oor, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016 .... Respondents/Fr spondents 1 & 2 Both the Appeals filed under section 173 of Motor v€ ricres Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.v.o.P.No.225 ot 2oo8, dt. 22. t6.l2o1z on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabz r ORDER: These appeals coming on for hearing u r d upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court t elow and the material papers in the MVoP and upon hearing the arguments of iri r. Mahender Rao, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA.N o.3o12 ot 2012 arr for Respondent No 2 in MACMA.No.760 of 20'14 and of Sri S. Sudarshan Re< dy, Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 3 in MACMA.No.3OB2 of 2012 zr d for Appellants in MACMA No.760 ol 2014 and Sri Rajasripathi Rao, \dvocate for R_4 in MACMA No.3082 of 2012. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1 That the MACMA.No.3082 ot 2012 filed by the lnr; rance Company be and hereby is dismissed 2 That the MACMA.No.760 ol 2014 be and heretr is ailowed in part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the tribunal f om Rs.3,g3,O00l to Rs 7,'l 3,4001;

3. That the enhanced compensation shall carry tl.( interesl al 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 4 That the petitioner No.1 who is the mother of re deceased be and hereby rs awarded Rs.5,00,000/- and remaining compen; rtion of Rs.2,13,4001 shall be shared equally by the petitioners 2 and 3; I i ! I

5. That the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectircly are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment;

6. That on such deposit, ttte claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation awarded to them with accrued interest without furnishing any security;

7. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the tribunal be and hereby is confirmed in all other aspects, and

8. That there shall be no order as to costs. l/ ts,te Lowl( TO SD/-A.SREENIVASA R ASSISTANT REGI cT_lov oFFICE&.

1. The Chairman, MACT-Cum-l Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad. Two CD Copies

2. PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos. 3082 OF 2012 & 760 OF 2014 DISMISSING THE MACMA. No. 3082 OF 20 t ! & PARTLY ALLOWINC THE MACMA. No.76l) OF 2014 \