The High Court · 2025

Sri Bandami li Swamy Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 in MACMA and Respondent No. 2 in Cross Objections None app r ared The Court delivered the following: 7 I N ?t r u I t I x I n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A. C.M.A.No.S3O of 2O2O & X-OBJ No.33 of 2O21 COMMON JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 2O2 is fiIed by the Insurance Company and Cross Objection is filed by the claimants against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Prl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2QI7, dated 13.O1.2O20.

2. Heard K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in MAMCA -lffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Sri Bandamidi Sw'amy, learned counsel for the appellants in Cross objection. Perused the material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier Iiled M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2Ol7 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased i.e., Husband of the appellant No.l, who died in the accident alleged to have occurred due to rash and negligent ) driving by the driver of the harvester bearing re19 stration No.AP- 29-BH-2259. It is contended that, on 06.05.2O1'z at about 09.00 a.m., the deceased went to his agricultural lanc to harvest the paddy. The driver of harvester drove the vehjr le in rash and negligent manner in rash, and high passed daslr:d the deceased due to which, the deceased fell down and < ne tyre of the harvester ran over the body of the deceas,: l, as a result, deceased sustained grievous injuries and diccl r n the spot. The Police registered a case, vide Crime No.60 I 2C 17 , against the lorry driver under Section 304-A of IPC. The c rntention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that as on tht date of accident the deceased was aged about 46 years ar d was earning Rs.2O,OOO/- per month by doing Agricultural ',,ork and due to untimely death of the deceased, the petitio : :r have become destitute and lost their dependencr, lor u.hich : aimants claimed Rs.20,00,OOO/ -, as compensation.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondr: rt No.1, who is owner-cum-driver of the offender vehicle filer counter-afhdavit, denying all the averrnents made in the claim 1 etition, including the manner in which the accident took place. a ge, avocation and income of the deceased, however submitted r.lr Lr_ he being owner i I: i i i T i I II I I I I q 3 of the harvester and also admitted that the harvester insured with respondent No.2, as such he claimed that r€spopdent No.2 is liable to pay compensation, if any. Respondent No.2 has also filed counter-affidavit and contended that there was a violation of mandatory provisions under Section 143 (c) of M.V.Act, since the respondent No.1 failed to furnish the particulars of the policy date, time, place of accident, particulars of injury and name of the driver and driving license particulars and also denied the averments made in the claim petition and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Wether the accident thctL ocatned on O6.O5.2O17 at about 09.O0 am" at agiculture land oJ the Sttharom Red-dg near Pullemla Viltage, Chandur Mondal, Nalgonda Distnct due to ras\ regligent and high speed driuing of horuester beaing No.AP-29-BH-2259, bg its driuer? ii) Whether the petitiorters are entitLed to compensation and. if so, uhat quantum and. from whom? iii) To what relieJ?

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the 4 parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claj n in part and granted compensation of fts.19,9O,(XX)/- alon5l with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum.

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by tlr, compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, th: present appeal and cross appeal are filed by both the claimants and respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants submi'.r that there is no dispute with regard to accident, death of the c eceased and the injuries sustained by the deceased. In cross tl :amination, PWI & PW2 were examined and Exhibits A. 1 to A. rO n,ere marked. Learned counsel further contended that PWl s the wife of the deceased narrated the whole incident, but she is not eye- witness. PW2-Sri P.Venkat Reddy, who is thr: t le-rr,'itness to the accident and he deposed that the deceased d r d due to rash ad negligent driving by the driver of harvester.

10. [,earned counsel for the cross objectorr; submits that the deceased was agriculturist and business-mar-r , -r'rd had income of Rs.2O,OOO/- per month and the deceased \\'as otl ner of Ac.4-O0 gts of land which is in possession of the petiti,r rers. Ex.46 shows I I I I I I t ! I i i t L i i I t I I I ! t I I I I i 5 that the deceased was owner of Ac.4-0O gts of land in Pullemla Village, Chandur Mandal. Ex.Al0 is the purchase voucher showing that the deceased sold paddy to Telangana State FSCS, Chandur, fr{algonda District. Ex.A10 is the receipt issued by the Agriculture Market Committee, Chandur, Nalgonda District showing purchase of paddy for an arnount of Rs. 1,21,396. Ex.A9 is the sale receipt of one crop yielded for an amount of Rs. 1,21,680/-. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of harvester, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fxed the deceased's income at Rs.2,40,00O/- per annum and also not awarded just compensation under the various head as per the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Ncltionc,l Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi qnd otherst. 1 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-lnsurance Company submits that that the land ou'ned bl the deceased is inherited and is till in possession of the claimants, as admitted by the PW1 in her cross examination and therefore the normal rule of 1 20'.17 ACJ 2700 I I ,j : , t i i I t I I t: I \ 6 deprivation of income is not applicable in the cases of agricultural income as held by the Hon'ble Su1 reme Court in Staite of Haryana and. anotlter a. Jasblr Kau' & othersz and New India Assurance Compa ng Llmlted o. Cht Lrlie & otherd and further contended that in case of death of i n agriculturist, the legal heirs are only entitled for supervisory (:: penses and the income of the deceased is to be taken while estirr ating the future loss of dependency. l,earned counsel for the I rpellant further contended that the Tribunal has taken tht income of the deceased as Rs. | ,21,680 / -for on€ crop yield r :lying upon the Ex.A9 and in the absence of any pleading and , r'idence to show that the deceased was raising two crops per ar num in his land to compensate annual income of Rs.2,40,Or) )/ - and further contended that the Tribunal has taken multipli:r as'12'instead of '1 1', as the age of the deceased was 52 years

12. Admittedly, both the parties have liled r ppeal and cross appeal against the Award passed by the lear.red Tribunal. As such, there is dispute regarding liability of th: responderlts, age and income of the deceased. Therefore, the p rints s'hrch arose 2 2oo3 nc: l8oo r 2oo5 ao tt31 i I I 't 7 before this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are that: i) Whether tle Tnbwtal hos rightly assessed the incom'e of the deeased. ii) Whetler tle ptitioners are entitled for the enhanced ampensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.lll:

13. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on

06.05.2017. The deceased was agriculturist and was owner of agriculture land to an extnt of Ac.4-00 gts and the Ex'A6, A7, A 1O shows that deceased was raising crop on his agriculture land and according to Ex'A9 sale receipts of one crop is yielded Rs. 1,21,680. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to look down the law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in similar cases, whether ttre claimants can claim compensation lor loss of income or other operational expenses on account of death of the deceased who was having agriculture land.

14. In Stcte O! Haryana And Another us Jasbir Kaur & Orsf, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases r+'here the deceased was an agriculturist, and the land continues to be cultivated by the family, compensation should be limited to o run zoo: sc a6g6 : I I i I I I I I I I I i i i : I I i I I I I I i i t { \ 8 supervisory charge. The Court stated in the orcer, which reads S: "...The land possessed bg tle deceased stitl r,z nains uith the claimants a"s hi.s legal heirs. There is houeue r a possibilitg that the claimants mag be reEired to engage . rcrsons to look after agrianlfu.re. Therefore, the normal 1 le obout the depriuation oJ iname b not strictlg applicable o cases uhere ogrianltural income is the sour@, Atfundant ciranmstonces haue to be considered.' i5. ln M.G.Bros Lorry Serufice, Modras ,rad dnother Vs, S.Andalo,mmol and otherss, the Honble St.1 ,reme Court had held which reads as follows: "....The income from agianlhtre, fause prope t A and from the inuestments cannot be taken into a@unt fo. determining the loss of income, for, those are soures which . till continued to exist euen afTer the death of funjeeui Mu) iar. Therefore, tLere cannot be said to be anA loss from thos"- three sources"

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also tal,,t n the similar vieu in i\Ienr India Assurance Co Ltn Vs.Chu fflie 6 and New , Indla Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Kagaloizht ot rd othersT. s 1982 ACJ (Supp.) 408 6 2oos Act 1131 '2010 ACJ 2530 9 17 . Hence considering the above judgments, it can be safely arrived that it is well established principle that claimants are entitled to claim only supervisory charges in respect of agricultural land, and not compensation for notional income or operational losses and the Supreme Court had laid principles in the above judgment that in rationa-le that the agricultural land remarns with the legal heirs, who can continue its cultivation, thereby mitigating the loss of income. Point No.2:

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that claimants may be required to engage person to look after the agriculture due to sudden demise of the deceased. Therefore, a sum of Rs.9,OOO/ - per month could be lixed as supervisory charges, therefore, the deceased income can be notionally taken as Rs.9,OOO/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Compang Limtted Vs, Pranag Sethi and otherss and considering the age of the deceased as 52 ,years as per Ex.Bl-Aadhar Card of the deceased, additional 10% of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly I2017 ACJ 2700 ,ii 'l ; I I t i t E 10 income of the deceased. Therefore, the month ' income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,900/- (Rs.9,OOO/- Rs.90O/-). The annual income of the deceased would come t r Rs. 1,18,800/- (Rs.9,9OO/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to be deducted towarfls the persona-l expenses of the deceased r.s there are four dependants in number. Then the actual annrr -l income would come to Rs.89,100/- (Rs. 1,18,800/- (-) Fs.29,7oO/-l for assessing the compensation.

19. As per the column No.4 of Table presc - bed fixed in the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Sarlu Vertna a. Delhi Transport Corporations, and considering [he age of the deceased as 52 years, the appropriate multip,l er applicable for the deceased's age is '1 1'. Thus, the total losr; of dependency to the petitioner would come to Rs.9,8O,10Ol- @9,IOO/- x 11).

20. The appellants/claimants are furtf er entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + lOVo + lOYol towa-ds loss of estate and Rs. 18, 15O/- (Rs. I5,00O/- + LOoh + 10o,ir towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (: ted supra).

21. Further, considering the appellant No. I being the wife of deceased, appellant No.l is entitled to a sr.r I of Rs.48,400/- e 2oo9 Aql 1298 (sc) ;. 11 under the head of loss of spousal consortium' as per Pranag Setlrl's Jrtd.gment (cited supra).

22. Appellant Nos.2, & 3 being children of the deceased, the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,8O0/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of loss of parental consortium', as per lllagma General Insurance Compang Llmlted I/s. JVanu Ram a,lls Chuhnt Ro,mto

23. Appellant No.4 being the mother of the deceased, the appellant No.4 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,4O0 under the head of 'loss of tilial consortium' as per Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

24. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modihed and recalculated as above and given in the below table for easy relerence

25. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants '*,ould be entitled to as follows: 'o zorS ltey scc t3o t2 i) iD ual Income (of the deceased) .9,OOO/- X 12 = Rs. 1,O8,OOO/- Total Annual Income = Annua.l Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X l0olo) = Rs.1,08,OOO/- + Rs.1O,8OO/- = Rs.1,18,8O0/ iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - I /4 deduction towaJds personal expenses of the decease c l i 1 ir) v) Rs. 1,18,800/- (-) Rs.29,700/- Rs.89,10O/- Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.89,100/- x 9 Rs.8,01,90O/- Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = l,oss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal consortium + loss of filal consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs. 18,I50/- + Rs.48,4OO + Rs.48,401 + Rs.96,800 Total k.7,29,900t- Rs.10,31,E00/-

26. Thus, the appellants/ claimants are 3ntitled to the compensation o[ Rs.1O,31,8OO/- as again it the awarded arnount of Rs.19,90,000/- by the leamed Tribrr ral.

27. Hence, Point Nos. I is answered is favo: of appellant and Point No.2 is answered against the claimant,l Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part and Cross obje:.ion is dismissed. The claimants are entitled for an comF snsation of Rs. 1O,31,8OO/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty One Tf ousand and Eight Hundred rupees only) with interest at the ratr: .@ T.S o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents 13 are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the sarne manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. The respondents are at liberty to recover the excess compensation amount already paid to the claimants, if any, by following due procedure contemplated under law. There shall be no order as to costs'

28. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand I I l i closed / To, ,/TRUE COPY/' SD/. MOHO. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal jrJg", R"ng, Reddy District at L.B. Nagar' (With 2 One CC to Sri. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Bandamidi Swamy' Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD CoPies m-PrinciPal District rds) DUgh rl'1 F >- i.. [? $ua" : 1:':'. - ' ' l::::.:i HIGH COURT DATED:1ZIOG[2O25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.S3O ot 2020 & XOBJECTTONS No. 33 of 2021 36S3SJB3h.9,H5?JB,:tfi J.A? I t I i I I I 5 ! i { ' i : f t \ 9 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 530 OF 2O2O & XOBJECTIONS No. 33 of 2021 Between: lffco-Tokio General lnsurance co. Ltd, rep. by its Authorized officer, Main office at D. No. 6-3-3521 1 , Osman Plaza Road No.1 , Banjara Hills, Pan.iagutta, Hyderabad- 500034. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO 3 AND

1. Bobbala @ Bobbili Dhanamma, Wo. Late Sitharam Reddy, Aged about 45 vears, Oci. Agriculturist, presently residing at Plot No. 55, Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Hasth-inapuram Central, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Bobbala @ Bobbili Pranathi, D/o. Late SitharamReddy, Aged aboul2s years' Occ. Stud-ent, presently residing at Plot No. 55, Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Hasthinapuram Central, Ranga Reddy District

3. Bobbala @ Bobbili Pravalika, D/o. Late Sitharam Reddy Aged aboul22 vears, Od. Student, presently residing at Plot No. 55 Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Hasthinapuram Central, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Bobbala @ Bobbili Manemma, Wo. Late Buianga Reddy, Aged about 67 years, Occ. Household, (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties as the Tribunal below tritO inat they are not dependents of the Deceased and did n9t aw?Jq-{ly compersatlonl ..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

5. Siluveru Narsimha, S/o- Sathaiah, Aged Major, Occ Owner cum driver of Harvester bearing No. AP 29BH 2259 ' Rlo. H.No. 2-29lA' Kondapuram Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No. I i I I I I l Cross Obiection No. 33 of 2021 Between: ,| Bobbala @ Bobbili Dhanamma, Wo. Late Sitharam Recc y, Aged about 45 fears, Occ. Agriculturist, presenfly residing at plot No. 55 uorony, Hasthrnapuram Central, Ranga Reddy District. Bobbala @ Bobbili Pranathi, D/o. Late Sitharam Reddy, I qed about 25 vears 9::;S{-:11,_qresenfly residins at ptot No. E5. SriV"ii. :;il;;;b;i"'"r ' Hasrntnapuram Central, Ranga Reddy District. Bobbala @ qobbiti Pravalika, D/o..Late Sitharam Reddy \ged about22 Iears, Occ Student, presenfly residing at plot No. 55, 5.i V-enkateshw;a uorony, Hasthrnapuram Central, Ranga Reddy District. 'sriVenkateihwara ..,Cross Objectors/Res londents No. 1 to 3 2 3 AND ' ff:"J"ii S:ifi::;T.'jilfr "B;i'"l ?,# F.#',Ti*,?ff::j yftI Paniagutta, Hyderabad- S0OO34. ...RESPC I DENT/APPELLANT

2. Siluveru Narsimha, S/o. Sathaiah, Aged. Major, Occ. Ovr er cum drrver of e B H ?269, nro.'4. r.ro.l_z sr r ko n Ja Jr,r. "' 5i l_"^o1.u:_r-l!i n s. N o. Ap vr age, Chandur Mandal. Nalgondd District. .2 ...RESPONDE NT/RESPONDENTS (The Respondents No. 2 herein is not necessary parq, n this petition) Appeal Under section 173 of Motor vehicles Act and of cr: ;s objections Under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.p.C against the order and decree in M.V.O.p.No 49g of 2017 daled 13.01.2020 on the file of the court of the chairr an Motor Accident clarms Tribunal -cum-Principar District Judge, Ranga Reddy t) st.ct at L. B Nagar. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing ll- _. grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and rhe materiar ,apers in the op and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, for th: appelant rn MACMA and Respondent No.1 in cross objections and of sri Bandarr ci swamy Advocate for the Respondent Nos.'r to 3 in MACMA and cross object, in cross objections and None Appeared for the Respondent No.S in MACMA ar r Respondent No. 2 Cross Oblections. i l This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA is allowed in part, and Cross objections be and hereby dismissed;

2. That the claimants be and hereby are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 10,31,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty One Thousand and Eight Hundred rupees only) with interest at the rate @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment,

4. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned tribunal;

5. That the respondents be and hereby are at liberty to recover the excess compensation amount already paid to the claimants, if any, by following due procedure contemplated under law;

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the tribunal shall stands confirrned in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal /TTRUE COPY// SDi. MOHD. ISMAI DEPUTY REGI \SECTION OFFICER To, DLI 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cu Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. -Principal Distflct

2. fwo CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:12t0612O25 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.53O ot 2O2O & X-OBJECTIONS No. 33 ol 2021 MACMA IS ALLOWED IN PART AND CORSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. t"t