The High Court · 2025

Sri T Ramulu (No More) Counsel for the Respondent No 3 & 4 : Sri A Rama Krishna Reddy Standing Counsel The Court delivered the following Judgment : HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.88 of 2o22 JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Family Court Judge -cum Additional District Judge, karimnagar, in M.V.O.P.No.33O of 2Ot4, d.ated Og.t}.2)tg, the claim petitioners in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed belore the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts oI the case are that the claim petitioners, who are the wife, daughters and parents of Late Avunoori Swamy (hereinafter be referred as the deceasedJ, hled a petition under Section 166 (1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- from the respondents on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.07.2014. It is stated by the petitioners that on 12.O1.2014 during morning hours, when the deceased was proceeding to Peddapalli to attend his work as driver on the Tractor Bearing No.AP-O7-G- 4564 for cutting trees, on the way at about 1O.00 AM, when he reached at the outskirts of Sabbitham Village, in the meantime, a Lorry Bearing No.AP-28-V-6160 which came from Peddapalli towards Adavi Srirampur side and which was 2 MGP,J MiCMA.No EB ol2022 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the tractor of the deceased u.ith great force while overtaking the said Tractor. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries on his Head and on vital par[s of his body and immediately, he was shifted to the Hospital in 10g Ambulance and at about 10.30 A.M., he succumbed to injuries on the way to Hospital at Raghavapoor Village.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Basanthnagzrr police Station, Karimnagar District, registered a case in Cnme No.g of 2Ol4 under Section 304-4 IpC. It is statcd by the petitioners that the deceased was 38 years old aL th<: time of accident and he was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by working as a Driver on the Tractor Bearing No.AP-07-G-4564 and used to contribute his earnings for family. Due maintenance, welfare and development of his to unfortunate death of the deceased, the petitioncrs lost lheir support, became destitute and rvs16 plrl to mental agony and shock. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 14,00,000/ against the Respondents.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.5 remained c,x-parte and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 entered appearance and [il:d their coun Lers denying the material averments made in the A 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.88 oJ 2022 petition. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/Driver and Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP-28-V 6160, stated in their counter that police of Basathnagar Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered a false case in Crime No.8 of 2O14 under Section 304-A IpC and also hled false charge sheet against respondent No.l to claim compensation and that there was no negligence on part of respondent No.1 in driving the lorry and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against them.

6. Respondent Nos.3 & 4/United Insurance Company rep. by its Manager and Branch Manager hled its counter contending that the owner of the crime Lorry failed to inform to the respondent- Company about the accident and copy of FIR as provided under Section 158(6) of M.V.Act, i988. Therefore, they cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against the Insurance Company.

7. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribuna,l had framed the following issues for conducting Trial: - (t) Whether the pleaded occident took place on 12.01.2014 at 1O.00 hours at the outskirts of S<tbttham ViLLage due to rash and negligent diuing of Lorry baring No.AP-28 V 6160 diuen bg 4 MGP,) MACM,\.No.88 ol 2O22 Ri came Jrom Peddapalli toluzrds Adctur Snrampur stde qnd. dctshed to the Troctor Beoing No.AP 07-G-4564 as resltt of tt-'hich the deceosed Atunoori Swamug, who tuas going to Gundaram Village from Peddapalli for cutting trees bg diuing tlrc said tractor receiued seuere injuies on head c.nd other parts oJ his bodg and ded on the uog while shrfting to HosPital? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to anli compensaton? If so, to tuhat amount ond from of the respondent? (ii) To uhat relieJ?

8. Bcfore the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. I to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked' On behalf of rcspondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however. Ex.B 1 Copy of Insurance Policy was markcd with consent. g. After considering the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation oi Rs.9,79,00O/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5%o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit pavable by respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5 jointly and severall)'. Flaving not satisfied with the said compensation amount, the claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking cnhanccment of the same. { , 5 MGP,J MAC^,|A.No.aA of 2O22

10. Heard Sri T. Ramu.lu, iearned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners as well as Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4/lnsurance Company. Perused the record. i 1. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellants as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken income of the deceased @ Rs.g,0OO/- per month by considering Ex.A7-Salary Certihcate of the deceased and ought to have awarded future prospects to the income of the deceased and also ought to have awarded parental consortium to his two children, spousal consortium and filial consortium to the parents of the deceased and also ought to have awarded more interest @ 72o/o per annum instead of 7 .5o/o pet annum and hence prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation.

72. Per contra, iearned iounsel for respondents/lnsurance Company contended that the learned Trial Court, after considering all the aspects, had rightly awarded reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

13. Now the point that arises for determination is, Whether tLrc order passed bg the learned Tibunal requires interference of this Court? MGP,I ttla. MA.Na 88 oJ 2022 POINT:- 14. A perusal of the record shows that pretitioner No.l/u'ife of the deceased was examined as PWI and filed an affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and reiterated the contents made in the claim petition. As she is not an eye witness to the incident, she got examined PW2, an eye witness tc, the incident who deposed that on I2.t)1.2O14, when hc rvas going to Peddapalli from his village in order to attend some personal work, on the way at the outskirts of Sabbitham Village, he noticed one lorry bearing No.AP-2S-V- 6160 comrng from Peddapalli towards Adavi Srirampur and which rvas driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the Tractor of the deceasecl due to which, the said Tractor turned turtle and the driver of the said traclor fell down and the crime 1orry u,as stopped at a distance o1-20O yards away from the piace of accident and the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Immediately, he along rvith the mother of the deceased shifted the deceased to Hospital in 108 Ambulance, but on the way, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

15. The r:vidence of PW3/owner of the Tractor Bearing No.AP-O7 -(i-4564 discloses Lhat the deceased used to work as driver on thc subject Tractor and was being paid an amount I I I 7 MGP.I MACMA.No.88 of 2022 of Rs.8,OOO/- per month towards salary which is also evident from trx.A7-Salary Certilicate.

16. Apart from oral evidence, the petitioners also filed documentary evidence under Exs.Al to A7. Ex.A1 is the FIR registered by Basanthnagar police in Crime No.g of 2014, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the inquest report. Ex.A4 is the post-mortem examination report which discloses that the cause of death of the deceased was due to 'Head injury,. Ex.AS is the copy of Form S4-Accident Information ReporL. Ex.A6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector report. Ex.A7 is the salary certificate issued by M.R.Prasad of Goureddypet Village, peddapalli Mandal.

17. Therefore, from the evidence of pWs 1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence marked under Exs.Al to A7, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-6160 which is having valid insurance as on the date of accident as per Ex.B 1.

18. On the other hand, the respondents did not adduce any oral evidence except marking Ex.B1-Insurance policy with consent. 8 MGP,) MA(MA No.88 oI2022

19. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the evidence of PW3 into consideration and ought to have fixed the income ol the deceased @ Rs.8,000/- per month as per trx A7-Salary Certihcate and ought to have awarded future prospects'

20. ln t.his regard, this Court has perused the evldence of PW3/Owner of Tractor bearing No.AP-O7-G-4564 which discloses 1,hat the deceased used to work as Driver on PW3's Tractor prior to his death and PW3 used to pay Rs'8,O00/- per month towards salary of the deceased and trx A7 is the Salary certifrcate issued by him. Hence, this Court, taking into consideration the evidence of PW3 coupied with Ex'A7- Salary Certificate is inclined to hx the income of the deceased @ Rs.8,0O0/- per month by interfering with the hnding of the learned Tribunal.

21. It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioners lhat the learned Tribunai ought to have awarded parental consortium to his minor child. This C:ourt, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Compang Limited o. Nrrnu Rrrm @ Chuhnt Ro,rn and othersl, is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,OOO/ to his minor daughler i.e., petitioner No.3 in O.P. I '(zort) ts scc t:o 9 MGP,] MACMA No.88 of 2022 under the head of parental consortium and herebv calculate 1 the compensation as detailed under:- S.No. Name of the Head 1 2 J 4 5 6 Monthly income AS 4Oo/o future self- Addition towards prospects deceased employed 40 Income arrived after Deducting | /4th towards personal & Iiving expenses of the deceased as there are 5de endants Total dependency calculated after application of relevant multiplier i.e., 15 Conventional Heads Parental consortium to minor child TOTAL COMPENSATION Amount awarded this Court Rs.8,000/- Rs. 11,2o0l- Rs.8,4O0l- Rs. 1 5, 12,OOO/ - Rs.77,OO0/- Rs.4O,0OO/- Rs.16,29,OOO/-

22. Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim amount, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal I 10 MGP'] MACvtA.No.SSoJ 2022 Singh and others2 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: - t he amount claimed by Motor VehicLes Act 1988 '...under the Prouisions of "the MV Act") there is no (hereinafier referted to as reslricton thrrt compensation could be awarded onlg up the claimant ln an appropiote case uLhere from the eLtidence broltght on recortT if 'fribunal/ coutT considers that claimant is entfiled to get more compensation than claimed, the Trtbunal maA pc.ss such award. Onlg embargo is it should be 'Just' conpenscttlon, that is to sag' it should be ne-ither arbitrary, fanctful nor unjusttfiable Jrom the euidence." 2g. With the above finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court' it is clear that the compensation can be granted more than the claim made trased on cogent and convincing evidence' In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the

24. settled princple of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court deems f-it and proper to allow the Appeal' In the resuit, the Appeat is allou'ed by enhar-rcing the 25. compensation amount awarded by the Trial Colrrt from Rs.9,79,000/ to Rs.16,29,ooo/- rvhich shall carry interest @ 7.5%o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization ! \ 'AIR 2oo3 sc 674 . L1, MGP,! MACMA.No.88 o12022 payable by respondent Nos.1, 3 to S jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.

26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD EGISTRAR s SE ION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 The Motor Accidents Claims_Tribunal_cum_ Judge Family Court_cum- Additionat District Judge at Karimnagail*ift, i"EJrai"ii rnVl One CC to Sri T Ramutu, Advocate tOpUCl (No More) One CC to Sri A Rama Krishna Reddy, Standing Counset tOpUCl Two CD Copies \ \ Vtugh b HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 1 ( I $ l: A I'. ttB 2ffi I, ).. ,;-;'-' JUDGMENT + DECREE ( 2 DRAFTS ) MACMA.No.88 of 2022 ALLOWING THE MACMA 6 ?s IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A,C.M.A. NO: 88 OF 2022 Between:

1. Avunoori Suguna, Wo. Late Swamy, aged about 44 yearc, Occ. Household, R/o Gundaram (V), Kamanpoor (M) Revenue, Peddapally Diskict

2. Avunoori Jyothi, D/o Late Swamy, aged about 27 yearc, Occ. Household, R/o Gundaram (V), Kamanpoor (M) Revenue, Peddapliy District

3. Avunoori Naqadl@ Avunoori Divya, D/o Late Swamy, aged about 25 years, Occ. Household, R/o Gundaram (V), Kamanpoor (M) Revenue, Pedd-apally Diskict

4. Avunoori Banaiah, S/o Lingaiah, aged about 78 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Gundaram (V), Kamanpoor (l!,1) Revenue, Peddapally District

5. Avunoori Krupamma, Wo Banaiah, aged about 73 years, Occ. Household, R/o Gundaram (V), Kamanpoor (M) Revenue, Peddapally District ...Petitioners / Appellants AND 1 2 4 5 Sayyad Mahaboob, S/o lsmail, age [Vlajor, not known to the petitioners, R/o H.No. 19-232, Rodamestri Nagar B Near Jahangir Basthi, Qutubullapur Mandal Revenue District, Ranga Reddy (driver of lorry No. AP-28V-6160) Abdul Gaffoor, S/o Abdul Subhan age Major, Not known to the petitioner, R/o H.No. 2-8415, Muslimbasthi, Hasmathpet, Bowenpelly, Ranga Reddy District (owner of the lorry No. AP-28-V-6160 after the accident) United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Branch Office, LIC Building, Koti, Hyderabad - 500029 (AP) Rep. by its Manager United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Branch Office, H.No. 2-6-299, '1st floor, Mukarampura, Karimnagar, Rep. by its Branch Manager Sri Vaishnavi Transport Company, rept. by Y. Srinivas Goud, H.No- 5-66/1, Chinthal Main Road, Qutubullapur, Ranga Reddy District - 500 037 (owner of the lorry No. AP-28-V-6160 at the time of accident i.e., on 12-01-2014) ...Respondents / Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act against the Order and Decree dated 09- 10-2019 made in M.V.O P.No.330 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Karimnagar. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Ramulu, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 & 4. This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

1. That the tt/ACMA be and hereby is allowed; 2. f hat the amount of compensation awarded by the Trrbunal is enhanced from Rs 9,79,0001 to Rs. 16,29,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7.Sok p.a.'from the date of petitron till the date of realization payable by Respondent Nos 1, 3 to 5 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

3. That on such deposit, the appellants be and hereby entrtled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPYII orr,.rtl\ Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD REGISTRAR sebY ON OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge Famrly Court-cum- Additional District Judge at Karimnagar

2. Two CD Copies \x HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 DECREE MACMA.No.88 of 2022 ALLOWING THE MACMA q (L lr( t+