Per month' b) As per the dicta laid down io National Insttrance Cornltang Linited v. Pranag Sethi &' otherss

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI' C'MOHAN PRAKASH Gounsel for the Respondent No'2 : SRI V'VENKAT RAM REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A. No.28s oF 20.27 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filccj b1. rhe claimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated24.Lt.2O2O in M.V.O.p.No.2SZ of 2Otspassed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_Cum_principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short ,.the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarit5z, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the ciaim petitioners before the Tribuna_r is that the deceased peddi Kondaiah, was proceeding on his TVS XL Moped on 12.01.2018 ar about 4.10 p.M., from his house to go to his agricultural field fbr Toddy Tapping and on the midway when he reached near the iand of one Shaik Latheef at the outskirts of Narsimhuladugem Village, an auto rickshaw bearing No.TS_OS_UA_ 6130 came from Mo[he-r. side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the TVS XL Moped of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants, who are the r,r.ife and son of the deceased have filed the claim petition seeking compensarion of Rs.9,0O,OO0/ _. 4. Respondent No. 1 remained ex_parie. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Companr, filed counter denying the material ETD,J MACMA No 285,2021 2 averments made in the petition with regard to the income' avocation and age of the deceased and further contended tha[ there u'as no negligence of the auto driver and that the accident occurrecl clue to the negligence of the deceased' Respondent No-2 denied Lhe issuance of policy to cover the liability in the present CASC

5. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties' the Tribunal has framed the follou'ing issues for trial: "fti*"i-f'"f"g"dem 1) whether the accident occurred on 12 O1'2018 at about 4'10 P'M' at village of Munagala Mandal' the outskirts .r Suryapet District due io t^Jt' and negligen-t driving of the first respondent-owntt-JJ"tt of Auto Rickshaw bearing No TS-OS-UA 6130? 2) Whether the Peddi Kondaiah died in the said accident? 3) Whether the Auto Rickshaw bearing No TS-05-[JA-613O is orl'ned b'r' the first .."pottdttti urrd insured with the second respondent ? 4l whether lhere are any violations of the policy conditions? 5) Whertrer the petitioners are entitled for compensation' if so' from rrhichoftherespondentsandwhatisthequantumofcompensation? 6) To Bhat relief arld costs?

6. To prove Lheir case, the petitioners got examined PWs' 1 and 2 and goL marked Exs.Al to A5' On behalf of respondents' Rrvl was examined. and Exs-B1 arld 82 were marked' T.Basedontheevidenceonrecord,theTribunalhasgranteda compensation of Rs.3,57,982/ - as against the claim of Rs.9,OO,OOO/. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants has prelerrerl the present appeal seeking enhalcement 3 ETD,J MACMA No.285 2021

8. Heard Sri C. Mohan prakash, learned counsel for the appellants ancj Sri V_ Venkata Rzrmi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 2

9. Learned counsel for the appeuants has submitted that the Tribunal has errecl in taking thc income of the deceased to be very low and that it has ar.varded a meager amount towards compensation. He lurther submitted that the tribunal committed arl error in fixing contribuLory negligence on the deceased for not wearing helmet He further submitted that the Tribunar failed to consider the documents filed by them and awarded low amount under various heads and that the Tribunal has also failed to consider the future prospects. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation. 1o' Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the Tribunal has rightl.v arvarded the compensation and there is no need to interfere with rhe same. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order and decree of the tribunal

11. Based on the above rival con[entions, this Court frames the following poinr s lor determinarion: I Whet\r. there is ang contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the occunence oS ine accid.ent? 4 ETD,J NT1ACMA No.285 2021 2 Whether the claimants are erttitled for enhancement of compensation os prayed for? If so to uhat extent? 3. WTrcther the order and decree of the Tibunal need ang inte rference?

4. To tuhctt relieP 12, POINT NO.1: The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the deceased was not \.earing helmet at the time of accident and thus, he sustained head injury when he fell down on the road which led to his death and that since the deceased has violated the provisions of Mo[or Vehicles Act, contributory negligence has to be fixed on him. The Tribunal has considered the same and hxed 5O%o liabitity on the deceased. It is the grievance of the appellants that though the deceaserl was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident, that was not the cause for the accident and therefore, contributory negligence cannot be fastened on the deceased. A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.As reveals that it is filed agains[ the driver of the auto and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver and that he was charged under Section 3O4A and 181 of M.V. Act. So also the provisions of M.V. Act provide a penalty clause for not wearing helmet. But the said violation does not amount to attributing contributory negiigence. PW.2 is the eye witness, who is iisted as LW.4 in the charge sheet and his evidence reveals that the accident 5 ETD,J MACMA No.285 2021 occured due to rash and negrigent driving o[ the auto driver. He stated that the deceased u.as not E,earing helmet. But the deceased fell down lrom his bike , r.vhen lhe auto ciashed against the motor bike. It cannor be saicl rhat just because he was not wearing helmet, he fell dou,n from the motor bike. It can only be inferred from the manner in,a,hich the accident occurred, that the auto driver has hit the TVS XL moped in opposite direction and as a result the deceasecl fell down from [he bike and sustained grievous injuries. The gravity ol injury u,ould be greater, if he is not wearing helmet but it does not lead to an inference that the deceased caused the accident. Therefore, lastening SO% Iiability on the deceased is not proper. 13. learned counsel for the appellants has reiied upon a decision rendered by this High Court in United India Insurqnce Cotrytang Ltd.., Hgderabad us. Orsu Lurdhairth and othersl, wherein a bench of this High Courr has held that rn case of faiiure of the rider of the bikr: to wear helmet at the time of driving, it cannot be held that there is 50% contributory negligence by the deceased. The bench has relied upon the decision of High Court of Kerala in lilational Infltto;rrce Compang Ltd., Kasaragod us. Kadeeja Musligarz and also the decision ol High Court of Madras 'zo2+ 1:) eLo soz 1.rs.1 ' (2021) (2)1LR (Ker) 8t0 EID,I MACMA No.285-2021 in Baiaj Atlianz General Ins' Co' Ltd u' N'S'Balaii3 ' ln view of the discussion held supra and in the light of the' above cited decision of this High Court il is held that there is no contributory negligence on part of the deceased and thus no deduction be made in the compensation. The point No' 1 is answered accordingly' POINT No.2 AND 3: a) The claim petitioners in this appeal are aggrieved with regard to the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal' It is asserted by PW.1 that her husband used to earn Rs'10'0O0/- per month by Tapping Toddy and that he is an agriculturist by profession. No proof can be expected in this regard' The Tribunal has as'sessed the rncomc as Rs'S'OOO/ - per month ' In Ramrrchrrndrappa Vs' Manager' Rogal Sundaro;m Alliance Insurance Compang Limiteda ' the Apex Court has held that in the absence ol any proof of income with regard to a labourer' Rs.4,SOO/- per month can be safely taken as the income' On a reasonable hypothesis the tribunal has fairly assessed the income to be Rs.S,O0O/- Per month' b) As per the dicta laid down io National Insttrance Cornltang Linited Vs. Pranag Sethi &' otherss ' 107o of the incomeneedstobeaddedtowardsfutureprospects.Asthe ' (2021) ACJ 2744 '(zott)tusccz:o '(2orr) t2 scc 2i6 7 ETD,i MACMA No 285 2021 deceased is aged 50 years, adding 1O%o tovgards [u1l]re prospects would give Rs.8,BOO/_ (Rs.8OOO/- x 1Ol iOO : S00) per monrh, which comes to Rs.S,gO0 x 12 : l,03,6O0/_ per annum. c) The number of claimants herein are two and therefore 1/3'd deduction need to be made to his rncome tor.r,ards personar expenses and this wouid come up ro Rs.7O,4OOl_ (Rs_ 1,05,600/ (_) Rs.3s,200/-). d) As per the post Mortem Examination hled under Ex.A6 the age of the deceased is 50 years. No other proof is filed in this regard. Therefore, the age as revealecl under Ex.A6 is taken into consideration. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 0f the table given in sarla Verm.o. u. Delhi hansport Corporationo. The deceased being aged 50 years, the appropriate multiplier to loss of dependencv corrres be apolied IS Therefore, the upto Rs.9,lS,2OO/_ '13'. [(Rs.70,400x13] e) In the light of prandg Sethi,s case, Rs.15OOO/_ towards loss of estate and Rs. l5,0OO/ towards ttneral expenses and Rs.40,0OO/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded ald further t}le said amounts have to be enhanced bv 107o every three years. "zoor 1o;"sd rzr ETD,J MACMA No.285-2021 8 0 I. Magma Genero:l Insurance Compang Limited a' Nanu Ram @ Chuhnt Roim qnd othersT ' the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down io Pranag Sethi's case and has further held that not only lhe spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium' the claimants would get Therefore, in the Present case' of consortium, hence, Lhe Rs.48,4OO/ - each to\i'ards loss compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,8OO/- instead of Rs.40,O00/-, since there the comPensation amounts for ['oss an amount of Rs. 18, i 50 / - ior are three claimants. F\rrther, of Estate i.e., Rs. 18' 15O I - and Funeral ExPenses needs to be awarded. g) Therefore, in ail the claimants are entitled to the following comPensation a mounts: - SI.No. l{ame of the Heads 1 2 3 4 [,oss of de L,n ss oI consortium lrss o[ Estate l,os s of Funeral Ex Total NSCS ded by this Court I Awar i ns. 9, r5 2o01- 96 8OO/ - r 8,15() / - l8 15() 10 4A 300 h) Therefore, the compensation to r't'hich the petitioners areentitlediscalculatedasRs.lo,48,30o/-WhiletheTribunal has awarded Rs.3,57,982/-. Thus, it is opined that the petitioners )0. entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.2 and 3 are answered accordinglY' '1zo ts; tt scc tlo \

15. POINT NO.4: 9 ETD,] MACMA No.28S 2021 In the result, the MACMA filed by the claimants is partly allowed, mod iffing the order and Decree dated 24 . I I .2O2O in M.V.O.P.No.257 of 2Ol8 passed by rhe Motor Accidents Clairns Tribunal-Cum-principal District Judge, Nalgonda, enhancing the compensation from Rs.S,SZ,9g2l_ to Rs.lO,4g,BOO/- and rhe enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7 .3o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realizaLion. However, the interest for the period of delay, it any, is forfeited. The appellants shall pay the deficit court fee. Respondenr No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of three (03) months from the date o[ receip[ of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any alrcady deposited. on such deposit, the appe ants are entitlecr to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securltl,., as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. Thc judgment copy shall be made available subject to the paymenr ot. delicit Court fee by the appellants. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SDi- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR .blf- oFFrcER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District //TRUE COPY// S Judge, Nalgonda. (With Records)

2. One CC to Sri C.Mohan Prakash, Advocate (OPUC) 3. One CC to Sri V.Venkat Ram Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 4 Two CD Copies Ks/PSL To, t. HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.28S of 2021 H'E B o o 1 fl Ailii 2[25 ,-:: I * tStri +r- :" .i' _;l :f 'J. Allowing the M.A.C.M.A. Without costs. 7 1' z/) / / ,/"/ ,//._ 4 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.No.285oF 2021 Between:

1. Peddi Kashamma Wo. Late Kondaiah 2. Peddi Nagariuna, S/o. Late Kondaiah - Aoth are H.lo. tlri.lrnhutiguUem Village, Munagala Mandal, Suryapet.District, Fieientty,e.iOing at Goltiguda locali[y of Nalgonda Town and District. ...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANT AND 1 . Ch. Sagar S/o. Lingaiah. Aged. Malor, Occ' Bu^siness, R/o H No'l -340' ' rl r o*fr r r rs r Oern Vit ta ge, -M u nagala Mandal, Sy ryqPel-DJs^t1cj J:La.Jtg3 State (Owner cum driver of Auto Rickshaw beanno No' I u uo uA ol J ul' 2 The orientirl tn.rtan"e-b6*p;;y Limited, R/o V T Theatre Road, Ramgiri' - llafgonU; io*n anO Oistrict, represented Uy-iQfqtnorlzg!-St-g1aJory (Poticy rrto ieazszati2017l115g), U;lid from 0102.2017 to 02-02-2018) n a PoNDENTS Appeai Uis 173 of M-V Act against the Judgment and Decree made in M.V'o.P'No.257oI218dated24.11.2020onthefileoftheCourtoftheChairman, MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal.Cum.PrincipalDistrictJudge'Nalgonda- 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 Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri c.M.Prakash, for the Appellant and of Sri V.Venkat Ram Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent NO.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1. That the appeal be and hereby is partly allowed. 2. rhat the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda in M.V.O.P.no.257 of 2018 dated 24 11.2020 be and hereby is modified.

3. That the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.3,57,982/- to Rs.10,48,300/-.

4. That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

5. That the interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited. 6. That the appellants shall pay the deficit court fee. 7. That the Respondent No.2 be and hereby is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

8. That on such deposit, the appeilants are entiiled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. as per their respective shares as allotted by the tribunal.

9. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum_principal District SE To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Judge, Nalgonda.

2. Two CD Cooies Ks/PSL V HIGH COURT DATED:1 T t04t2O2S DECREE MACMA.No.28S of 2021 4- ,/ ,,< ,- /.' /t // /z Z Allowing the M.A.C.M.A. Without costs.