Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order and decree v. O.P No.4

20.03.2016 at about 10.00 hours, Ms. M.tsrinda (hc.rcinafter referrcd to as the deceasecl) n,hile travellirrg in a \ Iirri Bus btarinll icgistr.ition No. A P-29-\'-9(r 18 (lrereinaftL.r refelr r'rl Lo 'crinre vchicle') towards Hyderabad, meanwhile at about 06.30 p.m., rvhcn thev reachetl outskirts of Kishtapur village, the bus clrivcr of crime '",ehrclt' clrove the said vehicle in negligerrt ntanller .rntl w.hilc Iryinr tcr overtakc front vehicle, dashed against a tree besirles the road, due to tvhich one Anil Kuntar died instantaneouslv and the cic'ct,asecl Brinda, who sat on the Iap of Anil Kumar, succumbcd to injuries or-r the spot. The deceased was shifted to Area I{ospital for conclucting inquest panchanama. The Police, Kulcharam Police Station lellistcrccl a casc in Crime No.23 of 2076 under Sections 30.1-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle and filed charge sheet

5. It is further averred that the deceased n,as agecl 5 r'e'ars aucl was hale and healthy prior to the date of acciderrt and due to the death of the deceased, the claim petitioners, who are the p61gni5 6f the dc'ccased, Iost their love and affection and as such, the claim petitioncrs filed MVOP No.431 ol 2016 claiming Rs.5,00,000/- for compensation on account of death of deceased in a road accident 6 I'he Tribunal, on due enquiry and on consid('IiIg the oral and documcntart' r't'ic1c'ncr', has categorically hcld th'-. the accrdent occurrcd duc to the rash and ncgligent driving of t l crime vehicle and ,rn'ardrtl dn .lnr(runt of Rs.3,00,000/- to the t I irn petitioners along r,r,ith intercst

7. r\ggrievctl bv the samc, thc appcllants/clainr 1 ctitioncrs filccl the prrt'sent .\ppeal B. I-i:arnecl ( ounstl [or a prpellants/ claim petiti() iors subrtlitted that thr' Tri[,un.rl l'ailecl to an,arc-l .iust compensatior L, as claimr'c-l bv the petrtiorrt,rs ancl tht, Iribunal failed to art,ard anv rtonsortium to the clairn pctitiont'rs. l lt: Iurther submitted that the 'l r L-,unal ought to have .rwarclccl rnor-r-. amounts of compcnsat i r r undcr the conr.'t'ntional hr:errls anrl furtl'rcr, no amount was gr,l rted under the hcacl oi loss ol tlepenticncl, anrl tl-rereiore, prayeti c enhancc the compL.nsatlor-l

9. L.earnecl counscl for appellants/ petitioners plrr ed reliance on the rlccision of t l-rr-. Hor-r'blc Supreme Court in the cast, >i Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & other 1.

10. On the other hancl, learned counsel for the 2,,1 respondent- insurattce COnlPrlrl\/ contcndecl that the compensatil r awarclctl by 1 (202i) I lcLt 20l 4 the Tribunal is just and proper and no case is made out by thc pctiti..crs to interferc rvith well cclusidi:rec1 Ar,r,a rcl passocl bv tl-rc 'fribu,al. Hor,vever, he submitted that the interest awardccl br. lhc Iribrr:r.rl is cxtoss and he pral.t c-i to rlisntiss the aprpcal l1 I'crusal of the rccord, it is not in ciispu[e that tht rlcceast,rl_ M.Bri,da expired in a fatal accident that occurred on 20.03.2016 at about 06.30 p.m., whilc she was travelling in a crirne vehicle due to rash and negligcnt drivirr6i of thc driver of thc. crimo vehiclc 12 Thr: main contention of the learned counsel for appcllants is that h'ibunal crred in not arvarding just comlrensation without aprpreciating the fact that the deceased is the mrnor daughter of the clai.m petitionc'rs ancl failed to consider oral and docurnentar.r, evtdcncc in computing the prop-rer compensatiorr ar.uount ,rnc1 awarded meager compensation. l3 Perusal of the record and tl-re award passed by the Tribunal would disclose that the deceased was aged below 6 years as on Lhe date of the accident. The Tribunal considering the oral arrd documentary evidence and also decisions relied upon by the learntd counscl for petitioners before the l'ribunal, had awardecl tot.rl compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, rvhich includes Rs.1,25,000/ - tow,arrls I I I I I I I I I I I i I l i I I w 5 pain and suffcrings, Rs.50,000/- for no fault liabilr t, Rs.l,00,000/- ton,ards love .rt'rd affcction, Rs.10,000/- for tla r sportation and Rs.15,000/ - ior funeral t:xpenses

14. In Mcena I)er-i 1sr-r;rra),,,," 11p1r'blc Aper CoL t heltl trs r-rntter "14. f (cccnLlv itt Ktu i'rttt 4rtsrttt v Sltytttt Ktsllore Nltrnrrt | Ansnrt "trn',tn t'. Sltytnr Kr;ltttre .\hrrttrtt, (2022) I SCC 31,7 : (2022) 1 !c t. (Civ) 365 : (2022) I SC(' (Cri) 1731 , whcrt'itr a chiltl ;rgcd about 7 r rs tlied itr a road accic{t'nt took place on 6-9-200'1, this Court t,r, ing notiotral irrcomc as Rs.25,000, applving the multiplier of 15, c;rlcr aLecl the krss oI rlt'[.r'ntlL'rtr'\' as Iis.],71.0()0 ane{ atltlirtg Rs 55,000 trl cr:nr t'utioual hcatls, .ru.rr tlcri Its..l.7(),0()0

15. hr ricrr Lrl the fort'going tlL'rtsions, it is app,rrent tl ,: in t]re cases of chiltl deatlr, [hc rt.rtiL>nal in(()rnc o[ Rs 15,000 as spe< i i 'rl in thc llrrd Schcrlult, oi thc Itl\' ,\ct has lrL'cn euhanced on account i tlevaluation 0f rtron..\ antl r'.tlu0 o[ rup(.t, crrntittq rlolr,n from tht' - t.e ou which []rc Ilntl Schcttulc ol tlrc NI\: ,\.t 1^';ls introclucecl and tltl s,rid notiollal inc<rrrr., rr'.rs tr t'.r[r:r.1 as Rs.30,1)(X) in KIr/r/?/r Coprtl lKislr'rtt . opnl v. Ltlt, (21)l{) I SC(,2l+ (1011) I S(.C (Civ) l6+:(201{) 1SC( 'ri) 2411ancl Rs 25,000 irr Krn'rrrr Ansnri fKtruan Anstri v. SltynnL I' t liore MurnuL, (2022) 7 SC(l 317 : (2022) l SCC (Civ) 365: (2022) 1 SC( tCri) 1731 in a8L. group o[ l0 anLl 7 t'ears rcsprcctivcll'. .l

16. Thus a1'plvirrr; tht' r.rtio ol tht'saitl juclgmcnts, lo,.r ' Lrg to thc'age of tht'cl.ril.l rn thc pr('scnt cast'i t'. 12 r'cars, the principlt' l,ticl don'n in fi'l,n', 1)o1tttl IKrs/rrirr t,-opnl r. 1.rrla, (201,1) 1 SCC 2'1'1 2011) SCC (Civ) IE{: (2t)14) I SCC (Cri) 24ll arc.rptly applicablt'l the facts of the prescnt r;rsc. As per the ocular statement of the' r <tthcr of the dcceased, it is clt';u that thc elcceased was a blillial t sLudent and sttrclt,inB ln .r privat('school. T hr:refore, .rcceptiug the It()r ()nal earning Rs.30.000 int-lutlinq future proslrgcl and applying thc nr ltiplier of 15 irr vicrl o[ tlrt, r{ccision o[ lhis Court in Strln \/crmn l\'tln Vernltt \'. DlC, (2009) 6 SCC l2l : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770: (2O0) 2 SCC (Cri) i0021 , the krss of tlopendenc)' comes to Rs.4,50,000 tLr cl if we add Rs.50,000 in conventional heacls, then the total sum ol r rmpensation corncs to l{s.5,00,000. . . . .. .,"

15. l-hus, apirlving thc ratio of the said judgmerrt, :onsidering the age of the chill in the present case i.e. below 6 ye.rr', the principles 6 Iaid down in Kishan Gopal lKishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) i SCC 2411 are aptiy applicable in thc facts of the present case l(r. .l hcrefort, in corrsrclerccl vien, of this Court, the notiortal incomc of thc clei:t asecl can bc taken as Rs.30,000/- per amurrr including future prospect as non-earning member in view of ihc dccision of ilon'ble Apex Court in Meena Devi (supra). Since thc age oi the dcceased r'r'as below 6 r'ears at the time of the accident,.rs per the clecision of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherl, thc proPer multiprlier rvould bc'15'. 'l'hLrs, tlre loss of depe ndency comes to Rs.4,50,000 /-. The petitioners artr also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- eaclr towards consortium, I{s.15,000/- towards funeral expcnses and Rs. t5,000/- towards loss of estate

17. In the light of lhe aforcsaid discussion, the appellants/ petitioners are entitled to the follor,"ing amounts: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 7 3 4 Incomc including futurc prosPecls Rs.30,000/ - per annum Nluitiplier 15 Loss of dependency Consortium Rs.4,50,000/ - (Rs.30,000/- x 15) Rs. 80,000/- (Rs.40000/- x 2) i l I 2 l2OO9l 6 SCC 121 1 I I L1 trY 7 i- 6 Funr:r'al ex pctrscs Loss of estatc i Rs 15,000 / Rs. 15,0001 'l'otal compctrsation alvarded Rs. 5,60.00r) r8 As pc.r tirr' Llecl\i()rl of a thr€'e-Judge Berlch dcci irrn tlf I Iorl'blc Supremc Court i t.t NagaPPa V Gurudayal Singh , there is no restriction that the- Iribunal,/Court callllot atvartl --ornpensatioll exceeding thc amoutrt so claime(l by the' claim pctitrt' Crs Therefore, lc.sser clairr, if .rtly rll.rcle in tl-re claim Petition, "''orrld impeclirncnt to arr'arrl jtrst cotlrPcrlsatlon cxcL-L'tlir18 tll 'clainl amount not be in the claim petitiorl. How'evcr, this Court, t t nsiilering the devaluation of monev alrd the value of ruPee corr Il8 down, has gr;rntc.cl intcrt'st '.ct) 7.5", Pcr annulll .rs against the ir I :rest @ 99'o per annum awardecl bv thc 'l ribunal

19. In vien, of the above saicl findings, thc Ap; eal is allowed cnhancrng the cotnpcrrsation from Rs 3,00,000/- to Rr; i,60,000 /- with interest @ 7 5"/" per anrlum from the date of the clainr petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of deficit ( r trrt fee on the enhanced compensation amount 3 12(10ll 2 SCC 2-l B

20. The responclent No.2-insurance company is directed to pay the \ said compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of rcccipt of copv o[ this orclcr ll. On such clc.posrL, the .rppe il,rrrts/claim petrtroncrs alc entiIlecl to withdraw the total compL.usation amount

22. There shall be no ordcr as to costs. I'enclir-rg misccllancous applicatior-rs, ii anr', shall stand closct-l SD/. T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman. Motor Vehicle Act Tribunal-cum-V Ad ional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRI C. MOHAN PRAKASH Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI S. SATYANANDA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GEiPSL I 4r,. I i I I I I j : t T -/ -_ ': ::::=\=- :.- :1,.iI C/:l]\ /,: \ -:' 0 3 irtl\R 2028 ti .. ji'l . ,_\tt

1.1, ), il HIGH COURT DATED:31i 10/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.84 of 2022 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS { ,\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 84 OF 2022 Between: 1. Smt. Manchala Vijaya Laxmi, Wo. Muralr Krishna aged 32 . Years, Occ Housewife, R/o. H. i{6.3-16 -104121 , Venkat Reddy Nagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Murali Krishna, Wo. M Rama Rao, aged. 33Years, Occ. Private Job, R/o H.No.3-16-104/21, Venkat Reddy Nagar, Ramanthapur. Ranga Reddy Diltlig! - ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS . AND 1 Vemula Saidulu, S/o. Vemula Sathaiah, aged Major, Occ. Business, H.No 3-16- 108141119, Kamakshamipuram, Ramanthapur, Uppal (M)' Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Snehalatha Building, Green Lands, Begumpet, Hyderabad

3. V. Bal Raj, Sio. V. Babaiah, Occ. Driver, R/o H.No 18-9-313, Chand rayanag utta, Hvderabad - 500 005 ...RES'oNDENTS/RE'..NDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24t0712019 passed in M.v. o.P. No.431 of 2016 on the file of the chairman, Motor Vehicle Act Tribunal - cum - v Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad 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 argument of sRl c.M.PRAKASH, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondent No.l' and SRI S. SATYANANDA RAO, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2 and none appeared for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as foltows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil tvliscellaneous App r rl be and is hereby aliowed.

2. That the compensation amount be and is her:by enhanced from Rs.3,00 000/- to Rs 5,60,0001 with rnterest @7 5% p I annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, subjer; to payment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount.

3. That the respondent No.2-insurance company be an I is hereby directed to pay the said compensation amount within a period of s,i . weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4. That on such deposit by the Respondent No.2-inr,r rance company, the appellantsiclaim petitioners are hereby entitled t: withdraw the totai compensation amount.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Itf rue Copyll SD/- I SRINIVASA REDDY SiI STANT REGISTRAR l t SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Act Tribunal - cum - V i\ lditional District and Sessions Jud_ge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar - Tderabad. (with record, if any).

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL M, HIGH COURT DATED:3'l /10/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.84 ol 2022 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1 v, 1,', \