The High Court · 2025

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they wer() arrayed before the Tribunal

3. The rlase of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

08.06.2013 at about 5:30 a.m., the deceased along with her family mernbers and relatives were proceeding from Hyderabad towards Kaleshwaram side in a Tempo traveller bearing No.AP-29-T-3182 and when the vehicle reached the outskirts of Gagillapur near the petrol bunk, the driver of the tempo lost control over the vehicle as he has drivr:n it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against a lorry tanker bearing No.AP-28-X-4496 which was coming in the opposite direction and in the said accident, R. Balamani died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2 E'TD,J MACtulA No.2.'lt 2O2L

4. The respondent No.1 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the hccident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contbnded that his vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2 and that in case if any compensation is awarded, it is only respondent NO.2 who is liable to pay compensation.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the driver did not possess a valid driving license. Thus, the company is not liable to pay any compensation. lt is further contended that since, the accident occurred in the opposite direction, both the drivers would be equally responsible for the accident and thus, contributory negligence on behalf of the driver of the lorry tanker has to be considered.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- "7

2. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Ternpo Traveler bearing No.AP-29-T-3182 causing death of R. Balamani? Whether the petitioner is entitted for compensation? tf so, tO what extent and from whom? #3. To what retief?" $ $ ): 3 ETD,J MACMA No.27L_]O2l

7. To prove their case, the claimant got examined PWl and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the responde.nts, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked. B. Basecl on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.65,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant had preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for lhe appellant and Smt. A.S. Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant was aged '63' years and the Tribunal has taken a meager amount of F1s.3,000/- per month which is not just and proper and the tribunal has assessed the compensation based on the multiplier method and that at has given meager amounts towards funeral expenses ernd loss of love and affection which is not justified Therefore, l're prayed to enhance the compensation by following the multiplier method. He further prayed to consider the income of the deceased a1 least to be Rs.4,500/- per month

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the deceased was a lady, aged '65' years and they 4 liTD,J MACMA No.2't1 2.02L have not filed any income and age proof. Therefore, the ttibunal has rightly granted the compensation of Rs.65,000/- and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. ln view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

3. Whether the claimant rb entitled to enhancement of compensation? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any intefference ? To what relief ?

13. Point No.{: a) The grievance of the appellant is that the tribunal has granted a very low amount of compensation. PW1 pleaded before the tribunal that his deceased mother was rnanaging the entire household work, and she was giving services to him, his children and other family members prior to the accident and also slrbsequent to the death of his mother, he has engaged a servant for house hold work, by paying Rs.5,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioner himself says that the deceased was a household lady, aged 65 years. b) lt is the common knowledge that the household services offered by the ladies often go un-noticed, but the Apex Court in Arun Kumar Agarwat Vs. National lnsurance Companyl, has held that ' uo ro (s) scc 2l 8 5 ETD,J MACMA No.271 2021 it is most unrealistic to compare the gratuitous services of housewife/nrother with work of a skilled worker and the.Apex Court has upheld the compensation calculated by the tribunal which was arrived at lry taking the income of the deceased housewife as Rs.5,000/- per month. ln the present case also the same amount of Rs.5,000/- can be taken as notional income which comes to Rs.5,000 t- \'. 12 = Rs.60,000/- per annum. c) As perr the dicta laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, fro future prospects need be added as the deceased is more than 60 years. d) The case is filed by the only son of the deceased and therefore. 113'd deduction need to be made to her income towards personal oxpenses and this would come upto Rs.40,000/- (Rs.60,0001- (-) Rs.20,000/-). e) l-he rnultiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, irs per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Dethi Trar,rsport Corporation3. The deceased being aged 65 years, the :rppropriate multiplier to be applied is '7'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.2,80,000/- (40,000 x 7). t), 2 Artt 2017 soc 5157 ' l0qq r(i) S('(' I I 1 6 l:'l'D,J MACMA No.? 11 .?.O21 0 ln the light of Pranay Sethfs case, Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years. g) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others', the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sefhi's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and ohildren of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimant would get Rs.4B ,4OOl- towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.48,400/- instead of Rs.40,0004. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. h) ln all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation amounts 1

4. Compensation under the of loss of Rs.2,80,000/- towards loss of consortium -+ Compensation trcwards loss of estate Compensation towards funeral expenses Total Rs 48,400/- Rs 18.15C1. Rs 18,150i- Rs.l,6+,ZOOl- ' 1:o 18) r8 scc t3o 7 ETD,J MACMA No.27L 2021 i) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.65,000/-, while, this Court arrived at a compensation of Rs.3,64,7OOl- and hence, it is held that the claimani. is entitled to enhancement of compensation. -[hus, Point No. 1 is answered accordingly

14. Pgint No.2:- a) ln view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held thatthe order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantuin of compensation. This court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,64,7001- from that of Rs.65,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. b) The l"ribunal has granted interest at the rate of 9% on the quantum of compensation and the contention of the respondent counsel is that it is too high. c) ln Jaclav saroja Bai versus Ghule Naga Rao and Anothef ; a coordinab Bench of this High court has granted interest @ l.s% per annum cn the enhanced amount of compensation. d) ln Bandavath Mangla and Another versus Bandavath suresh ano' othersd and Nationat lnsurance company Limited t 2o:2 sc C orrlin: l'S 606 u lOl.-i s('C'()nlin,: T'S 109_5 I 8 ITD,J MACMA No.z/1 2021 Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and OthersT; also interest @ 7.5% per annum WaS granted on the enhanced amount of compensation. e) ln ltnited lnsurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam Lingaiahs,'when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. A Division Bench of this High Court in Nattonal lnsurance 0 Company Limited Versus Jagadish Praiapathie; lras granted 7.5 o/o pa( annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @7.SYo on the coffl-pensation that is awarded in such cases. h) Hence, the same is awarded in this case also. Thus. tlre rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7 .So/n Point No.2 is answered accordingly

15. POINT NO.3: ln the result, the appeal is disposed off, modifyin-q tire Order and Decree dated 31.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.647 of 2014 passed by '2023 SCC Online Ts I170 * 202+ SCC Online rs 915 ' 202+ scc onlinc 1'S 2050 4' ,r5 To, 9 ETD,J MACMA No.277_2021 the Chairmern, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.65,0001 to Rs.3,64,7001. The rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forferited. The claimant shall pay the deficit Court fee. The lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deprlsits6. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No lvliscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closerl SD/. GOWRI SHANKAR ANT REGI //TRUE COPY'/

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribuna J_udgq, _Cily Civil Court, Hyderabad One CC to SRl. PALLATI CHAND (with records, if 2 RAMOULI 3. One CC to MS. A. SUBBA LAKSHMT Advocate [Op 4. Two CD C:opies GE/gh OFFICER itional Chief cI HIGH COURT DATED:18 l/0U2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.271 ot 2O21 DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS & la,\of IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2711 OF 2021 Between: R. Rama Rao, S/o R. Narsimha, R/o H. No. 12-10-587198, Sri Seethaphalmand i, Secunderabad Aged 47 years Occ. Asst. Manager, Andhra Bank Srinivasa Residency, Flat No. 201, .Medibavi, ...APPELLANT'PETITION ER AND

1. M/s Mamidala Tours and Travels, C/o M,, Raja Reddy, aged Mqjor, Occ. Business (Owner of the Tempo Traveler bearing No. AP.29.T.3182) R/o.9- 127, Plot No.111/A, Beside HMT Nagar Bus Stop, Bapuji Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad- Pin 500076.

2. United lndia tnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. Oy its Divisional Manager, TP Claims Hub, Church building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad- 500001. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 31.10.2019 passed in MVOP No.647 of 2014 on thefile of tfre court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief J[dge, City Civil Court, 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. PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No.1, and MS. A. SUBBA LAKSHMI, Advocate for Respondent No.2. This Gourt doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby disposed off and that the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.65,000/- to Rs. 3, 64,7 OOI -.

2. That the rate of interest be and is hereby reduced from g% to 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization and that the interest for the periorl of delay if any, is forfeited.

3. That the r:laimant shall pay the deficit Court fee.

4. The lnsrrrance company be and is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited

5. That on r;uch deposit '',. entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. , the appellant-claimant is

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- lffrue Copyll To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.(with records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies. GE SHANKAR REG OFFICER Additional Chief HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 DECREE MACIIIA.N o.27 tl of 2O21 DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS _lllfi fr,1 Irabr