The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No. 1983 OF 201O JUDGMENT: 1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for sl-rort, the Tribunal), i;-r O.P.No.SS of 2OO9, dated 26.07.2OlO, the claim petitioners in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as theS' werc arrayed before the Iearned Tribur-ra1

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the parents of Late Rathod ()opal (hereinaf[er be rclerred as 'the deceased) filed a petition under Scction 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compenszrlion of Rs.7,0O,00O/ - c,n account of the death of their deceased son-Rathod Gopal in zr motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.11.2OO8. It is stated by the petitioners that on 08.1 1.2008 at about 10.00 P.X4., when the deceased was procecding towards Dilsukhnagar, in t.l're meantime, one Lorry Bearing No.MH-04-C-3924, driven by its clriver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from L.B.Nrtgar side and dashed against the deceased and one Motorcycle bcaring No.AP- f I 2 MGP,J M.A.C.M,A.No.1983 of 2010 11-5-8954, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment at Osmania General Hospital.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Saroornagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 1353 ol 20O8, under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC

5. It is stated by the petitioners that belore the accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and used to work as a Salesman in a Private Firm at Hyderabad and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month and contribute the same towards maintenance of their family. Due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and rvere suffering with mental pain and agony and scvere hardship. Hcnce, filed claim petition seeking compensation seeking compensation against the respondents 1& 2.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. l/owner of the lnrry bearing No. MH -O4-C-3924, remained ex-parte

7. Respondent No.2/New India Assurance Company hled its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, rash and negligent act on part of the driver of the crime I-r:rry, age, occupation, income and relationship of the deceased with the petitioners and contended that though the driver of the crime [,orry do not possess valid and effective driving license at the \ 1" 'a.ftatl ./ 3 MGP,J M.A.(.M.A.No.1983 0f 2010 time of accidcnt, but the owner of the said Lorry had willfully handed over his vehicle to him and committed brear:h of terms and conditions of policy, as such, they are not liablt to pay any compensation :rnd moreover, the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

8. Based on the pieadings made by both thc parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues frrr conducting trial: i. WLether the accident ocanrred due to the rash and negligent diuing of the diuer of the crime uehicle? ii. Whcther the petitioners are entitled for compcnsalion? If so, at Luhat quantum and from whom? iii. To uhat relieP

9. Before thc Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioncrs, PWs I & 2 were examined and trxs.A1 to A6 were markecl. On behalf of respondents no oral was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policl' was marked with consent.

10. After considering the oral and documenrary evidence available on record, the iearned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by au,arding compensation of Rs.2,ll4,OOO/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5o/o per annum lrom the date of petition till the date of realization. Having not satisfie<l with the i* ./ 4 MGP,I M.A.C. M.A.No.1983 of 2010 said compensation amount, the claimants preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of same.

11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2/lnsurance Company. Perused the record.

12. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellants as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunai ought to have taken the monthly income of the dcceased @ Rs.9,000/- instead of Rs.3,000/-. lrarned counsel also contended that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier by considering the mother's age instead of the deceased's age, it also ought to have granted amounts under loss o[ estate and mental agony and hence prayed to allow the Appeal by cnhancing the compensation amount'

13. On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondent that thc learned Tribunal, No.2/Insurance Company contended after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted

14. Now the point that arises for delermination is, Wether the findings of the learned Tribunal requires interkrence of this Court? .l T Y 5 MGP,J M.A.a.M.A No.1983 of 2010 POINT:- 15. Since there is no dispute about the manner ol accident and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no necessit5r to again decide the above said aspccts. The present Appeal has been hled b.1 the claimants only with regard to enhancement of compensation.

16. lrarned counsel for the appellants contended that though it is stated by the petitioners in their evidence that thc deceased used to earn Rs.9,00O/ per month by working as a Salesman in a private firm at Hyderabad, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the same and hxed his notional income @ Rs.3,000/, per month and had not considered awarding future prospccts to the established income of the deceased.

17. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that exccpt relytng upon the documenls markcd under Exs.A 1 to A6 r,r,hich are certified copies of trIR, charge sheet, scene of panchanama, inquest report, MVI report and post-mortem examination report, the petitioners failed to produce any documentary proof evidencing that the deceased used to work as Salesman and earning Rs.9,OOO/- per month. Hence, the learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.3,0O0/- per month. Howcver I r{ l I ! I I I I I I I 6 MGP,I M.A.C.M.A.No.1983 of 2010 this Court, considering the year of accident and age of the deceased, the said amount appears to be less, hence inclined to interfere with the same by relying upon thc judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa vs' State of Biharl wherein' it is held that even though there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated Hence' taking into consideration,.the avocation of the deceased' date of accident and age of the deceased, this Court hereby fix the income of the deceased @ Rs.a,500/- Per month'

18. A perusal of thc impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal faiied to award future prospects to the established income of the deceased. Hence, this Court, by considering the judgment of the Hon'b1e Apex Court in National Insurance Co'Ltd'Vs'Pranag Sethiz , hereby add 4OVo towards future prospects to the income of thedeceasedsincethedeceasedbeing25yearsoldatthetimeof accident and is self-employed' Thus, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,3OO/- Since the deceased being Bachelor' 5o% is deducted towards his personal expenses' Then his net monthly income comes to Rs'3,150/- and [he annual income comes to Rs.37,8O0/-. After applying relevant multiplier '18" the total loss of dependency would come to Rs'6'80'4O0/-' Further' the :- ' (zoot ) 8 scc tgz 1l2oL7 (6) r7o SC) I \ !,_F.a-.!i!ar..'q!, ' : 'F.'".r' | -/' ' 7 MGP,J M.A. C.M.A. No.1983 of 2010 appeilants are also awarded a sum of Rs.33,000/- towards conventional heads as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.. Vs.Pranag Sethi & others (2O17 ACJ 27OO). Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,13,400/-.

19. Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim amount, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble aI i Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and others : wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that compensation can be granted more than the claim madc based on cogent and convincing evidence.

20. In view of thc above discussion and keeping in view the settled principle of la'"v laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court deems fit and proper to aliow the Appeal.

21. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tf ibunal from Rs.2,3a,O00/ to Rs.7,13,400/ which shall carry interest @ 7 .5% p.a. from the date of petition ti1l the date of realization payable by respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. The respondents Nos.1 & 'AIR 2oo3 sc 674 8 MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1983 of 2010 2 are directed to deposit the said compensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment madc by the.learned Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. P PADMANABHA EDDY ASSISTANT REG STRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Sangareddy. (With Records if anY)

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, 2 o;;tC to'silt. PALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocate [oPU-c-] ^. e o;; cc i" sni. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY' Advocate [oPUC] 4 Two CD CoPies To \ i- i, iJ ')', itll,l ?$6 :f i -.-..,'., ,-;i- ll 'r : ';:' (\ -. --':1' n - 'l .i ':''-' ' --,_:: .;--:--,.-. .: , ' HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1983 ot 2010 ALLOWED Gs IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS AP PEAL NO : 1983 0F 2010 Between:

1. Smt. Amribai, Wo. Deepla Naik, aged 42 yea$, Occ: Labour' 2. Deepla Naik, S/o. Somla, aged 44 years, Occ: Labour' Both R/o. Hoti-B Thanda, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District' ,) ...APPELLANTS/cLAIMANTS AND . '1 . Akheel Ahmed, S/o. Jameel Ahmed, aged Major, Occ: Business and Owner of L"irv-tt"- MH oa-C-gsz+ R/o Hundi (V)'' Humnabad Tq Bidar District Karnataka. 2_ The New lndia Assurance comapany Limited, Represented by_ its Divisional - trianager Sangtl Division at 'Karigar Bhavan, M G Road at Sangli, Maharashtra State. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in o.P.NO. 58 0f 2009 dated.26.07.2010 0n the file of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Sangareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of sRl. PALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocate for the appellant and of sRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and None appeaerd for the Respondent No'1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs' 2,34,0OO1- to Rs.7,13,400/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents 1 and 2 Jointly and Severally;

2. That the respondents No.1 and 2 be and hereby directed to deposit the said compensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

3. That on such deposit, the appellants/claimants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the same as per apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying deficit court fee;

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ,' / //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P PADMANABHAREDDY ASSISTANT REG{STRAR ;' r,. ' \ SECTION OFFICER r) To

1. The Chairman, [V]otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Sangareddy. 2. Two CD Copies I '.t. - -l ,:)-r..?tr{-, ,}; - a' .a d HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 I DECREE MACMA.No.1983 of 2010 ALLOWED