The High Court · 2025

(Respondents 1 & 2 are set ex-party by the Trial Court) ...RESPONDt:l ITS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA 42512019 and Respondent No.3 in MACMA No.73812021 : SRt. T MAt- ENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 in MACMA 42512019 and Appellants 1 to 3 in MACMA No.738/202.t: SRI B.SHAI.il,AR Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 5 in MACMA 425t2019 and Respondents 1 & 2 in MACMA No.73B!2021: None ApJx ared. The Court delivered the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA ma.ma_738_2021 NB(, ' M.A.C.M.A No.425 of 2019 And M.A.C.M.A No.73E of 2021 COMMONJUDGMENT: These are cross-appeals filed against the Order dated 26. 10.2018 passed by the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal, in M.V.O.P.No.120 of 2017. By the impugned Ordeq the Tribunal awarded a total of Rs.14,70,000/- with 7 .5Yo interest per annum, towards compensation to the petitioners/claimants on account of the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.01.2017 while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle (No.AP-36AU-9285) and an oncoming Lorry (No.AP-27W- 3252) dashed the motorcycle ofthe deceased. The Tribunal held the driveq owner and the insurer of the offending Lorry, jointly and severally tiable to pay the compensation. l.l Aggrieved by the impugned Order, the Cholamandalam MS General lnsurance Company Lirnitcd filed MACMA No.425 of 2019; and aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the pctitioners/claimants filed MACMANo.738 of 2021. As both the appeals are connected, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Judgement. For the sake of clariry, of reference, the parties will be referred as claimants and insurance company.

2. Heard Mr. T. Mahender Rao, leamed counsel for the claimants; and Mr. B. Shankar, leamed Standing Counsel for the insurance company. PqSused the record. \.e/.... t '- macma 425 2019 & macnra 738 2021 NBK, ] Leamed counsel for the claimants essentially c

3. deceased was a painter, eaming more than Rs.25,000/- I rntends that the :r' month, but the Tribunal erred in taking the income as Rs.10,000/-; that 1 re Tribunal erred in deducting I/3'd of the income towards personal expense ; of the deceased, instead of l/4th keeping in view the number of depen<l nts is three. The Tribunal failed to award consortium to the children separtLt :ly, in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pra ray Sethil. Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, conten j

4. occurred due to the negligence of the deceased; and the r r that the accident wner and insurer of the motorcycle ought to have been arrayed as partier; and there lore the petitioner is bad due to non-joinder of necessary paftie: ; that the Tribunal ought to have at least seen that there is a contributory regligence ol the deceased in view of head-on collision of the motorcycle Lnd the ollending Lorry, as held by this Court in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu v. l 4ohammed Afzal Miyanr; that PW1 (wife of the deceased) did not file any p -oof of earning of the deceased, and therefore, in the absence of documenta:1 the f'ribunal erred in taking Rs. 10,000/- as income lt compcnsation; that the Tribunal erred in adding 25) proof of income, r calculating the , torvards future prospccts without there being any proof of consistent incc ne, and therefore the actual income by the date of death, without any add t on to the income for future prospects, would have been appropriate; that eroneously taken the age of the deceased as 45 year the'lribunal had , and applied an incorect multiplier 14, whereas the deceased was 46 br the date of death and therefore the appropriate multiplier would be 13; thr the Tribunal had erroneously granted 7.5Yo interest per annum instead ol' ioZ per annum in 1 (xo1zl16 scc 680 'z 2006 AcJ 855 ,/ 1 macma_73A 2071 Ng(, J the light of the judgment in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3; that the amount awarded is quite excessive and not supported by evidence.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the occurrence of the accident on 21.01.2017 between the motorcycle of the deceased and the offending Lorry, and the death of the deceased in the said accident is not in dispute.

6. With regard to rash and negligent driving, the evidence of PW.2 who is said to be the eye-witness before the Tribunal deposed before the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Lorry, and further the Ex.A4 (cerlified copy of charge sheet) also stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Lorry. This being a finding of fact recorded after examination of evidence of PW2 and also the charge sheet, this Court does not see any merit in the argument that there was contributory negligence of the deceased. Further, collision between two oncoming vehicles does not necessarily imply that there was contributory negligence, and contributory negligence cannot be imputed as a matter of principle; and the negligence on the parl of one vehicle is sufficient to cause a collision, and therefore in such cases of head-on collision, the evidence plays a vital role in attributing contributory negligence. [n the instant case, there is no evidence attributing negligence to the deceased (driving a motorcycle) and in fact there is specific evidence of PW2 that the offending Lorry was at fault as it came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle; and the contents ofthe Charge sheet also speak that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Lorr),. r 2oo9 AcJ 1298 4 -- macmn 425_2019 & macrna 738_2021 NBK, ]

6.1 In the judgment in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu (supr r), this Court held that the production of Scene ofAccident Panchanama wo r d have been great assistance in deciding Issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal and therefore the failure to produce the Scene of Accident Panchanama t ntails an adverse inference being drawn against the appellant therein. )r uther, it was the observation of this Court that Ex.A3 (charge sheet) doe; not show that the vehicles involved in the accident were inspected or testec rv Motor Vehicles Inspector. This Courl further observed as follows: "Since the police did not send the vehicles invt accident .for examination by a Motor Vehicles ln. lorry that allegedly caused the accident is not t thereJore the appellant in collusion with responclct the police, with the help of PW2 must have filetl petition to enable him to get compensation from ti1 the lorry o/ the respondent No. l, i.e., the responder reasons best known to it, the respondent No.2 dit permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehiclc. to contesl the case on all the grounds. " 'ved in the pecto4 the nown, an.d t No. l and t collusive t insurer of , No.2. For not obtain .4ct, 1988,

6.2 On the other hand, in the instant case, ther€ s the evidence of eye witness (PW-2) and also the Charge Sheet (Ex.A4 ) stating that the accident occuned due to the rash and negligent driving lr the driver of the offending Lorry. In that view of the matter, this Courr loes not see any itlegality in holding the offending Lorry responsible for I e accident due to rash and negligent driving.

7. With regard to the income, it may be noted that there is no rigid formula to assess the income of an individual, in the abser r e of docurnentary proof of income; and the guiding factors that that he I in a reasonable cbnclusion are the social status ofthe individual and his Jx tential to earn. In the instant case, the petitioner is a Painter, and a menr ,er of the Rangu -1 macma 42s,2019 & macma,738_2021 N8K,I Karmikula Sangham (Painters Union) as per Ex.A7 and Ex.AS which are Identiry Cards from the Painters Union, and Ex.Al0 is the identity document issued by the District Building Construction Workers Welfare Union. Further there is oral evidence from PW-4 (A. Bhaskar) that the petitioner employed few workers under him and used to pay Rs.450 per day. From the oral and documentary evidence, it can safely be inferred that the petitioner is active in his painting occupation, and was eaming from the painting work. It may be noted that even from a perusal of the Minimum Wages prevailing as of 2017 as per the Telangana Minimum Wage Act, a Painter is shown under Semi-skilled labour (alongside electrician, carpenter etc.), with an average monthly wage of Rs.10,250l-. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal assessing the monthly wages o.f the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- cannot be said to be illegal or exorbitant.

8. The deceased had a wife and two children, so a total of3 dependents. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), a deduction of 1/3'd has to be made from the income as personal expenses. So, the actual loss of income for the family would be Rs.10,000 - 1/3'd (10,000), which comes to Rs.6,666.67 (roughly Rs.6,670 per month). Further, 25Yo of the income has to be added towards turure prospects. So, Rs.6,670 + 25yo (6670), i.e., Rs.8,337.50 (roughly Rs.8.340 per month).

8.1 The date of birth of the deceased as per the SSC Certitlcate issued by Board of Secondary Education is 15.12. 1970, and the accident took place on 21.01.2017, and therefore the deceased was aged about 46 years by the date of the accident. So, the appropriate multiplier would be 13 as per Sarla Verma (supra). By adopting 13 multiplier, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,01,040 (By multiplying Rs.8340 x 12 x l3). / -/ t I i i a l macma- 734 2021 NBK, ] '-

8.2 As per Pranay Sethi, the wife and two chil rren are entitled to spousal and parental consortium; which comes lc Rs.40,000/_ each separately. So, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,20,0() )/- in total toward Consortium component. Further, the claimants are enti ted to Rs. 15,000/_ toward Loss of Estate, and Rs. 15,000/- toward Funeral F > penses; i.e., a total ofRs.30,000/- under these Heads. 9' In view of the foregoing reasons, the craimants a'r entitled to a totar compensation of Rs. I4,5t,O4O (i.e., Rs.13,01,040 Rs. 1,20,000 + Rs.30,000/-). Considering Sarla Varma (supra), the int:.est component is reduced to 6Yo per annum from the date ofpetition till re: tization. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimanrs (Nt \CMA No.73g of 2021) is partly-allowed by enhancing-the compensation o Rs.l4,5 1,040/_; and the appeal filed by the insurance company (MACMt No.425 of 2019) is also partly-allowed by reducing the interest to 6%o per a rnum on the total quantum of compensation from the date of petition til rearization. The claimants shall pay dift-erence of court fee as applicabre. rhe directions of the Tribunal with regard to proportionate costs, and ratic, tf apporlionment shall remain intact, except that the consortium amour ts shall be paid individually to each of the dependents. Miscellaneous p(t tions pending, if any, shall stand closed. sd/- v ASSIr ,JAWAHAR REDDY iTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ._cum- princ ffi Er h'fl ,:Ht il r]R :x.h?ii8;iri ro "' ", ^,[" ?ru, ;ECTION OFFICER 1 al District Judge, HIGH COURT NBK, J DATED: 2810812025 COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.425 of 2019 AND MACMA.No738 of 2021 ,\ $ 5 r,iiii ?026 l I BOTH MACMA'S ARE PARTLY ALLOV\I =D 1q\>l)-4 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A-NOs:425 OF 2019 AND 738 OF 2021 M.A.C.M.A.NOs:. 425 OF 2019 Between Cholamandalam lvlS General lnsurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, H.No.2-3-184 AND 134/4, 1" Floor, Satguru Arcade, Beside Venkatareddy Eye Hospital, Kaman Road, Karimnagar Town and District ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3 AND

1. Etyala RAMA DEVI, Wo. Late Veeranna, aged 43 years, Occ: Housewife 2. Etyala Preethi D/o. Veeranna, Aged 10 years, Occ: Student, (Minor) 3. Etyala Vinay, S/o. Veeranna, Age 23 years, Occ: Student. (Respondent No.2 being minor is rep. by her mother and natural guardian, the respondent No.'1 herein) All are Rl/o. H.No.3-5-17l1, Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal (U) District RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

4. Sk. Navazoddin, S/o. Sk. Moinuddin, aged about 38 years, Occ: Driver, Rl/o. lndaram Village, Jaipur lvlandal, Mancherial District. 5, Ramdeni Jyothi, W/o. Ramesh, age Major, Owner of Lorry, R/o. H.No.35- 163/8, Housing Board Colony, Naspur, Mancherial District .-.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos.1 & 2. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 738 OF 2021 Between: 1 2 Etyala Rama Devi, Wo.Late Veeranna, Age. 41 Years, Occu. Housewife, Rr/o.H.No.3-5-1711, Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal (U) District. Etyala Preethi, D/o.Veeranna, Aged. 10 Years, Occu. Student, being minor refiresented by her next-friend Elyala Rama Devi, W/o. Veeranna (Petitioner No.1 ). Etyala Vinay, S/o.Veeranna, Age.21 years, Occu: Sturlr nt All are R/o.H.No .3-S-1lt 1, Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda, \ /arangat (U) District ..APPEL I {NTS/PETITIONERS AND 1 2 S K.Navazoddin, S/o. Sk.Moinuddin, Age. 36 years, Occ r. Driver, ruo.rndaram Viilage, Jaipur VanOar,' U5nciJriridiriri"i"' Ramdeni Jyothi, Wo. Ramesh, Age. Mgior, Occu: Ownr: of Lorry, H.No.35_ 163/8 Housing Board Corony, uaipri, [,iajcIJili Ei:il. : Cholamalrg_alam. MS General.ln^surance Co., Ltd, Rep. t\ its Branch Manaoer. -ilil"Sr',i ;; Al.ffi.;:' #.Hl; tsranch office, H.No 2_3_184 a rC17A .1.] venkatareddy Eye Hospitat, Xaman noa'o, X"iirn'ir'g#i ,iryn and Diskict. (Respondents 1 & 2 are set ex_party by the Trial Court) ...RESPONDE \ TS/RESPONDENTS Appeals filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles lrr t against the order and decree in ,r/Vop No.120 0f 2017 dated 26-10-201g, on ri -- fire of the court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- principal District JL r ge, Warangal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing ftrr grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and the materiar r apers in the [/vop and upon hearing the arguments of sRr. T MAHENDER Rr.( r, Advocate for the Appe',ant in MACMA 42512019 and Respondent No.3 in IVAC,/ I No.738/2021 and of sRr B SHANKAR, Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 3 in tvr 3MA 42512019 and Appellants 1 to 3 in MACI/A No_73812O21 and None appeeu:d for Respondent Respondents 4 & 5 in MACMA 425t2}1g and Respondents .l .& 2 in MACIr/A No.73812O21. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1' That the Motor Accident civir Misceraneous Appear 73) of 2021 be and [:l??r"i d_t, a ilowed by,"a,;i ilil; ;;;;S!:tio n r i, n,li+i, i0. 0"06'iI 2. That the MACMA No.425, of 2019 also be and hereby ,r partly allowed bv reducing the interest to gZ." p".t ,nnrrn on inJ'iJtai"quant I r of compensation trom the date of petition titt realizition;

3. That the claimants shall pay difference of court fees as ap I cable; 4- That the directions of the Tribunal wth regard to proportionate costs, and ratio of apportionment shall remain intact, except that the consortium amount shall be paid individually to each of the dependants;

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

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. M.JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To '1 . The Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Warangal. 2. Two CD Copies KVR/PR S^c- HIGH COURT NBK, J DATED: 2810812025 ; o(J t t I1 t srA o- l t?ll? 2 C)I I o(, \-r Cr COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.425 of 2019 AND MACMA.No738 of 2021 BOTH MACMA'S ARE PARTLY ALLOlt'l:D c. \q\rJ/"