The High Court · 2025

JI'DG}IEITT: 1 . This appeal is Iiled by the claimants aggrieved by the award passed by t}re Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Adilabad in MVOP.No.31 of 2O2O, dated 25.03.2O21, whereunder the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.23,54,80O/- onty against ttre claim of Rs.30,OO,OOO/- in a case of death. \,

2.1 Appellant No.l is the wife, appellant No.2 is the son and appellant No.3 is the mother of the deceased Munde Madhav.

2.2 It is stated in the claim petition that on 29.10.2019 Munde Madhav was going on to Gudihathnoor after visiting his in-laws house at Echoda and he reached Mannur village on his motor cycle bearing No.TS-Ol-EF-2897 at 06.30 p.m., the offending lorry bearing registration No.AP-O1-T-3888 driven by respondent No. I in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed him from behind, as a result, Munde Madhav fell on the road sustained severe bleeding injury over head and all over in may and died on the spot. The dead body was shifted to RIMS hospital. On the complaint given by Chate Sambhaji a case in Crime No.110 of 2Ol9 was registered for the offence under Section 3O4(A) ofIPC against the respondent No. I.

2.3 It is further contended in the claim petition that deceased worked as a lorry driver under one Civil contractor by name Arun, u,as earning I ,l \: BRMR, J MACit\.No.95 of 2022 Rs. 15,000/- per month and batta of Rs.2O0/- on ev€ry working day, he was aged about.3O years, was contributing his entire earnings for the welfare of the iamily, due to the unfortunate death of tl.e deceased, petitioners havt: suffered loss and lost their bread winner and their earnings have come to stand still and they claimed tls.4O,O0,0OO/- but due to paucity of money they have restricted their compensation amount to Rs.3(),OO,OOO/ -.

3. Respondert Nos.l and 2 have filed their counter contending that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and I exorbitant and they also disputed the age and earninl;s of the deceased, false case is registered against tJlem by managing the police and prayed I to dismiss t he Rrtition.

4. Respondent No.3 has hled a separate counter c()ntending that the alleged acciclent has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of thr crime vehicle and also disputed thr' age, income and occupation of the deceased and in fact accident occurred due to rash and ncgligent driving of the motor rycle by the decea:;ed who drove the vehicle in tr rash manner and came in contact \4rith tl)e offending lorry. Thc liabilitv ol the respondent No.3 is subject to provisions under Sc<:tions 147, l,l9 and 17O of the Motor Vehicles Act and Jrrayed to dismiss thc szrm( .

5. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the follow,ing issr-.es: (' 3/e BRMR, J MACMA-No.95 of 2022 //

1. Whether the deceased Munde Madhav died in the accide t that occurred on 29.10.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.APOIT- 3aa8 by respondent No.l or was there any contributory negligence on the part of deceased in ridir€ Motorcycte bearing No.TS -OI-EF-2897?

2. Whether the petitioners are entifled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief)

6. Appellant No.l was examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3 got marked Exs.Al to A7. No evidence is adduced by the respondents nor marked any documents.

7. The Tribunal after anaTyzing the evidence of the parties arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,OOO/- per monti and was aged about 30 years, added 407o future prospects and deducted 1 / 3.d towards personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier applied is '17' and awarded an amount of Rs.23,54,800/- with simple interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of filing the original petition (2l.O1.2O2Ol till the date of deposit or realization with proportionate costs.

8. l,earned counsel for t]re appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that on the date of the accident deceased was earning Rs.15,OOO/- per month and batta ol Rs.2OO/- on every working day as a lorry driver. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the earning of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month only and erred in granting meager amount of compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of consortium, Ioss of estate and funeral expenses- Tribunal faited I i I I I I t BRMR, J MAOMA No 95 of 2022 to award any arnount under ttrc head of loss of love and affection and prayed to grant the difference of Rs.6,45,2OO/-. 9 . learned counsel for ttre appellants subrlits that notice to respondent Nos. I and 2 is not required as he is challenging the quanh-rm, the same is recorded in the proct:eding sheet dated

13.03.202s

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submit:s that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the salary of the deceased as Rs.\2,OOO/- per month and ,:ounsel conceded to award Rs.4O,OOO/- each towards loss of consortium. I l. Learnr:d counsel for the appellants has only challenged the quantum au'ar:led by the Tribunal.

12. The t'vitlence of PWI is that her husbend used to earn Rs. 15,OOO/ - pr r month by the date of accident and that due to sudden death of her lrusband they have lost their sole breacl earner, she lost her husban<l's lovt' and affection, appellant No.2 has lost his father and appellant No.3 l.ras lost her son. Though PWI is cror;s examined by the respondcnts. expect putting suggestion that Ex.A6 salaq/ certificate is created for thc purpose of the case nothing more is elicited from her.

13. Therc Ls no dispute that the deceased is a driver by profession which is forrificd by Ex.A7. Ex.A6 is the salary c€ rtilicate issued b,v PW3, rvhich !ao('s to show that the deceased last drawn salary for the /,'i // /t' BRMR, J MACMA.No-95 of 2022 month of September 2019 is Rs.15,0OO/- (Rs.12,OO0/- as saiary and Rs.3,OOO/- in the shape of batta). PW3 is the employer of the deceased Munde Madhav, his evidence is that the deceased used to work under him as a driver on his lorry bearing No.AP-01-X-0787 since two years and he used to pay Rs.l2,OOO/- per month towards salary and apart from that he used to pay Rs.200 /- per day on every working day. In his I cross examination he stated that he is showing the driver particulars of the deceased in his income tax returns but he did not hle a copy of the same and he do not maintain acquittance register nor he informed the labour department about the deceased emplo5rment and he has not deducted provident fund.of the deceased.

14. Accident occurred on 29.10.2O19, the deceased being the driver under PW3, the Tribunal has talen the salary of the deceased as Rs. 10,0O0/- per month and added Rs.10O/- towards batta on every working day and arrived at Rs.12,OOO/-. Though PW3 has not filed any rccord to show that he is showing the sa.lary of the deceased in income tax returns but as a driver he might have been earning Rs. 12,OOO/ per month and the batta paid by P1V3 to the deceased is at the rate of Rs.200/ per day on every working day.

15. This Court is of tJle view that if 15 working days are taken into consideration which comes to Rs.3,0O0/- per month (15 x 200) and the total salary of the deceased comes to Rs.15,OOO/- per month, \- SRMR,J i MACMANo.95 of2022

16.1 The Supreme Court in Magma General . nsurance Company I Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and othersr held at paragraph No:;.2 1. 1 , 27 .2 and 21 .3 as under: "21.1 SFousal consortium is genera.lly defined as ri6;hts pertaining to the retrationship cf a husband-wife which allows compensal ion to the suwiving slrcuse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, alfection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation-"

21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protectio r, affection, gociety, discipline, gui<lance and training.'

21.3 Filal consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in ttre case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading tr the death of a child causes Etreat shock and agonJ to the parents and family :f tl:e deceased. The greatest ag()ny for a parent is to lose their ctrild during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and th,:ir role in the family unit-"

16.2 Appellants are entitled for loss of love and allection at the rate of Rs.SO,OOO/- each and loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.4O,0O0/- each as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Magma Genera-l Insurance Company Limited case'.

17.1 The determination c-rf compensation is as undel: Sl.N<r Name of thc Head Compensation I 2 j Monthlv income Rs.15,OO07 - Atld 4O'X, furure prospects (ar per National Insurance C0,!41 vs. B14nay Arrnual income Sethi2 Rs.21,0O0/ - ((ls,Ooo x 4O%ol = 6'000) + 15 o00 Rs.2,52,OOt)/- 2l O00x1 !!l I I t (2or8) 18 scc 13(, , l2o t7) AcJ 27OO I I 719 BRMR, J MACMA,No,95 of 2022 4 5

6. 7 8 9 I 11 t / 3.a deduction towards personal expenses Total Income Multiplier'17' As per Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3 [-oss of love and allection (Rs.50,OO0 / - each) Loss of consortium Rs.4O,O0O - each I-oss of estate I I Rs.2,52,0o0/- x (1/3) Rs.84,OO0/- Rs.l,68,OOO/- (2,52,OOO - 84,000) Rs.28,56,O00/- (1,68,O00 x 17) Rs.1,5O,OOO/- Rs.1,20,OOO/- Rs.15,0OO/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,OO0/- Total compensation Rs.31,56,OOO/- I I I I I I

17.2 Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9o/o per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others vs. [,okendra Rathod and othersa.

18. I The total compensation awarded is Rs.31,56,OO0/- along with interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (21 .Ol.2O2Ol till payment. Respondent Nos.l to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensaticn awarded along with costs and intcrests.

18.2 Appellant No. I (wife of the &ceased) is entitled for 4oulo (Rs. 12,62,4OOl- + costs and accrued iriterest thereon). Appellant No.2 (son of the deceased) is enritled for 4oo/o (Rs.12,62,4OOl- \r'ith proportionate costs and interest). Appellant No.3 (mother of thc r (2oo9) AG' 1298 {SC) r 2022 SCC OnLrne SC l6tt3 -? L BRMR,J T MACMA.No.95 of 2022 deceased) is entitled 2Oo/o i.e., Rs.6,31,2OO/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon. Appellant No. 1 and appellant No.3 are permitted to withdraw l.heir entire arnount with proportionale costs and interest. Insofar as appellant No.2 is concerned, his share of Rs.12,62,4OO/- with costs and accrued interest thereon shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalizrd bank till he attains majority. Appellant No.1 is permitted to withdraw the interest periodically on the fixed depos,its of her mihor son for his educational purpose.

19. MACMA.No.9S of 2O2O is allowed as under: (a) The appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.31,56,00O/- with irrterest at the rate of 97o per annunr from the date of petition (2l.Ol.2O2Ol till the date of deposit. (b) The appellants shall pay court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. (c) The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded within a period of eiglrt weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thc judgment, less the amount I deposited if any, on such deposit appellant Nos.l and 3 are permitted to withdrar,r, their entire share amount i.e,, Rs.l2,62,4OO /- and Rs.6,3 1,2OOl - with pro rortionate costs ald interest. Appellant No.2 share of Rs. 1i),62,4OO/- with costs anrl accrued interest thereon shall bt: kept in fixed deposit in any nationalizcd bank tilt he attains majority. , ? BRMR, J MACMA.No.95 of 2022 Appellant No. 1 is permitted to withdraw the interest periodica-lly on the fixed deposits of her minor son for his educational purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. / //TRUE COPY// - M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ISTANT REGISTRAR ) SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities against women-cum-Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad 2. One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T. Mahender Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4- Two CD Copies 1r' ABK/gh HIGH COLIRT DATED: 25lO4l2C'25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.9S of ,2O22 I I I (, a 5() iJ i !f Si/ii'4' 15 riti 2m / k o,-!\i, ALLOWNG THE M,ICMA WITHOUT COSTS (z li /rzl r t 3/t48I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 95 OF 2022 Between: 1 . Munde Vinantha, Wo. Late Munde Madhav, Age Household,Rl/o. H.No.1-91, Gudihatnoor, Gudihatnoor District. 27 years, Occ. Mandal, Adilabad 2 Munde Shreyansh, S/o. Late Munde Madhav, Age. 04 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. H.No.1-91, Gudihatnoor, Gudihatnoor Mandal, Adilabad District- (under the guardianship of his natural mother and next friend Munde Vinantha, W/o. late Munde Madhav i.e.Petitioner No.1)

3. Munde Vimala Bai, Wo. Late Munde Household, R/o. H. No.1-91 , Gudihatnoor, Diskict. Tulsiram, Age. 52 years, Occ. Gudihatnoor Mandal, Adilabad ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1 2 Kendre Laxman, S/o. Vittal, Age. 31 years, Occ. Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP.01.T.3888, R"/o. Jawaharnagar, Gudihatnoor, Gudihatnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. C5 lnfra Private Limited., Represented by its Proprietor Nimma Mahender Reddy, Registrered owner of lorry bearing No AP 01 T 3888, D.No.7-22, Ramnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District. TATA AIG General lnsurance Company Limited . Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office. 5th and 6th Floor, lmperial Towers, H.No.7-1-6- 617/A, Hyderabad-S00 016. (Certificate and Policy ao 015921767100. valid f rom 27 .12.20 1 8 lo 26. 1 2.20 1 9) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 31 of 2020, lated 25 O3.2O21 . on the file of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-special Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking The Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-Vl Additional District And Sessions Judge, At Adilabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusrng the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon trearing the arguments of Sri S Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondents No. I and 2 and of Sri T Mahender Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. This Coud doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be itnd hereby is Allowed. 2. That the appellants be and hereby are entitled for compensation of Rs. 31,56,000/- with interest at the rate of 97o per annum fr:m the date of petition (21 lO1l2O2O) till lhe date of Deposit.

3. That the appellants shall pay Court fee on the ,:nhanced amount of Compensation.

4. That the respondents be and hereby are jointly and sev,?rally liable to pay the compensation awarded with in a period of eight weeks frorn the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment, less the amount deposited if any.

5. That on such de:posit Appellants no 1 and 3 be and hereby are permitted to wilhdraw their entire share amount i.e., Rs. 12,62,4001- aud Rs. 6,31,2001 with proportionate cos,ts and interest.

6. That the Appellant No-2 share of Rs 12,62,400/- with costtr and accrued interesl there on shall ber kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalize d bank till he attains maiority,

7. That the Appellart No 1 be and hereby is permitted to '^/ithdraw the interest periodically on the,fixed deposits of her minor son for his educational purposes. 8. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and 9 That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE GOPY// III ()SMAN ALI BAIG IS ANT REGISTRAR ISECTION OFFICER }T To,

1. The Chairman, Itlotor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Sessions Judge for Fast Trackrng the Cases relating to Atrocities against women-cum-Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

2. Two CD Copies U^BK HIGH COURT DATED: 251O4i2025 DECREE MACMA.No.95 oI 2022 ALLOWING THE: MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 3 4z 4fi ,/e