High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 12.1Q.2020 in M.V.O.p.No.i029 ot 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ..the Tribunal") .

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on

27.01 .2017 the deceased along with some others went to Siripuram Village to attend a family function and were returning in the late night of 27.01 .2017 by an auto rickshaw bearing No.Ap-28-TC-2205 at about'l 1:30 p.m., when the said auto rickshaw reached near the Banarad junction, a lorry bearing No.Ap-28-TE-2549 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came in the opposite direction and hit the auto rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling and as a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died while she was being shifted to the hospital. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.20,00,OOO/-. \"r -.,-. -/

4. The respondent No.'l remained ex-parte. 1 ETD,J I IACMA No.314 2021

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying 1le averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the I rccident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further : lntended that the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving lice rse as on the date of the accident and that their company is not lierl rle to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court l^i s framed the following issues for trial:- 1 2 Whether the pleaded accident had occuned resultin(t the deceased-B Balamani Wo Sarryaiah, due to tlt ncgligent drivlng of the driver of the crime vehicle l) No.AP-28-TE-2549 by its driver? n death of rash and ry bearing Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensatict to what quantum an(l what is the liability of the resport' and if so, ents?

3. To whal reiief?"

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined : W1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respc'r dents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal ias awarded a corhpensation of Rs.7,94,000/-. Aggrieved by the r; rid award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seekinl enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of S'ri V. Krishna Rao, learned "ornrut for the appellants and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel ETDJ MACMA No.314 2021 for respondent No,2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submifted that the deceased was an agriculturist owning a land of Ac.4_lt2guntas and she also used to do tailoring work apart from household chores. Thus, her income has to be computed on three counts that is an agriculturist, tailor and also as a home maker. He therefore, contended that the income assessed by the tribunal as Rs.4,000/_ per month is very low and therefore, prayed to enhance the sarne. He fu(her argued that the tribunal has faired to consider the other components and has awarded meager amount of compensation. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the tribunal has righfly assessed the income to be Rs.4,000/- per month, without there being any proof filed to show that she was undertaking tailoring work. He further argued that Supreme Court has held that in case of a housewife, Rs.5,0O0l can be taken as the monthly income and therefore, the same may be taken in this case arso- Though the petitioners have fired pahanies under Ex.A6 and A7 showing that the deceased possessed Ac.4_112 ETD,J t\ ACMA No.314,2021 4 guntas of land, it cannot be a proof to hold that sl : was doing agricultural activity in the said land. The petitione rs have not established whether they were barren lands or fertile lands' Therefore, the same cannot be considered. He furthe ' argued that the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the < eceased and also the compensation. He therefore, prayed to dismir s the appeal' He further argued that rate of interest as granted by tlrr tribunal is @ 9% per annum which is too high and has prayed to retl tce the same-

12. ln view of the above contentions' the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 a Whether lhe claimants are entitled to enha 1 :ement of compensation? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunut need any inteierence ? To what reiief ?

3. 13. Point No.1: a) The contention of the claimants is that th t tribunal has awarded low amount of compensation by assessingl the income of the deceased to be very low. They contended that lht: deceased was an agriculturist and also a tailor. ln support of their I ase, they filed Exs.A6 and A7. b) A perusal of Ex.A6 reveals that the petitioner i'; the pattedar of Ac.4-18 guntas in Sy.No.25l3 and has also filerl Encumbrance -.-.. 5 ETD,J MACMA No.314 2O2l Certificate showing that she is the owner of the said land and there are no encumbrances. Though the petitioners contended that she was doing tailoring work, no proof can be expected in this regard. However, it is a common observation in the Society that many housewives do take up tailoring work. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is opined on a reasonable hypothesis, that an amount of Rs.6,000/_ per month if assessed as the monthly income of the deceased, it would be just and proper. c) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. pranay Sefhi & Othersl ,2lo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged .4g, years' adding 25% towards future prospects i.e., 6000+1,500 would give Rs.7,5001- per month, which comes to Rs.7,S00/_ x 12 = Rs.90,000/- per annum. d) Since the claimants are four in number, the deduction that has to be made is 1/4rh from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.67,50O/- (Rs.90,000 (-) 22,s}ot-). 1 AtR 2017 SCC 5.1 57 ETD,I nl/ :MA No 314-2021 6 e) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to t.r: age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarl r Verma Vs' Delhi Transport corporation', the deceased being agr d '48' years, the appropriate multiplier is '13'' Therefore, the loss cf dependency is assessed as Rs.8,77,500/- (Rs'67,500 x 13)' ln the light of Pranay Sethfs case, Rs'15000/- towards loss 0 of estate and Rs.15,0001 towards funeral expenses arl i Rs.40,0001 towards loss of consoftium have to be arvarded rnd the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three yea'' S) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v' Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3, the Apex Court I rs elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's; case and has further held that not only the spouse biit the parents i nd children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium Therefore' in the present case, the claimants and would get Rs lB'400/- each' hence, the compensation amount under this he ad would be Rs.1,93,600/- instead of Rs'40,000/-' Further in amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs'18'150 - towards Loss of'Estate have to be awarded. ' 2oo9 (6) scc I2l r(2018) l8 scc t3o h) ln all, the petitioners are entifled to the foilowing compensation 7 ETO,J MACMA No.314_2021 amounts:- 1 2 head of loss of n under the Compensatio Compensat ion towards I to the Compensat ion towards loss of estate 4. Compensat ion towards funeral expenses oss of consortium 3 Total Rs.8,77,500/- Rs.1,93,600/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.11,07,400r- i) Thus, the compensation to which the petitioners are entifled is calculated as Rs.11,07,400/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,94,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entifled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- a) ln view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunar need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.11,07,4001_ from that of Rs.7,94,000/- that is awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 9olo on the quantum of compensation and the contention of the respondent counsel is that it is too high. ._ -_ ETD,J li1 ,CMA No.314-2021 ln Jadav Saroia Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao at d Anothe/; c) a coordinate Bench of this High court has granted int< rest @7 'SYo 8 per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation' ln. Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath d) Suresh and Atherss and National lnsuranee Coml any Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others6; also inir rest @ 7'5% per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of cr> npensation' e) ln lJnited lnsurance Company Limited W: sus' Bollam LingaiahT; when the Tribunat has granted rate of ink:r ast @ 9% per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of intere st to 7-5% Per annum from the date of petition till realization A Division Bench of this High Court in Natio nl lnsurance 0 Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathf ; rls granted 7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the dat: of petition till realization S) Therefore, in the light of the above cited deci; cns' this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7 5% on ttrr compensation that is awarded in such cases I 2o2T3ee orline TS 606 5 2023 SCC Online TS 1095 6 2023 SCC Ontine TS I 170 ? 20?4 SCC Onlinc TS 915 I 2024 SCC Onlinc TS 2050 a EI DJ MACMA No,314 2021 h) Hence the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of 9 interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7,5%. Point No,2 is answered accordinglY.

15. Point No.3:- ln the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the c'laimant is partly allowed, modifoing the Order and Decree dated 12.10.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1029 ot 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,94,000/- to Rs.11,07,400/-. The rate of interest is reduced from 9o/o lo 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited. The respondents are 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. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount as per thelr respec{ive shares as allotted by the tribunal without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGIST ,/TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

1. The Chairmah, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional 2. One CC to SRl. V KRISHNA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDYAdvocate [OPUC] 4. T1t/o CD Copies (:F/Elqr i I / HIGH COURT DATED:26/08/2025 41 1|:: /it li\J \\; i.- < 'f ,:f';ffii'ffiir" ? 1 'u[i, ]til (,i] ,':. it "4.- I ' l .,- / ,t./t :1...i' JUDGMENT MACMA.No.314 of 2021 ' l*Q"*"nr-r"i;"irl PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS v \\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD l3e+41 TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 314 OF 2021 Between:

1. B.Sangaiah, S/o, Chennaiah aged 50 years,Occ Agriculture 2. B.Mullaiah, S/o,Sangaiah,aged 26 years Occ Pvt.employee 3. B. Ramachendraiah,, S/o,Sangaiah aged 25 years,Occ Pvt.employee 4. B.Madhu,, S/o, Sangaiah, aged 23 years,Occ student All are R/o, 7-1-11612, Balkampet, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-500038 ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND

1. S. Mahipal Reddy,, S/o, Ramreddy, aged about 38 years, Occ business, R/o. 7- 139/5, Mominpet Village and Manndal Dishict-Vikarabad- (Owner cum driver of lorry no.AP 28 TE 2549)

2. HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Manager, ll floor,6-3- 346/1 , above Scotia Bank, Opp Jalagam Vengalrao Park, Road no. l,Banjara hills, Hyderabad-S00034.(policy no.23'15 2015 8430 9500 000 Valid from 08112116 to 07t12117) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 12.10.2020 passed in OP No 102912017 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, 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. V. KRISHNA RAO, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondent No.'[ and SRI A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal t e and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhancerl from Rs.7,94,000/- to Rs.1 1,07,400!.

3. That the rate of interest be and is hereby reducec kom 9% lo 7.5Yo per annum from the date of claim petition till realization, i nd the interest for the period of delay is forfeited.

4. That the respondents be and hereby are dir€ rted to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgm,: rt after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

5. That on such deposit by the respondents, the apF:llants are entitled to withdraw the said amount as per their respective slr res as allotted by the tribunal without furnishing any security-

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/. B. REKHA RANI AS|I ;ISTANT REGISTRAR Itf rue Copyll \ \ To

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Trib nal-cum-lX Additional SEcrroru oFFrcER Chief Judge, City Civil Cou(, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:26/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.314 ol 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS \ $