'l . tvtahammad Gore Pasha v. 1. Venkdavath Raju and 2 others

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGEMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.358 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: The appeilants/claimalts filed the present appeal against th Award ald dt:cree passed by the Motor Accident C aims Tri unal um- Principal District Judge, at Mahabubnagar in M.\'.O.P.No.99 of 2077, dated 23.09.2019, wherein, the claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166(1)(c) of M.V. Act, 19BB seeking compensatior:, of Rs.4,00,0O0/- on account of d:ath of Mohammed Thofeeq @ IUD.Thope, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 1 1. 10.2016.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appelJarts/ claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.99 of 2O17 under Section 166 of the M.'/.Act, 1988 claiming compensation. of amount of Rs.4,00,000l- for the dt:ath of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have cause I due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It is r.:ontended that on 1 1. 10.20 16, the deceased, as a pillion rider, wzrs going along with Mohammed Khaja, who was riding the motorcycle bearing No.AP22 G

2031. When they were retuming home near the cld bus stand, near Nehru Chowrastha, they were passing on the left mirgin of the road and I B Z IA4J ,rJ-c. u.A. No.3 5 A of 2O2o meanwhile, a Ford Eco Sport car bearing No.AP23 AL 6777 came from Nagarkurnool towards Srisailam which was driven by its driver in a rash and negiigent manner, dashed the motorcycle from behind, due to which, the motorcycle fell down and the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Governrnent Hospital, Achampet initially ald from there, he was shifted to Hyderabad. While shifting, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Based on the complaint, a case was registered against the driver of the said car uide Cr.No.l67 l2O 16 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and later on charge sheet is filed under Section 304-,4 of IPC.

3. At the tirne of the accident, the deceased was aged about 5 years and was hale and healthy. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their love and affection and suffered mental agony, as such, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 4,O0,00O/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 frled counter affrdavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. It is further contended that the crime vehicle was insured 3 I@8"1 N.A. C. rd.A. No. 35a ol 2OilO with respondent No.3, subject to terms ald condil:ions and limitations and as on the date of accident, the driver of the car (respondent No.1) was not holding a va,lid driving licence and knowing the fact, respondent No.2-ow,ner of the vehicle has handed over the vetricle to him, violating the terms o1' the policy ald as such, prayed tr.r dismiss the claim petition

5. Basing on the said pleadings and averment s made by both the counsel, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Wlrcther the occident ocanned on 11.10.2016 at abtut 5-45 p.m., ot the old bus stand near Nehru Chourastha of Achampel, u-tas due to the rashness and negligence on the part of R.1 being the diuer of tte Car bearing registration No.AP23 AL 6777 and uhetht'r the deceased Mohammed Thofeeq @ Md.Thope died out of the injuies sustained in the accident? 2) Whether there utas o contributory negligence on the' part of the ider of the mztorc!)cle beaing registration No.AP22 G 2O! 1 leading to the accidenti) 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the com.r:ensation for the death of the deceosed Mohnmmed Tlnfeeq @ MD.T lope in tLte said accident and, lf so, tohat amount and from uthom? 4) To wlutt relieJ?

6. During the course of the trial, tJle claimalts, got examined PW. 1 and marked Exs.Al to A9. On behalf of the respondents, RW. 1 and 2 were examined and go{marked Exs.Bl to 83 and E.xs.X1 to X3. i 4 i4&r t-Lc-\-A.No35A oa adro

7. Having heard both the counsel ald after perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the. said car ald made the respondents liable for the said accident and partly allowed the claim petition, awarding ar arnount of Rs.2,30,OO0/- in favour of the claimants, with interest @ 9%' per annum.

8. Being unsatisfred and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/clairnants on the ground that the learned tribunal disallowed the payment of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- without any basis. Further, the learned Judge, without considering the fact that the appellants lost their son and insurmountable suffering throughout their life, gralted only Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and alfection and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, whereas, adequate compensation ought to have been awarded under these heads. It is further contended that the compensation so awarded is very meager and therefore, prayed to enhance the same. I J 5 !44"/ M-4.C, M. A-No.3 5 a of 2O2O

9. Heard Sri Mettu Shankar, learned counsel for the appellants ald Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for rer;pondent No.3. None appeared for respondent Nos. I and 2 alrd they did rrot choose to contest the petition t,efore the trial Court, as such, notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is disp<:nsed with.

10. The point which arose for consideration befc,re this Court in the present appeal is that: i) Whether the appellants are entitled .for enLtnnced compensation as proged for? If so, to u.tlnt ertent?

11. The main contention of the appellants is that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider the pain and sufferir g of the appellants where their son/deceased, who was aged about ,5 years died in the accident. It is; pertinent to mention that the Insural ce Company did not prefer any cross appeal against the judgment and c.ecree passed by the learned Tribu.nal. As such, there is no dispute regarrling the liability and also the quan tum of compensation which is claime C by the appeliants. The only aspect which has to be looked into is r.irhether the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation as per the judgments ald the settled proBosition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme \ 6 I44J 44e!4!b35.4elAgzo Court in respect of the award of compensation in the cases where the minors are involved.

12. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased was 5 years old and the learned Tribunal, having considered the deceased as a non earning member, assessed the compensation taking the notiona-l income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and deducted 173'o towards personal expenses and considering the age of the parents of the deceased, applied multiplier of 16 (Rs. 10,000/- X 16 : Rs. 1,60,000/-). Besides that, awarded Rs.50,0OO/- towards loss of love and a-ffection and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, thereby granting total arnount of Rs.2,3O,000/- as compensation

13. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto and othersl, wherein, in the said case, the deceased, who was aged 12 years died in a motor vehicle accident and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon the judgments in the cases of Kishan Gopal v. Lalaz, Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu3, Nagappa 1 (2023) 1 scc 204 lzot+1 t scc zu 2 ' (2022) 1 scc 317 ':ffi 7 TNTR.J M-A,C. rLA. No.3 5 a of 202q v. Gurudayal Singh+, and Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporations and having applied the ratios of the said judgments, has taken the nol.ional income of the deceased at Rs.30 000/- a:rd enhanced the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the High Court to Rs.5,o0,000/-.

14. In view of the above decision and as the deceased in the present case also being minor, the principle which was laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi lsupra), :an be applied in the instant case also. Therefore, the similar amount of compensation as awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the al oresaid case can be awarded in the present case also. Accordingly, thisr Court is inclined to award the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellz:lts as against the compensatiort which is awarded by the leanled Tribunal i. e Rs.2,30,000/ -.

15. Hence, lor the said reason, this point is ansv,ered. The claimants are entitled for a-n enhanced compensation of RS.S,OO,OOO/-. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, enhancinl4 the compensation from Rs.2,30,000/- to Rs.S,OO,OOO/- with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. on the 4 lzooll zscczt+ s lzoosy 6 scc tzt l I I I / B r\ IY]Y[.J N.Lc.EA.No3sa or N29 enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. It is made clear that respondent No.3-Insuralce Company shall initially deposit the said compensation with interest within two months from the date of this judgment arrd shall recover the same from respondent Nos.1 and 2 by filing execution petition under the same decree. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said compensation in the sarne manner ald ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J +. two CDCopies M GR/GR The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar cum principar District Judge, Mahabubnagar. One CC to SRt METTU SHANKAR, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt A RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI I i I I I i I HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.358 of 2020 q 'f: { Y\E lu i: !': ...'., ;/ , ..i. O() \ q Str 2 -k 'l:t" DISPOSING OFF THE MACMA b 7 q IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 358 OF 2020 Between:

1. Mahammad Gore Pasha, S/o Shaik Bandagi, aged 37 years, Occ. Driver, Mahabubnagar district

2. Smt. Asma Begum, Wo Mahammad Gore Pasha, Aged 30 years, Occ Housewife, Both are R/o Utla Koneru Village of Achampet Mandal, Presently R/o Bhoothpur village and Mandal Mahabubnagar District. ...APPELLANTS AND

1. Venkdavath Raju and 2 others, S/o Gopal, aged 28 years, Occ. Teacher, Rio lndira Nagar Colony, Achampct, Nagarkurnool District.

2. G. Vr;ay Kumar Goud, S/o G. Bheemaiah, Age.35years, Occ. Owner of the car b-edring No. AP-23-AL-6777 , Rlo Plot No. 85, Flat No. 102, Dream Vally Road, Tanishanagar, Manikonda, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The Future General lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Legal Manager, lst Floor, D.No. 7-1-21A, APDL Estate, Opp Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in MVOP No. 99 of 2017 dated 23.09.2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar. ORDER 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 Sri. METTU SHANKAR, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No 3 and none appeared forthe respondent No.'l & 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the lvlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,30,000 to Rs. r>,00,000/- with interest @ 7.syo p.a on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

2. That the respondent no.3 lnsurance Company shall initially deposit the said compensalion with interest within two months from the Cate of this judgement and shall recover the same from respondent No. 1 & 2 by filing the execution petition under the same decree.

3. That on such deposit, the appellants be and hereby a.e enti ed to withdraw the said ccmpensation in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal

4. That the save as aforesaid, the decree of the Trrbunal r;hall stands confirmed in all other respects, and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 6. SD/- MOI{D OSMAN ALI BAIG REGISTRAR Aq$ t' //TRUE COPY// S ON OFFICER 'l . The Chairman ltrlotor Accident Claims Tribunal cum prin:ipal District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 2. Two CD Copies #- To, GR .f HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 DECREE MACMA.No.3S8 ot 2020 DISPOSING OFF THE MACMA 1 q