The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMA] , \KA M.A.C.M.A-No.3326 of 2016 JUDGMENT: Dissatisfied u'ith the quantllm of compcnsi't l rn riwarcled by the Chairmar-r, Motor Vehicle Accide nt Clairns 'l- runal cum- I Aclditional District Juclge at Ranga Reddy (l'rcrei'r Ll'tcr u'i1l be referred as 'Tribunal") in O.P.No.771 of 2OO 1 datec 13 03 2006' the petitioners/ claimants fitcd the prcsent Apr: :al seeking enlra nct'mcn t ol t ompetlsat ion.

2. For lhc sake of convenience, the parlies lr': einafter arc referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal Thc brief lacts of the case as can be seen frrr 3. are that the petitioners havc filed claim peli I compensation of Rs 4,O0,000/ from respondent for the cleath of deceased b]' name "ChandrakanlIL u,itt be referred as 'deceased'). Petitioner Nos' ' p.rrents of the deceased and Petitioner No 3 is yo r of Lhe deceascd. Thc reason assigned by the petili death of the deceased is that on 12 O2'2OOI aL abt a the record rn claiming 'Jos. 1 and 2 (hcreinafter ancl 2 are nger brother rners for the rt O8:30 AM, the deceasecl was proceeding on his motorcycle L r 28l[-669 to drop children at the school and wh: \.rear Moghal Residency, a lorry bearing registr I aring No.AP- r he reached ion No. TN- I I i l I a t : . I E t i a T 2 251tr 3673 (hereinaftcr called as crime vehicle) was found parkccl in the middlc of thc road in a negligent manner. Due to the negligent ancl rcckless parking of crime vchicle, the decezrsed hit- thc lorry and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he u'as shifted to Osmania General Hospital, u'herein he u'as declared as brought dead'

4. Based on the complaint, a case in FIR No.38 of 2001 of Langerhouse Policc Stzrtion, Hyderabad was rcgistered under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Codc, 1806 against driver of the crime vehicle and after investigaLion laid Charge Sheet. According to the petitioners, by the date of accident the dcceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident, working as computcr operator and used to earn Rs.3,00O/ -per month. It u,as stated that the petitioners were solely depending on the incomc of thc deceascd and due to his sudden demise in the said accident the family suffered a lot and lost love and affection. Therefore, the petitioners as dependents of the deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,OO,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) against respondents jointly and severally. l l i I 1 I I I i i I I I E E a I I I I I jffiF.+:lBEcF-rz -ra-a--./ , -f - ,:' r 3

5. Responrlcnt No.1-driver of the crime vehicle - patle. Rcsprltlclent No.2 lnsurzrttcc Company I I denvrng thc nrilnner of accidcnt. clcath, age' zt' ' irrcornc o1' t hc tleccased- Further' it s'as contcntl' : l time of accidct'tt the cleceasecl was not having valirl rnaine d rux 'rl r:out'r'-er r irl ion and llritL zlt the ntl cffective driving Iicenst:, which is in violzrtion of the conditit r s stipulatcd in the insltrzrnce policy. Furthermorc, responderrt that ttre r:rimc vehicle u'as parked in negligent rn: t r o.2 de nicd r ri'r rt't Lhout an\ propcr irlclicarion. On thc :rbovc grounds' res l assirilcd its lirrbility to pay any compensation rl' r,rdr:n1 No.2 I 1r-ayed tcr rlis rr . iss rhr',l.rim a pplica tion.

6. Baseci otr the rival colllentions, the Tributrr r lils lianlcd the follos'ing three issues: i) Wlrcther the accident had ocanted <ltt : lo rastt Lnd rLegtigent diuing of Lorry beaing No ''l'N l' 5.8 3673 by tts tliuer? iA Wlether the uehicle inuolued in the rr cident is insurerl uith the second respondent? ii] Wtrcther the petitioners are entitle'- to anA compensation? If so, io rahot amount' again; t'horn? iu) To uhat relieJ?

7. Dltring the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 r" re t:xamined i\qnd got marked Exs.Al to 4.6 On behalf of resp ndents none rvere examincd and no document was marked Lr:;t ned Tribunal \ I I i : : i t i I 4 after considering the rival contentions partly allowed the claim petition by arvarding Rs. 1,80,00O/ - (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) u,ith interest aL 7.sok per annum from the date of claim petition till payment with proportionate costs and the claim of the 3.d petitioner w'as disallorved. Learned Tribunal also held contributory negligence on respondent No.1 and the deceased at the ratio of 75:25. Aggrieved by thc quantum ol compensation, the appellants/claimants preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compcnsation.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants / petitioners is that though appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidencc apart from relying on the documents under Exs- A- 1 to A 6, the learned Tribunal without considering thc same has crroneously awarded mcager amount. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in taking wrong multiplier while computing the compensation and Iearned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. On the above grounds, the appellants/petitioners prayed to allow the application ard grant just and reasonable compensation. I i I i I I I i' i 1 t 1i ! I ! i $ , . 2 i x ! I ! ; l 1 I i I .\ .,., ,2 5 9 Pcr contra, Iearned Standing Counsel for thc espcndetit No.2 / Insurance CotnPanY has Tribur-ral rightlv assessed the income of the d e ( :ased arrcl au'ardccl just and rcasonable compensation and llle eLme t-reeds contended that r: learnt:d no inte rfcrence b]' this court- 10 Nou'thc points for consideration are that: Whetlrcr the impugned Orcler ond Decret passed bll the leonrcd 'f ibunal calls for interkrence by t ns t:ourt? If so uthether the appellants/ petitioners are etl '1 led for ang e nLrancernent of the compensation? 1L ['Iearcl lroth sides and perused the entire rr:':rr cl including the grouncls of APPeal petltioners and is no clisPu tc rcg:rrd to the

12. It is pert.rnent to note that respondent Nos I :Lnd 2 h:rve not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugne r lrdcr- Thcrc u,ith regard to the relationship rotu'een thc the deceased. There is also nci ' isputc u'ith manner of the accident ancl :onlributory the learned Tribunal by relying rn the oral negligence, as evidcnce of PW 1 -mother of the deceased and PV/-) (eye witness to the accidcnt) coupled with the documentary c r Cence under trxs.A1 (FlR), A2 (inquest report), A5 (Charge Shee'l arrived Lo a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash Lrld negligent l I I i I 6 driving of the crime vehicle and also assessed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the ratLo of 75:25

13. The only question which has to be considered in this Appeal is with regard to income of the deceased ancl the applicable multiplier. On perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioners have not filed any documentary proof to prove that the deceased was earning more than Rs.3,000/ Thus, the Iearned Tribunal considering the year of accident and the age of the deceased has taken monthly incomc as Rs.3,OOO/ , this Court is of the considered view that the monthly income taken by the learned tribunal is just and reasonable.

14. Now coming to quantum of compensation, according to the appellanls/ petitioners, the deceased u.as aged about 20 years at the time of accident as evident from Dxs.A1-FIR, A5- Charge Sheet, A2 lnquest Rcport and Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report. The appropriate muitiplier for the age group of 15 to 20 years is'18'as per the principle laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationr, however, the learned Tribunal, has wrongly fixed the multiplier as "13" considering the age of the deceased on par with his mother, instead of taking | (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 appropriate multiplier ol deceased who was aged i ( years at the tinrt: of accident. Thus, the correct multiplier . s the above decision o[ Flor-rorable Apex Court is " 18".

15. As per the rccords, the deceased was earnit g Rs.3,0OO/- pr:r month and he is bachelor thus, as per rh(l rlecision laid ciou n in No:tional Insurance Cornpang Limite I o. Pranag Sethi and otherd 50% of his monthly inco I er has to be c.leducted torvarcls his personal expenses an( thereby the n'ror-rthly it'rcome of tl-re deceased after dedtLc r ng personal expenses colnes to Rs.1,500/ and the annual i rcome of [he dcceased comes to tts. 18,000/- (Rs.1,5OO/- x l - months). As s [:rled supra, lhe rclevant multiplier for the age c I the deccased is '18'. Wherr thc annual s:ilary of the deceased :i :cr deducting his personal cxpenses is muitiplied with the reLe:r z nt multiplier, it comes to Rs.3,24,00O/- (Rs.18,000/- x 18). Tht s, lne loss of clcpendenc5, on ilccol-rnt of sudden demise ol deccased is Rs.3,24,O00/,

76. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,O00/- rt u,ards loss of cstate and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Horvever- the compensation amounl anvarded seems to be tl r Ioq,er side. Thprefore, this court is inclined to award Rs. 10 ( OO I towards ,'201) ACU 27OO \ _l I t I I I 8 NB('J loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses Thus, in total the petitioners is entitled for Rs 3,44,000/ The learned Tribunal has apportioned the contributory negligence of the deceasecl aL 25o/n, thus loss of contribution u'ould come to Rs.86,0O0/ (Rs.3,44,000/ - x 25oh). By deducting this amount from the total amount of the contribution, loss of depcndency can be arrivecl at Rs.2,58,OOO/- (Rs.3,a4,000 Rs 86,O00)

17. The learned Tribunal with regard to dependency of pe tirioner No.3 i.e ., younger brother of the deceased held in ncgalive and relief out of the compensation award was perusal of record, it is quite clear that the rejected. On petitioner No.3 is major and aged about 19 years at Lhc time of filing of this claim petition. Thus, this Court of the considered opinion that the learned tribunal has rightly held that pelitioner No.3 is not dependent on the income of the deceased w'hich does not call for any interference of this court'

18. ln vien, of the above facts and circumslances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observa tions. : ! i I I ! 5 t i i I ; 1 ! f I I i i i I ! I ! i I I l i i 9

19. In the resr-rlt, the Appeal is partly allowed L ' ennancrng I thc conrpensauon itmou t from Rs L,80,O0O/ to I? I 2,58,000/, r'vhich strall carry inierest @;7 5"/o per annum fror'] hling the clain-r application tiil the clate of rea I lhe clate of zation. The respondents are jointly and severally liable ttl leposit 1.he compensation amount within two months fronl .he date of receipl of copv of this juclgmcnt. C)n such deprr:'i , petitior-rer Nos. I ancl 2 being fzrther and mother of the ri :cea sed ilre entitied to r,vithdrari' thc compenszrtion amount in t qual shares u.ithout lurnishing any securih.. There shall be n: ordcr as to costs. closed Misceli:rncous petiLions, if any, pending shall strLnd SD/- l1T OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR ..-.-- ;ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, \ 1- The Chairman, l\4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District Judge, Ranga ReddY. \,,

2. One CC to SRI T VISWARUPA CHARY Advocate [OP[J )] 3. One CC to SRl. N.S. Bhaskar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies U'te AS/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0210712Q25 \ I JUDGMENT+DECREE [2 Drafts] MACMA.No.3326 of 2016 . i'-"- l:;R I HES o i) 'ts 05 2i7F 't',(--\-:" '. PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA. ^{UV IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APP EAL NO: 3326 OF 2016 Appeal filed Under Section '173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in MVOP No.77112001 dated.23l03l2o06 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum lAdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Between:

3. Smt. Bodhala sharada, Wo. B. Mallesh, Aged 48 years, 4. Bodhala t\/alleh, S/o. Late Laxmaiah,Aged 54 years, Both are R/o. H.No. 1-56, Manikonda Vitlage, Rajendranagar Mandal,R.R District. ...Appellants/Petitioners I & 2 AND

4. Mr.V. Durai Swamy, S/o. Veerappan, Aged 53 years, Occ:Business, Rio. 116-4-'1, Palaiandi Street, Namakkal, Tamilnadu State.

5. The National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager No.23-106, Opp Fruit Market, Gaddiannaram, R.R.District.

6. Bodhala Chandraekhar, S/o. B. Mallesh R/o. H.No. 1-56, Manikonda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in MVOP No.771l2OO1 daled.23l03l2O06 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum lAdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy Diskict. -F ,/ I I I i This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing 1l : grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materia oapers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. T Viswarupa Chary \dvocate for the Appellant and of Sri N.S. Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for the Rer;J ondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent no.'l This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is parfly allowe compensation amount from Rs.1,80,0001 to Rs.2,5g, l interest @ 7.5o/o p.a., from the date of filing the claim a1r realization;

2. That the respondents are joinfly and severally i compensation amount within two months from the date this judgment,

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner Nos. .1&2 being Fat deceased are entitled to withdraw the compensation ar without furnishing any security;

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sha J by enhanced the )01 which shall carry lication till the date of rble to deposit the of receipt of copy of rer and Mother of the ount in equal shares stands confirmed in all other respects, and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeai. SD/. ! I. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSI ;TANT REGIS //TRUE COPYII \r SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunarvm r Additionar District Judge, Ranga Reddy.

2. Two CD Copies Astsh clt- HIGH COURT DATED:021O712O25 DECREE MACMA.No.3326 of 2016 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA. $.