The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This zLppeal is hled by the claimants aggrieved l:y the order and Decree dated 08.01.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.260l of 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Oourt of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (for short "tlrt: Tribunal").

For convenience and clarity, the parties hert:i:-r are referred to as they were' arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The cirse of the claim petitioners before the 'Iribunal is that on 29.1O.2018 while the deceased Shaik Khaja Anees Ahmed was proceeding from Bainsha to Nirmal in al RTC bus bearing No.AP- OIZ-OO4| as passenger and u,hen the said bus reached the bus- stop of Eadgoan Chorvk, Nirmal, the driver of the t>us stopped the bus, but he immediately drove the vehicle at a high spced and in a rash and ncgligent manner without observing the dec:eased, who q,as trying to get down the bus, due to which, :LLe deceased fell down and received severe head injury and other injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the dece ased was shifted to Governmt'nt Hospital, Nirmal and from there tc, Nizamabad and then to Gandhi Hospital for better treatment but he died on

01.11.2018 u,hi1e undergoing treatment. The wife: and children of /.. the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,OO0/-. z ETD,] MACMA No.339-2021 \

4. Respondents filed their counter denying all the averments in the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the deceased. They further contended that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent dnving of the bus driver but that the deceased himself was negligent while getting down the bus and that the deceased tried to get down from the running bus and thus fell down and sustained grievous injuries ald submitted that there was no fault of the bus driver.

5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 29.7O.2O 18 occurred resulting in death of the deceased Shaik Khaja Anees Ahmed due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of TSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-O 1-2-0041? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and to what extent? 3) To what relieP

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to 4,6. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ - as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,O00/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. i I I I I I t i I t 3 ETD,J MACMA No.339 2021

8. Heard the submission of Sri A.S.Narayana. Jearned counsel for the peti[ioners and Sri N. Praveen Reddy, Jearncd standing counsel for the respondents.

9. Learncd counsel for petitioners has subrrLitted that the Tribunal has not complied the latest guidetines of rhe Hon'ble Apex Court and that the Tribunal has grossly erred br. gran ring meager compensation to the petitioners. It is furti-rer sub.:nitted that the Tribunal has also au,arded very meager amounts under various he ads and the.refore prayed to enhance the c t;npcnsation by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has granted reasonable cornpensation and therefort:, there is no need to interfere u'ith the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appr:al. I 1. Based on the above rival contentions, this C ourt frames the following points lor determina tion: l. Whether ttre petitioners are entitled to enh, tcement of compensation? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunel need any interference? 3. 12. POINT NO. 1: To uhat relieP a) Petitioners asserted that the deceased userl to work as a mechanic and used to earn an amount of Rs. 15,Orl()/- per month but no proof is filed in this regard. Therefore, the Tribunal has -t!lr\iffiEa;n .. , _41 ..."n \(n: \ , 4 ETD,J MACMA No.339 2021 taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month by taking into consideration the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manage4 Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Cotnpang Lirnitedl, where in the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,50O/ - per month can be safely taken. b) In the above said case, the accident occurred in the year 2OO4 and notional incomc of the deceased who was working as laboure r was taken as Rs.4,500/ - per month but in the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2018 and the deceased is stated to have been working as mechanic. Thus in the facts and circumstances and on a reasonable hypothesis, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/ - per month. c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Compang Limited Vs- Prdnau Sethi & Others2, 7Oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 50 years as per P.M.tr report, adding 1O7o towards future prospects ?-4t ' (2ol r) t2 scc 236 2 erR 2ort scc 51s7 I I I I I t i 5 ETD,] MACMA No.339 2021 would give I?s.8,8O0/- (Rs.8,000/-x 10/lOO = 8CO/-) per month, which comes to Rs.8,800/ x 12 = Rs. 1,05,6O0/- p,:r. annum. d) The nr,Lmber of claimants herein are four anr[ :herefore, l /4h deduction neecl to bc made to his incomc ri u,ards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.79,2O0/- (r?r;. 1,OS,600/, (-) Rs.26,a0ol-) e) The Post Mortem Examination report filerl under Ex.A.3 reveals the age of the dcceased as 50 years. The nlrltiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceasecl as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma u. Del.hi Transport Corporatiortr. The deceased being aged 50 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '13'. Therefore, the k;s:; of dependency comes up to Rs.10,29,600/-. 0 In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.40,O0r)7 - toivards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss o[ eslate i:nd Rs. ]S,OO0/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It r,,a s further held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by 10o.,, or cvery three years. d ln Magma General Insurance Compang Limited u. No:nu Ram @, Chuhru Ram and other{, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the pnnciples laid down in Pranag Sethi,s case and has further held that the parents and children of the de:r:ased are also ' 2ooo 1r1 96'6 121 '(2018) t3 scc lt{) 6 ETD,J MACMA No.339-2021 entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, applylng the principles laid down in both the cases, the claimants in the present case wouid get Rs.48,000/- each tdwards.loss oi consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.1,92,OO0/- (Rs.48,000/- X 4 = Rs. 1,92,OO0/-). Further Rs.1B,0OO/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,0O0/- towards funeral expenses are awarded. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.4,OO,OOO/- to that of Rs.12,57,600l-. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO.2: In view of the hnding arrived at point No. 1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modihed and accordingly compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.4,00,00O/- is enhanced to Rs. 12,57,600/-.

14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the MACMA hled by the appellants is partly allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 08.O 1.2O2O in M.V.O.P.No.26O7 of 2078 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,OO,00O/- to Rs. 12,57,6O0/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, '\ \ '- .:---.=4 '.1 ," 7 TTD,J MACMA No.339 2021 is forfeited. Respondent Nos.l & 2 are directcl to deposit the compensation .Imount with accrued interest withi.r a pcriod of two months fronr the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting thc ilmount i[ any already deposited. t)t-t such deposit, tl-re pe[itiont:rs are entitled to withdraw the said i rnount without furnishing any security, as per their respective s11res as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this a;lpeal, shall stand closed . Sd/. SMT T. JAYASREE lD TY REGISTRAR \:: //TRUE COPY// \."r,o* oFFtcER '1 . The Chairman, N,4ACT-cum-Chief Judge' City Civil Court Hyderabad' 2. One CC to SRI A S NARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI N PRAVEEN REDDY Advocate [OPU()] 4. Two CD CoPies To, GR I I I .i I I I i i I i I I I I I i I i r I I i I I I I i i I I I I I I i I I i . HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.339 of 2021 /: ,) 'i, :. ) ---=:=--::_:\ -:':,,., : f i;il-i)ill:... '4'.r t iti! E6 i': 'l: t/ -...:';r,;t PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS / ,/ lts z4-, a t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTIGE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 339 OF 2021 Between:

1. Asiya Begum, W/o Late Shaik Khaja Anees Ahmed, Age. 39, years, Occ House Wife, All are Rl/o.b Sarad Mahal, Nirmal, Temporarily, Rl/o. tValakpet, Hyderabad.

2. Khaja Ansar,, S/o. Late Shaik Khaja Anees Ahmed, Age. 29 years, Occ. Nil, 3. Shaik Khaja Asrar Ahamed, S/o. Late Shaik Khaja Anees Ahmed, Age. 27 years, Occ. Nil,

4. Asra Begum,, D/o. Late Shaik Khaja Anees Ahmed, Age.20 years, Occ. Nill, All are Fl/o.b Sarad Mahal, Nirmal, Temporarily, Rl/o. Malakpet, Hyderabad. AND

1. The Managing Director, TSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2. The Depot Manager, Bhainsa Depot, TSRTC, Adilabad. ...APPELLANTS ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 2607 of 2018 dated 08/0'1/2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal coming on 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 A S NARAYANA, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI N PRAVEEN REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil tiiliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed, modifying the order and decree dated 08.01.2020 in MVOP No. 2607 of 2018 passed by the MACT cum Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,00,000i- to Rs. 12,57,600/-. 2, That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. That the interest for the period of delay if any be and here;1,,y is forfeited. 4. That the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be and hereby are dir:cted to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a perittl of two months from the date of receipt cf a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

5. That on such deposit, the petitioners be and hereby ent tled to withdraw the said amount without f urnishing any security as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribu na l.

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

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII sd/. z-Dll SM Nu T T. JAYASREE TY REGISTRAR \, sEproN oFFrcER To, GR

1. The Chairman, lr4ACT-cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Cou11, Hyderabad 2. fwo CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 DECREE MACMA.No.339 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 4 ,r' /- J ,/zo /l {