The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. C Mohan Prakash Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri. CH. Venkata Naray;r ta The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT r1O R STATE OF TELANGANA AT TTYDERABA.T) HONOURABLE SRI. JUSTICE VAXITI RAMAXRISHNABEDDY M.A.C. M.A.No.4SO OF 2o/23 Between SK. Nagur Shah and three others ... Appellants Gangavaram Sundarshanreddyandtwoothers ...Respondents AND JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the Award dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional Chief Judge at Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.932 of 2015, the claimant filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before t]re learned Tribunal I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who are husband, children and motlrer-in-law of SK. Thafi (hereinafter referred. to as "the deceased") filed a claim petition undcr Section 166 oi the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with section 14O(c) ot A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.12,OO,00O/- for the death of the deceased i.e. SK. Thafi in a motor vehicle accident // 2 that occurred on 16.04.2015. As per ttre averme: -s in the claim petition, on 16.04.2O15 at about IO.OO AM the dec,: .sed along with her husband i.e., the claim petitioner No. I by na;r e Nagur Shafi, were proceeding towards Kothapet Rythubazar frorr L.B. Nagar on a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-29-BV-9!rr '8. When they reached in front of L.B. Nagar Indoor Stadium at all rut 10.00 a.m., a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No' AP-29-TC-) iSO proceeding in the same direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from behind wit rout obsewing traffic rules. Due to the said impact, t.lle motorcyclt: iell on the road and deceased, who was a pillion rider, was draggec :o a distance of 15 feet, sustaining abdomen broken injury, head r jury and other blunt injuries all over her body. Her husband, t re rider of the motorcycle, sustained simple injuries. After th: accident, the deceased was shiltcd to Ozone hospital, Kothapel, Hyderabad for treatment, where the claim petitioner No.l, s I )nt a sum of Rs.80,00O/ - towards trcatment and medical exper ses' However, the deceased succumbcd to injuries the szi 1e day while undergoing treatment.

4. The Policc L.B.Nagar registered a case in Cli ne No.465/ 15, for the offences under Sections 304-A & 337 IPC. Tl e deceased SK. Thafi was aged about 33 years at the time of accider t, she was hale and healthy, young and energetic and not suf't ring from any \ 3 ailments. Prior to accident, the deceased was working as a flower vendor earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, contributing to the family. Due to her sudden death, the claim petitioners, who were totally dependent on the income of the deceased, became destitute. There are no other persons to look after them and to see their welfare and they lost their life guard and bread winner; their life was badly affected; the unmarried petiLioners lost their future prospects including education and marriage; they lost their further income of Rs.20,00O/- per month. After the said accident, the petitioner No.l also developed chronic illness due to trauma. The peLitioners incurred expenses towards transportation, post-mortem, cremation, obsequies and other incidental charges ald sought a total compensation of Rs. I2,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No.l is the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said offending vehicle i.e., bolero bearing No.AP-29-TC-0550, whereas, tlte respondent No.3 is the driver of the vehicle. Thus, it was claimed that all the three are jointly and scvcrally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

6. The respondent No.l and 3 remaind, exparte before the Tribunal 4 7. Respondent No.2 hled a counter denying t re averments in tl.e claim petition including involvement of tt.r vehicle in the accid€nt, the alleged rash and negligence on the ; art of the driver of the offending vehicle and the age and avocation of the deceased. It was further contended that the drivers of bott rhe vehicles i.e., bolero bearing No. AP-29-TC-O55O and the motor'< ycle bearing No. AP-29-BV-9958, did not possess valid license at the time of the accident. It was further contended that the com[x nsation claimed by the claimants was excessive and thus, prayerl for dismissal of the claim petition. U. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL:

8. Based on the above pleadings, the learne I Tribunal had framed the following issues t. Whether tlrc deceosed SK Thafi. died in tL z road accid.ent tuhich occurred on 16.04.2O15 due to th.e rtt. h and negligent diuing of the diuer of Bolero beaing No.AP 2 Lrc O55O? lt. Wether the petitioners are entitled to anA con pensation, if so, to uhat dmount and from uthom? ut. To uhat relieJ? IIL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL:

9. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalI of the claim petitioners, PWs I and 2 werc examined and E> l .A1 to A8 were marked and on behalf oi the contesting respcr dents, no oral ) \ evidence was adducd except producing Ex. Bl i'e', copy of the 5 insurance PolicY lO. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and awarded compensation of Rs'5,36,759/- along with interest@9o/operannumfromthedateofthepetitiontillthedate of realization. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation' I1. Heard Sri C. Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company and perused the record including the grounds of aPPeal.

12. The learned counsel for Appellants/claimants submitted that though the claimant petitioners proved their case by adducing cogent and convincing oral evidcnce of PWs I and 2 coupled with documentary evidence undcr Exs'A I to A8, and the learned Tribunal without considenng the same, awarded meager amount' Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for enhancement of the compensation. Per con[ra, the learned counsel for ttre respondent No.2 contended that after considering all the aspects, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation, and no interference of this Court is w'arranted' 6 rv.

13. POINT FIOR DTTERIU INATION: Now the point for consideration is Whether the impugned award passed ry the learned Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? V. ANALYSIS:

14. It is contended by the learned counr;, I for the claim petitioners/appellants that the learned Tribunar lailed to accept the income of the deceased as a flower Rs. 12,000/- P.M. In this regard, reliance wa; /endor earning placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.: .v Kumar M. v. Managiag Director, Bengaluru Metropol:t an ltausport Cotporatlont, wherein the monthly income ol painter at Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,5O0 / - P.M., accepted without ,r ry income proof. It is pertinent to note that in the above said decis,i >n, the claimant self assessed his monthly income as Rs- l5,OOO, to Rs.16,500/- and whereas the Honourable Supreme Courr asses sed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/-. In the i rstant case, the deceased, who was a flower vendor, rvas not a ski iul labour when compared to the profession of a painter. Hence, t re principle laid down in the above said decision cannot bc madc i pplicable to the facts of the present case. ' (2017) 5 Supreoe Court Cases 79 1 i I i 7

15. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants examined the claimant No. 1 as PW 1 , who had reiterated the averments of the claim petition including the monthly income of the deceased. Apart from the evidence of PW I ' the claimants examined PW2, who categorically deposed that the deceased SK. Thali, was working as a flower Vendor' PW2 furttrer deposed thatthedeceasedusedtosellandpurchaseflowersfromhershop, prepare all varieties of flower (garlands) "malas" was an expert in decorative floral designs for various events, functions and marriages. PW2 also stated that had the deceased bein alive' she would have earned a monthly income of Rs'20,OO0/-' She further deposed that she used to engage the services of deceased for various events and used to pay an amount of Rs'15'O00/- per event.

16. There is no dispute that the deceased was engaged in the avocationofaflowervendor-Aspertheclaimpetition'the claimants claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs'l2'00O1- per month. But as per the version of PW2, she used to engage the services of deceased for various events and that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,OO0/- per event Thus, the evidence of PWs I and 2 is not entirely consistent regarding the monthly income of the deceased. Further, the evidence of PW2 discloses that the income of the deceased was not regular. The claimants have also not 8 produced any documentary evidence to establish t rat the deceased used to earn Rs.l2,OOO/- per month on regular basis. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal declinec to accept the evidence of PWs I and 2 regarding monthlf income of the deceased. At the same time, the monthly incom: of the deceased as fxed by the leamed Tribunal at the rate cf Rs-2,OOO/- per month appears to be on the lower side. On thr rther hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Corr t in Malakappa and others v. IIfco - Tokio Genetal Insu r Lnce Company Limited and another2 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court in enhan< ng the monthly income of a coolie from Rs.7,O00/- (as frxed by he Tribunal) to Rs.8,000/- per month. Following the said prir t iplc, a notional income of Rs.8,0OO/- per month is considered ar;ropriate in the present case keeping in view of the above discussic r u,ith regard to monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the ann r rl income o[ the deceased cornes to Rs.96,0OO/- (Rs.8,O00/ - x 2). Since the claimants are four in number, one-fourth of the esr rblished income has to be deducted towards personal and living 'xpenses of the deceased. After deducting one-fourth establishec ncorne tou,ards personal and triving expenses of the deceased, the r ctual income of the deceased comes to Rs.72,0O0/- (Rs.96,000/- - 1 s.2a,00O/ ). ' 2025 no ttog I I i t I I I I I i i i i i i I i I I I I i I I I I I f 9

17. The learned Tribunal rightly fixed the age of the deceased as 33 years as on ttle date of accident by considering Exs.Al arrd A4 i.e., FIR and charge sheet. A perusal of Exs.A3 and A4 also discloses tlre age of the deceased as 33 years. It is settled principle of law that 4Oo/o of the established income must be added towards "future prospects" for persons below 40 years, including those who are self-employed. Since the deceased was aged about 33 years was self employed, future prospe cts @ 4Oo/o can be considered as rightly held by learned Tribunal. After considering future prospects @ 4Oo/o, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,0o,8oo/- (Rs'72,000/- + Rs'28,800/- i'e'' 4oo/o of Rs.72,o0O/-).

18. Further, as deceased was aged 33 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case u'ould b€'16'in view of the principle laid down in the decision of the Honourable Supreme court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3' After multiplying the annual income of the deceased with the relevant multiplier, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs'16,12,800/- (Rs.1,OO,8OO/- x 16) towards loss ofdependency'

19. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation under the Heads of Loss of Estate 3 AIR 20@ sc 3104 10 and Funeral expenses. However, the learned Trit,r nal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards convention Ll heads, which include compensation towards funeral expenses, Lt rs of estate and loss of consortium, by following the principle laid cr wn in National Insurance Company Llmlted v. pranay Sethi arr, I othersa. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants fu r her contended that the learned Tribuna.l awarded only Rs.4O,C( O/- + T,OOO/- (1O7o extra) under the head of consortium, whereas as per Magma General Insurancc Company Limtted v. Nanuu ams, the four claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000 l- each towarc r consortium to a tune of Rs. 1,60,0O0/-.

20. It is to be seen from the record that the clairr rnt No. I being the husband of the deceased was awarded Rs.4(r )O0,/ - to\r,ards spousal consortium by the learned Tribunal. Hou,r r er, no amount was awarded to claimant Nos.2 and 3 (minor chil,1 en) under the head of parental consortium. Therefore, the claimz r t Nos.2 ancl 3, who were minors by the date of the accident, t.e entitled for Rs.88,0OO/- (Rs.aO,OOO/- each + lOyo enhancemerr ) towards loss of parental consortium. Since claimant No.4 being t te mother _ in - Iaw of the dcceased, is not entitled for any am() rnt under the head of 'consortium'. Thus, the contention of the ir rrncd counsel for the appellants/claimants that the four claimant:; are entrtled to r (20 r 7) 16 scc 680 ' 20 r8 ACJ 2782 SC \ Rs.4O,OOO/- each towards consortium to a tune of Rs.1,6O,OOO/-, is untenable.

21. The claimants sought reimbursement of medical bills under Exs.A7 and A8 for Rs.41,9OO/- and Rs. 14,659/- respectively, and the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the said amounts.

22. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,34,359/- under various heads and the details of which are as under: S.No. Description of head Loss of Dependency 1 2 J Conventional Heads awarded to Claimant No. 1 Parental consortium to claimant Nos.3 and 4 Amount (Rs.l Rs.16,12,800/- Rs Rs 77,OOOI- BB,0oo/-

4. Medical bills under Exs.A7 & A8 Rs. 56,559/ - Total

23. The learned counsel for the claim petitioners/ appellants Rs.18,34,359/- further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest 127o instead of 9o/o P.A., relying upon the Apex Court Judgment in Itlew Indla Assurance Company Limited v. Gopali and others6 and also Magma's case (supraf .

24. It is to be noted that Section 17 I of the Motor Vehicle Act does not prescribe any fixed rate of interest. Courts - be it the ,5 2012 ACJ.2l3l S.C t2 Tribunal, High Court or Honourable Supreme Coutl have awarded varying rate of interest based on the facts and c..t tumstances of each case. No principle could be deduced nor r: m any rate of interest be hxed to have a general application in notor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provisior under Section 17 I of the Motor Vehicle Act conferring discr,: ion upon the Tribunal in such manner. The rate of interest mt st be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circums -ances of each case. Further, in Oriental Insurance Company )! Eited v. Niru @ Niharika and othersT the Honourable Apex Ccr rt observed as under: "8. Furllrer contention taken is tte higher rate 9o/o, in clwllenge of uthich seuera) precedents were plac From the decisions perused wtat emarlotes is that tr Courts were awarding 12oZ interest uhich stood reduc<'t 199O's. With the aduent of tte 21st century and I recesston world over, the interest rotes fell ansiderc I now the rates offered bg National Banks Ior long tet'r,7 7(% or more. Consideing th.e ouer-all ciranmstances e long delag caused ue are of the oPinion that 9o,4 granted bA the Tribunal is perfedlg in order espectal 1 accident having occurred in the gear 1995." tf interest of 'd before us. the 1980's, to 9o/o in the te economic '.A. But euen deposits are peciallg the nterest rate noticing the

25. [n view of the principle laid down in the af<r esaid decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rz.t : of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal at 9o/o per anr.r im is just and reasonable and interference of this Court is unwar'r anted so far :rs ratc of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal. 'zozs tttsc gzz 13 VI. CONCLUSION 26. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the c{aimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal as indicated above. VII. RESULT:

27. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing [he compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.5,36,759l- to Rs. 18,34,359/- which shall carry inrerest ar 9%o per annum from the date of frling of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally. Since, ) \ the claimant Nos.2 and 3 were minors as on the date of filing the petition as well as on the date of passing the award, the learned Tribunal directed that the compensation awarded to the minors be deposited in any nationalized bank until they attain the majority_ ( I As more than ten years have passed from the date of filing the petition, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 would now have cer[ainly attained the age of majority. 2a. Out of the totrl compensation, the claimant No. 1 is aw,arded an amount of Rs. 11,34,359/-, the Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are awarded an amount of Rs.3,0O,OO0 l- each and the Clairnant No.4, who is the rnother-in-law of the deceased, is awarded an amount of Rs. 1,O0,00O/-. L4

29. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from the da-r of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, all tht: claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective sharet; out of the compensation awarded by this Court. There shall tx no order as to costs. As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous pe -itions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. I,I JAWAHAR REDDY ASS,I ;TANT REGISTRAR /.,.. \_-./ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To

1. The Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chi rf Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. (with Records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. C Mohan Prakash, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri. CH. Venkata Narayana, Advocate [OPUo 4. Two CD Copies Pr/kam I \ HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025 i I ,i JUDGMENT -lHE S TA rl;'t 6 [{:B 2m v o (.) * MACMA.No.450 of 2023 P,qTCt PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA ArL 2,o IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 450 OF 2023 Between:

1. SK. Nagur Shafi, S/o. Jhony Basha, age 38 Years, Occ: Flower collection, Presently. Nil,

2. SK. Bashida, D/o. Nagur Shafi, age . '14 Years, Occ: Student. 3. SK. Hasina, Db. Nagur Shafi, age . 11 Years, Occ: Student. 4. SK. Shamshad Begum, Wo. Late Jhony Basha, age: 60 Years, Occ: Nil. (Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors represented by their natural father and guardian Petitioner No.1 by name SK. Nagur Shafi). All are Ri./o. NTR Nagar, L3.Nagar. Saroornagar, R.R.District, Presently Ri/o. 2-3-734113123'Amberpet'Hyderabad' ...A''ELLANTS/.LATMANTS AND 1. 2 3 Gangavaram Sundarshanreddy, S/o. Ayyapu Reddy, age. Major, Occ: Business, (Owner of the Crime Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP 29TC-0550). The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Regional Manager, lll Party Claims (HUB), 5'n Floor, Surya Towers, Opp. Zimkhana Ground, Secunderabad. (lnsurer of the Crime vehicle of Bolero bearing No.AP 29TC-0550). (Policy C No.61310231140100003557, valid from 06.03.2015 to 05.03.2016) Rathlavath Jampla, S/o. Samia, age. 27 Years, Occ: Driver, N/o. Kothwal cheruvurhanda,(K.c.rhanda),*rn".*e'.EgbBoni#Srr#[:!"oNDENrs Aopeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated. 27 41-2f.23 in M.V.O.P.No. 932 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. This appeal is 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 Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. C Mohan Prakash, advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. CH. Venkata Narayana, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be in part, enhancing the compensation amount awardet! rnd hereby is allowed by the Tribunal from Rs.5,36,759/- to Rs.'t8,34,359/- which shall carry intel st at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of reali :ation payable by the respondents jointly and severafly;

2. That the claimant Nos.2 and 3 were minors as on the da as well as on the date of passing the award, the lear e of filing the petition red Tribunal directed that the compensation awarded to the minors be deposit :d in any nationalized bank until they attain the majoriV;

3. That as more than ten years have passed from the dat the claimant Nos.2 and 3 would now have certainl/ : of filing the petition, attained the age of maiority;

4. That out of the total compensation, the claimant No.'l il of Rs.1 1,34,3591, the Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are av Rs.3,00,0001 each and the claimant No.4, who is th: awarded an amount arded an amount of mother-in-law of the deceased, is awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; 5. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to r amount within a period of two months from the date of |r eposit the enhanced ceipt of a copy of this judgment;

6. That on such deposit, all the claimants be and hereby tr e entitled to withdraw their respective shares out of the compensation award€( 7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. by this Court; Sd/- Il/. JAWAHAR REDDY AS$ STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \_,./ SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Motbr Accidents Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Jrrr ge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies Pr/kam HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025 DECREE MACMA.No.4S0 ot 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA aolrlu