The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. JAGATHpAL REDDY KASI RED Counsel for the Respondents: M SRIKANTH DY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUTU!. YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.5OO of 2023 J(IDGMENT: Heard Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel l 'r the appellants and Sri M. Srikanth, learned standing counse for respondent No.2/Insurance Company and perused the record.

2. This is an appea,l preferred by the app€ ll;rnts/claimants aggrieved by the award passed by the learned (llrairmart, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum-X Additional Chief lLtdge, City Civil Court at Hyderab:rd (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.\i.'C.P.No.3134 of 2017, dated l'.2. 12.2022

3. The appellants/claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2O,OO,OOO/- on account o. death of one T. Vinay Kumar in a road traffic accident. The clairr a nt Nos. I and 2 are the parents arrd claimant No.3 is the brother :>' the deceased On O7.01.2017 at 1900 hours, the deceased u'ar. proceeding by walk in front of l-lero Honda showroom near L.El. At that "lageLr. time, one bus bearing No.AP O4 W8057 driven by i -. driver in rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased causir g fatal injuries, which resulted in his death while undergoing treatnr(:nt. Due to the 2 death of the deceased, the claimalts preferred claim petition seeking compensation. \

4. The claimants got examined pWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to Al2 and Exs.Xl and X2. The respondent No.2 got marked Ex.B 1 Copy of Insurance policy of the offending vehicle. 5. Upon examrning the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,67,960 / with interest at 9%o per annum. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 were directed to deposit the compensation amount jointly and severalll.. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

6. The singular ground on which the appeal is filed is that the trial Court has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,g OO /_ per month as a mechanic and that the same has to be taken at Rs.22,OOO / per month. For said purpose, the claimants relied upon the oral evidence of pW3 and documents Ex.Xl and X2. The evidence of pW3 is that the deceased was working as a Diesel mechanic and was paid Rs.6,96 l/_ as apprentice. The deceased died after working for four months. Further, it is deposed that in case the deceased was alive, he wouid have been paid Rs.22,OOO/_ per month. Ex.Xl is the authorization letter and Ex.X2 is salary trerticulars of the deceased from July, 2OlZ to October, 2072. i I I l There is conv:ncing evidence in the form of Ex.X12 t ) prove income of the deceased at Rs.6,96 1 I - per month. Hov t ver, mere oral evidence about the probability of the deceased ealrri rg Rs.22,000/- per month upon completion of appren tices-r p cannot be considered. For that matter, any individual due 1o l.,rovidence may get opportunity to earn at more than what they hrrr e been earning as on the datr: of accident. However, such probat ilLties calnot be taken into consideration. 7 . The M.V.Act is meant for providing relief r, r the victims of accident by putting them on a position where the-1 .r cre prior to the accident. In the instant case, the position of the d,:ceased at the time of accident is the earnings of the deceaseil ar t1s.6,93 1/- per month but not Rs.22,OOO/ Therefore, the corrl:ntion of the claimants canrrot be considered for computing th:: compensation taking the income at Rs.22,OOO/ per month.

8. Learned oounsel for the respondent No.2 / Insr,Lrirnce company contended that there is no income proof and that tl-rr: compensation has to be computed on the basis of judgment of Ranr.achandrappa 4 Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliancer by taking the income at Rs.4,500/- per month.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is not sustainable as the claimants have examined pW3 and have marked Ex.X2 to prove the income of the deceased at Rs.6,93 l /_ per month. Since the income of the deceased is proven, the notional income of the deceased as per Ramachandrappa's case (stated supral cannot be considered. There are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. As such, the appea_l is liable to be dismissed. ' lO. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- T. JAYASREE EPUTY REGTSTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, I IIESlli'&ilYiiilA?:ff j craims rribunar cum XAdditionar chierJudge, 2. One CC to SRt. JAGATHPAI REDDY KAS| REDDY Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRt. M SRTKANTH Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies '1zot t1 rs scc 236 HIGH COURT RY,J DATED:1 510712025 I I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.S0O of 2023 ...ar:":.: ,;. -\R i rlu, o 14 (_ LJ .J .P \- 2 0 SEP zffi Sf!{9 '!t .:-' M.A.C.M.A. IS DISMISSED b 0\ 1A t34,/.21 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTO R ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs)O OF 2023 Between: (-CT Vide Separate Sheet attached)

1. Smt. T. Padma, Wo T. Ravindra Chary, Aged 46 years, Occ Household, residents of H. No. + 70, gth ward, near main road, Shanthinagar, Nalgonda, T. S. Temporarily residing at H. No. 1- 8- 2811, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, T.S

2. T. Ravindra Chary, S/o T. Vishwanadan, Aged 45 years, Occ Nil (Handicap), residents of H. No.4- 70, gth ward, near main road, Shanthinagar, Nalgonda, T. S. Temporarily residing at H. No. 1- 8- 2811, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, T.S

3. T. Harikrishna, S/o T. Ravindra Chary, Aged 23 years, Occ Student. All are residents of H. No.4- 70, gth ward, near main road, Shanthinagar, Nalgonda, T. S. Temporarily residing at H. No. 1- 8- 2811 , Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, T.S ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 1 . Vasavi College of Engineering, Rep by G. Ramkrishna, door No. 9- 5- 81 , lbrahimbagh, R. R. District, Telangana State. (Owner of the Bus bearing no. AP 04 W 8057)

2. The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd,, Rep. , by its Divisional Manager, Office, Situated at Flat no. 10'1, 1st Floor, Tirumala Towers, Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. (Policy no. 61 300231 1601 00001 '158 valid lrom 27 02 2017 to 26. 02. 2018) The policy issued by Narayanguda Office.

3. J. Rohith Kumar, S/o J. Veera Reddy, Aged Major, Occ Driver of Crime Vehicle, H. No. 1-'17, Sulthanapur, Alampur, Jogulamba, Mahaboobnagar. (Driver of the Bus bearing No. AP 04 W 8057) ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS (Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 31 34 ot 2017 daled 1211212022, on lhe file of Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. ORDER: This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusirrg the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and ttre, material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Jagathpal i,,rddy Kasi Reddy Advocate for Appellants and of Sri. M. Srikanth Advocate for 1,:)spondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: '1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous App€al be and hereby is dismissed.

2. That save as aforesaid the decree of the lower Court slratl stands confirmed in all other respects; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- T. JAYASREE SEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII I I \ \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum X F,driitional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies BA Ny HIGH COURT DATED: 1510712025 I I DECREE MAGMA.No.SOO ot 2023 M.A.C.M.A. IS DISMISSED 2\