The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI JAGATHPAL REOOY KASI REDOY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ;:, \ \ TION'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRTTADARSII'I u.A.C.M.A.No .15s5 ()['2016 JUDGMENT: 1 . Dissatisfied with the compensation awarde t by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short, the 1! ibunal), in O.P.No.931 of 2Oll, dated 26. I l.2ol4, the petitior:rs in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking enher cement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties her., inafter be arrayed as they '*,ere before the leamed Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioncr s, who are the wife and parents of deceased - Kranthi Kurr ar filed a petition under Sections 166 and 163A of Motor Vr ricles Act, i988 arrd Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.RuIes claiming com;,r nsa[ion of Rs. l5,O0,OO0/- for the death of the deceased in a mc ,or vehicle accident that took place on 05.10.2011. It is stiL ed by the petitioners that on 05. 10.201 1 at about 1O.30 p.m when rhe deceased was proceeding on tsajaj Pulsar Motor c1 r Ie bearing No.AP-29-K-852 I lrom Habsiguda towards Nacharar L side and when reached ncar IICT gate, one Maruti Zen <.., r bearing No.AP-O9-BG-2219 which was proceeding from H;r ,siguda to 2 MGP,J MACMA-No.1555 of 2016 Nacharam and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from backside due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained Head injury and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 06. 1 1.201 1.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Nacharam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.277 of 2O11 under Section 304A IPC against the driver of crime Maruti Car. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the 5. deceased used to earn a sum of Rs.8,0O0/- per month by working as an AC operator. Due to his suddcn demise, the petilioners were put to mental agony and became destitute' Hence, frled petition seeking compensation against the respondents.

6. Before the Tfibunal, respondent Nos l & 3 remained ex-

7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company f rled its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including' 3 MGP,,I MACMA No.1555 ot 2016 relationship between the petitioners and the deceased, avocation and income of the deceased, manner ,r accident, involvement of Maruti Zen car age, arnount sP() .t towards funeral expenses and transportation.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, he learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conduct ng trial:- t. tI. LIL. IU Whether the pleaded aei.dent oanned resurt ng in death of tlrc deceased? If s, uas it due t faul of diuer of Ma ntthi Car baeing No.AP-09-BG-1':. 19 or tlLe deceased and if all are respottsible, ufnt is the responsibility f each? Whether the car in qtestion belongs to respo det No.1 and stood in-sured. u-tith respondent No.i, and if so, whether the policy couers tte rbk of the deceosed? Whether petitioners are entitled to amperso ion and if so, to tuhot amount and u.thol is the liabilit. of respondent Nos.l to 3? To what reliep

9. In order to substantiate their case, on trr half of the petitioners PWs I to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A'7 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral r: idence was adduced, however, Ex.B I -Copy of insurance policy vas marked. 4 MGP,] MACMA.No.15ss of 2016

10. After considering the entire oral and documentary eviderrce available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly- allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of ns.7,oo,ooo7- along with interest @ 7o/o per arrnum from the date of petition tilt the date of realization payable by respondent Nos. I to 3 jointly and severally' Having not satisfied with the said compensation amount, ttre claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same' I 1 . Heard arguments subnitted by Sri K'Jagathpal Redd1" learned counsel for ttre appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao' learnedStandingCounselforrespondentNo.2/[nsurance Company. Perused the record'

12. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellants as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that though the petitioncrs trted Ex.A6-SalarY Certificate showing the income of the the learned Tribunal without deceased as Rs.8gO0/-, but considering the same, fixed his monthly income @ Rs 5'OO0/-; italsofailedtoconsiderawardingfutureprospectstothe income of the deceased and also awarded very mcager amounts under the head of con-pecr'rniary damages and therefore praycd p allo* the Appeal by enharrcing the compensation amount' / / 5 MGP,J MACI/ \.No.1555 of 2016

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for thr respondent No.2/lnsurance Company contended that the learr r d Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had arrived at;r reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unwit ranted.

14. Now the point that emerges for determination J Whetlrcr tLe appellants are entitled for e nhance ment of compens ation? POINT:- 15. Since there is no dispute about tl-re manner of accident and liability of the respondents and since the findin; ,s arrived at by the Court below on those aspects were not chall ,nged, there is no necessity to once again decide the above said z spects. The only point that has to be considered in the preso rt Appeal is with regard to quantum o[ compensation.

16. Learned counsel for the appellants contende(i that though the claim petitioners hled Ex.A6-Salary Certifrcate ;howing the income of the deceased @ Rs.8,0OO/-, but the learr ed Tribunal without considering the same, hxed his monthl . income @ Rs.5,000/ -.

17. A perusal of Ex.A6-Salary Certificate issued I y proprietor of Sai Ram Engineering Works shows that the decr:r .sed-Kranthi rl, I i I 1 I I 6 MGPJ MACMA.No.1555 of 2016 Kumar used to work as A.C.Operator and used to draw a sum of Rs.8,000/ - per month towards salary in addition to other allowances. To prove the contents of Ex.A6-Salary certihcate, the petitioners got examined the author of the said Certihcate as PW3. PW3 in his evidence deposed that the deceased used to work as an AC operator in their oflice till the date of accident and used to earn Rs.8,0OO/- per month towards his salary in addition to daily allowance of Rs.lOO/- . He also stated that he was hard working and was very regr:lar in his service'

18. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW3 and Ex'A6- Salary Certifrcate issued by him, this Court is inclined to Fx the income of the deceased @ Rs.8,000/- per month'

19. A pemsal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the incomc of the deceased. Hence, tJris Court, by considering thc judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in iilationa'l Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs.Prdnag Sethl '] , hereby add 4Oo/o towards luturc prospects to the income of the deceased by considering the age of the deceased as 23 yezrrs as reflected in FIR, Charge sheet' inquest report and PME report. Upon addition of the same' the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs' I I '2OO I - ' ' t2o17 (6t l?o scl 7 MGP,J MACN I No.1555 of2016 Since the number of dependants are 3, if 173.a i, deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceas: l, then his net monthly income comes to Rs.7 ,467 I - and I re annual income comes to Rs.89,604/-. After applying multigrl er'18', tJle total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 16,12,871) '-.

20. Further, the learned Tribuna-l awarded r sum of Rs.S,O0O/- towards loss of estate, Rs.S,OOO/- towlds funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of conso' ium which this Court finds it to be meager and hereby enhance he same to Rs.77,000/- by relying upon the Judgment of Ftr n!16 6po( Court in the case of Natlonal Ins-urance Co. Ltd. VsPranay Setht & others (2017 ACt 27OO). Thus, in all, ttr, appellants are entitled for a total compensation as indicated urr, !er:- S.No. Name of the Head 1 2 a 4 Monthly incomc o f 4Oo/o future Addition towards prospects Annual arrived deduction toward s expenses. Amounl arrived after application of Multiplier rncome of 1/3rd personal sL Conventional \ Arnount awarded Tribunal Rs..s,OOO/- Amou ot awarc ed by this ( ourt, Rs.S t OO/- Rs.1 L 2O0l- Rs.a0,000/- Rs.S') 604/- Rs.6,8O,Ooo/- Rs.re 12,872/- Rs.20,o0O/- Rs.77.OOO 8 MGP,,I MACMA.tto.1555 of 2016 6 Heads TOTAL COMPENSATIOIT Rs.7,00,000/- 16,89,8721-

21. As far as interest is concerned, this Court, by relying upon the decisircn of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2 enhances the rate of interest awarded by the Tribuna-l from 7%o to 7.5o/o per annum'

22. Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim amount, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and others3 wherein, the Honble Apex Court held that compensation can be granted more than the claim made based on cogent and convincing evidence'

23. [n view of the above discussion and keeping in view the se ttled principle o[ law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, this Court deems Ilt and proper to allcw the Appeal. 24 - In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,OO,ooO/ - to Rs. 16,89,872 / - whlicll. shall carry interest @ ,2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2O13 (4) ALT 35 'AIR 2oo3 sc 674 9 MGP,J MACIr,.No.1555of2016

7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date <,1 real.ization payable by respondents Nos.l to 3 jointly and se,/ rrally. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the c: npensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receip :f a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the appellants/< I rimants are enLitled to withdraw the same as per the apportior ment made by the learned Tribunal by paying delicit Court fee There shall be no order as to costs.

25. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, ;hall stand closed. SD/-A.S IEENIVASA REDDY ASSI STANT REGISTRAR /-"--_ //TRUE COPY// $ecrtou oFFlcER To, \-

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum lV I Cditional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

2. One CC to SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KAS| REDDY Ac r'ocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO. Advocate [OpUC 4. Two CD Copies BNPSLW I I I j i HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 ,1hc SIAIE ] s i[N ?$1$ a) (, '5 .i- 't/ t;) ,), .,UDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.1555 of 2016 M.A.C.M.A. IS ALLOWED IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G,PRIYADARSINI MoToR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1555 OF 2016 Between:

1. K LAVANYA, W/o Late K.Kranthi Kumar, Aged 21 years, Household, 2. K. Narsing Rao, S/o K.Pochaiah , Aged 54 years, occ Nil, 3, Smt. K. Balamani, Wo K. Narsing Rao, Aged 50 years, occ Housewife All R/o H.No.2-t-9, Ambedkar Nagar, Nacharam R.R.Dist ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 1 BEENA K NAIDU, D/o K.Hithendra, Aged major, occ Business R/o A Block, 702, Usha Enclave Srinagar Colony,Hyderabad

2. Cholomanadalam MS General lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Office situated at Venkat Plaza-11,'1st Floor 6-3-698/3, Panjagutta X Roads, Hyderabad

3. A. Ramya, D/o Narsimha Rao, Aged major, Occ Private Job, R/o HMT Nagar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad ,.,RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS Appeal under Sec'tion 173 of Motor Vehicles against the ludgment and decree in OP. No. 931 of 2011 dalet2611112014, on the file of Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the.iudgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Advocate for Appellants and of Sri. S KOTA SUBBA RAO Advocate for Respondent No.2 and None Appeared fror Respondent No.1 & 3, i, This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be ; nd hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,00,000/- to l:s. 16,89,8721 which shall carry interest @ 7.5oh p.a. from the date of pt tition till the date of realization payable by respondents Nos. 'l to 3 jointly arrr severally; 2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be and hereby are d r )cted to deposit the compensation within a period of 2 months from the datt; f receipt of a copy of this judgment;

3. That upon such deposit, the appellants/ claimants be err d here are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by 1 e learned Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee; and

4. That there shall be no order as lo costs in this appeal. SD/-A.IS 1EENIVASA REDDY ASS STANT REGISTRAR D'r //TRUE COPY// \."no* oFFlcER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum lV. rdditional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. fwo CD Copies BNPjLry,/ HIGH COURT DATED:1 910312025 DECREE MACMA.No.1555 of 2016 M.A.C.M.A. IS ALLOWED \1/ \\