The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings of the execution of the Judgment and decree passed in tvl.V.O. P.No.77012018, dated 08.05.2020, on the file of lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum XXVII Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court at Secunderabad pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ..:'!&€ r,4!/ =5rcc,+ I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA )EVI EADA M.A.C .M.A .NO.3660 F 2021 JUDGM ENT This appeal is filed by the lnsurance Comp;.ty, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 08 05.2020 in M.V.O i .No 770 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, l\riotor Accident CIairr s Tribunal_cum_ XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, S::underabad (for short "the Tribunal',).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties here r as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. are referred to bearing No.AP-2 B-V-.1433 from the triL r nal is that on decea; rd and other

3. The case of the petitioner before 14.08.2018 at about 00:30 hours, the passengers were going in an auto lzzath Nagar towards Sriram Nagar and when they reached near Aparna Towers, tr/ladhapur, the driver of the auto rli j not notice a Lorry bearing No.Ap-31-X_4 127 whichwas stationeci i r the middle of the road during the night time and thus, dashed agains:it, as a result the inmates of the auto sustained injuries and the der; rased died on the spot. The ciaimants sought a compensation of Rs. r r,00,000i_. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte 4 \ \ ETD,] MAClvlA No.366-2021 2

5.TherespondentNo.3hasfiledcounterdenyingtheavermenis of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident' age' avocation and income of the clecease lt is further contended that the driver of the auto did not possess valid driving ricense as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any comPensation.

6. Basecl on the above pleadings' the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- "Whether the accidenr occurred was d!:'i:::th and neghgent 1. drivins or the rliiidi''i iini't" t'v respondent No'1? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? lf so' to what quantum and from whom? 3 To what relief?"

7. To prove their case' the petitioners got examined PWs l and 2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked On behalf of the respondents' RW1 was examined and Ex'81 was marked' B. Based on the evidence on record' the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs 21'94'960/- Aggrieved by the same' the present appeal is preferred by the lnsurance Company'

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar' learned on behalf of the counsel for the appellant' None appeared resfundents. EID,] lv4ACMA Nc.366 2021 3

10. Learned counser for the appeilant has sub'i ted that pw2 has deposed that the auto driver could not observ,: the lorry as no precautions were observed by the lorry in park r g it. No CDF is marked in this case to elicit the contributory negliiy rnce of the auto. He further argued that pW2 has clearly stated the t the auto driver has dashed against the lorry without observing it. _ e further argued that no proof of earnings was fired by the petition. s and therefore, notional income of Rs.4,500/_ ought to have takerr by the tribunal, but the tribunal has awarded huge compensation. H: further argued that the petitioners stated that the deceased w;l working as a painter, but no evidence is adduced in this regard. t is also pleaded by the petitioners that the deceased was divorced e r d he has to be treated as a bachelor and thus, 50% deduction has t: be made in his earnings. He further argued that the tribunal went wrc ng in awarding compensation under the heads of love and affection rlso apart from the compensation under ross of consortium. He the refore, prayed that the admission of pW2 itself proves the contribut >ry negligence on partof the auto driverand thus, prayed this Court r attribute 50% of the contributory negligence on the driver of the autr, 11 ln view of the above submissions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:_ ETD,] MACMA No.366-2021 4 1 2 3 Whether the driver of the auto was rash and negligent in driving iii;,uto i"urirg No.AP'28-V1433' contributirtg to the occurrence of the accident? Whether the compensatlon granted by the tribunal rs iust anC reasonable? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tnbunal need any inteierence ?

4. To what rehef ? 13 Point No.1:- a) A perusal of the FIR under Ex Al and the charge sheet under Ex.A2 reveals that the driver of the Lorry bearing No AP-31-X-4127 is the accused l-he recitals of the charge sheet further reveal that the b) deceased along with his relatives were returning from a function by an auto bearing No.AP-28-V-1433 and when they reached in front of the Plot No.43, JRR ResidencY' near AParna Towers, the Lorry parked on tl.re main road in a bearing No.AP-31-X-4'127 negligent manner by its driver without taking any precautions and indicators due to which the driver of the auto dashed against the said container lorry from behind, resulting in the accident and the death of the deceased. PW2 was examined as an eye witness' he is the driveroftheautoandthatwhentheyreachedAparnaTowers, Madhapur, the lorry was parked in the middle of the road without observing any precautions and without any indicators in a dark pfrIJOr" to which he could not visualize the same as it was dark and dashed against the lorrY r"r' 5 i 5 ETD,J MACMA No.366 2021 c) ln his cross examination, it is elicited tha the accident spot was dark and there were no street lights at the er cident spot and it was lighfly drizzling and that he was at the speed ,) 30 to 50 kms per hour. lt is further elicited that there was no divrd, _ at the scene of offence and that the lorry was stationed in the n ddle of the road without switching on the indicators d) PW2 is listed as LWTlDara Raju the eye wt ress and injured and he is the auto driver. Thus, the evidence of F\ t2as discussed supra coupled with Ex.A1 and A2 reveals that the lcr y was parked in the middre of the road without observing any precaL t cns and without switching on the indicator lights. Hence, the auto dri,r rr could not see the lorry and thus, dashed against it. Therefore, it s held that the accident occurred only due to the negligent park r g of the Lorry bearing No.Ap-31_X_4 12T and that there was no ne: igence on part of the auto driver Point No.1 is answered accordingly

14. poin No.2:- t a) b) The petitioners asserted that the deceased is a t ainter. The appellants counsel has argued that there i; no proof filed regard to the in thisrregard. Admittedly, there is no proof filed witt earning\ of the deceased, but pW1 who is the ather of the deceased has asserted that his son used to work as a :ainter under ETD,] MACMA No.356-2021 6 various builders and used to earn Rs 20'000/- per month No other witness is examined irr this regard c) The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.1 1 ,3001 b1' relying upon the wages of contract labour' d) ln Jeyarani & Another Vs' The Manager Baiai Allianz General;1 the Apex Court has held that' in case of a mason' no documentary evidence can be exPected. However, taking into of the deceased and the Year of the consideration the avocation accident being 2013, the monthly income of the deceased could be reckoned at Rs.9,000/- and has also added future prospects' ln the present case the deceasecl is a painter as per the contention of the petitioner. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis' his income is assessed to be Rs.9,000/- per month' e) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs- Pranay Sethi & Others2' 4Oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects As the deceased is aged 32 years, adding 40% towards future prospects i'e ' 9'000+3'600 would give Rs.12,6001 per month' which cornes to Rs'12'600/- x 12 Rs.1,5'l ,200/- Per annum' / ! Civil Appeal Nos.43 l0-4i I I of 202] 2 AtR zotz scc 5157 7 ETD,J MACMA No.366 2021 'f) The number of claimants herein are two ;r d therefore. 1/3,d deduction need to be made to his income cwards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs. 1 00,800 _ (Rs l,51 ,2OOl_ (_) Rs.50 400/-) S) The multiplier should be chosen with regarc .o the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given r Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3. The deceased berrr I aged 32 years, the appropriate murtiprier to be appried is ,16, dependency is calculated as Rs..16,.12,800/- (1,008i) rx lg) h) ln the light of pranay Sethl,s case, Rs.1SO,) )A towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000! towards funeral expenses rnd Rs.40,000/_ towards loss of consortium have to be awarde: and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10ok every three yer rs. Ther rfore, the Ioss of i) ln Magma General lnsurance Company L,ttited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and othersa, the Apex Courl as elaborately discussed the principles laid down in pranay Setfil s case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents , nd children of the deceased are also entifled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the clai mants would get Rs.48,40(1,_ each towards I ) ' 200q {6)scc t2l ' c0 t8) t8 scc t30 ETD,I MACMA No.366 2021 8 loss of consortium, hence, the comPensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,800/- instead of Rs 40'000/-. Further an amount of Rs'18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs'18'150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded' j) ln all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1 2 3 4 ComPensation under the head of I of de Compensati on towards co nsorttum ComPensa tion towards loss of estate ".{ L. towards funeral Compensation ex CNSCS Total Rs.16,12,8 00/ Rs 96,800/ Rs l B,1 Rs.18.1 s0/ Rs.17,45,900 t- titled k) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitloner is en is calculated as Rs 17'45'900 /- wlrile the Tribunal has granted Rs.21,94,960/- which is found to be excessive Hence' it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced' Hence, Point No 2 is answered accordingly'

14. Poi ntNo.3:- ln view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 & 2' the or and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the compensation from Rs 21'94'960/- to 17'45'900/- Point No.3 is answered accordingly {

15. pointNo.4:- 9 ETD,J MACMA No.366 2021 ^,4otor the Charrman, ln the result, the appeal is par,y allowed, . rdifying the Order and Decree dated 08.05 2020 in M.V.O.p No.770 (f 20lBpassed by Accident Claims Tribunal_cu,rr XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, ry reducing the compensation from Rs 21,94,960i_ to that of Rs.17, t5,900/_, and the compensation shall carry interest @ r.sa/o per anrr m from the date of craim petition tirr rearization. However, the interes l for the period of delay, rf any, rs forfeited. The appellant-lnsura I ;e Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with within a period of two months from the date of rece pt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any al.r ady deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are entifled to w t rdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per t reir respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. rccrued interest [\4iscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in thir appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// I. . JAWAHAR REDDY I; STANT REGISTRAR . SECTION OFFICER SdA .{q \\' \i \i Judoe, Citv Civil Court, Secunderabad. 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumX) \ ll Additional Chief 2. ondcc to sRl KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Advocate lC,t UCI 3. Two CD Copies GE/pr w To Q T-, To d i..7 ti:. CIr 1 o uti; 2ffi5 E il s// i,g1,;r,,.,gD)/ HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA No.366 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ."$tb () i I I I ! i I I i I I I I I I i t I I i I i j i I i I f i I i i i j i I l : : : i i I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 [/ONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 366 OF 2021 Between: Reliance General lnsurance Co.Ltd., Rep Floor, Abids, Kati Road, Hyderabad. by authorized person, Sagar Plaza, lVth ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND

1. P. Bala Krishnamma, W/o. P.Singotam, Aged about 50 years, Occ House Wife 2. P.Singotam, S/o. Late Narasirnha, Aged about 70 years, Occ House Both the R/o.H.No.'1 -4-1 7, Lothkunta, Secunderabad. ... Respondents/Petitioners No.'1 & 2

3. M.Ghouse Mohiuddin, S/o. M.Umar Ali Sahab, Age Major, Occ Driver R/o.H.No.19-6-240, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, Telangana.

4. Thota Ramesh, S/o. T.Balaiah, Age Major, Occ Business, Rl/o.H.No.8-4- /21, Alwyn Colony, IVliyapur, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Appeal filed under Section 173 of It/.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 08.05.2020 passed in lril.V.O.P. No.770/2018 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumXXVll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 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 argument of SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUrMAR, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for the Respondents. 7 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 'i. That the ,4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appr,i be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby reduced frofi 1s.21,94,9601 to that of Rs.17,45,9001, and the compensation shall carr) rterest @ 7.Sok per annum from the date of claim petition till realization ar lthat the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

3. That the appellant-lnsurance Company be and is her0l the compensation amount with accrued interest within r from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment afte if any already deposited. y directed to deposit ceriod of two months leducting the amount 4 That on such deposit by the appellant-lnsu rance Comr and are hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount \ security, as per their respective shares as allotted by tt e rny, the claimants be ithout furnishing any Tribunal.

5. That there shall be no order-as to costs in this appe., l lfirue Copyll Sd/. V JAWAHAR REDDY AS{; STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, I\,4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum.( (Vll Additional Chief \l Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. (with records, if z ry)

2. Two CD Copies. GE/pr V HIGH COURT DATED:1 5/09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.366 of 202'l PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS tJ coP(uA #",