The High Court · 2025

by the parties has awarded an amount of Rs.5.1 7,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.[J 6 per annum from thedzrte of original petition till the date of depor; t holding that 4/a BRMR, J MACMA.No.3605 of 2OOa the respondents Nos. L and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

9. lrarned counsel for the appellants - petitioners submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of pWl with regard to income of the deceased, erred in taking income of the deceased as Rs.3,75O/ - instead of considering higher income on the basis of evidence on record and did not apply proper multiplier in calculating the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted compensation as prayed for and also ought to have granted interest at the rate of l8%o per annum instead of Z.So/o per annum. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and othersl.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the contentions of the parties, righfly awarded just compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material

12. Now the points for consideration are: '1zorz1 Lo scc oao ry-- /v s/8 BRMR, J Mr.( VA.No.36O5 of 2OO8 1, Whether the appellants - petitioners are e f .itled for just compensation, if so?

2. Whether awarded passed by the Tribunal in - .P.NO.l7O9 of 2002, dated O2.O4.2OO8 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so does it require interference of tt i ; Court? FOIITT NOs.1 and 2:

13. Appellants - petitioners have challenged the <1 rantum in the app€al and there is no dispute with regard to the mz nner in which the accident has taken place.

14. The learned Tribunal has taken the monthll ncome of tJle deceased Abbaiah at the rate of Rs.3,750/ - o,: month and deducted 1/3.d towards his personal expenses anc thereafter the income of the deceased Abbaiah is taken at Rs.2,50( /- per month. As the age of the deceased is taken as 32 yea; : , applied the multiplier as '17' and arrived at Rs.5,10,00O/ - Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00O/- to', ards funeral expenses, Rs. IS,OOO/- towards loss of consortiurr and t]re total compensation arrived is at Rs.5,27,OOO/-.

15. It is the evidence of appellant No.l - petiti ; rer No.l that during the life time of her husband he used to do ir ;riculture and seasonal business like mangoes, tamarind, vegetir rle and other fruit btqriness etc., and was earning a sum of i ;.12,0O0/- to 6/a BRMR, J MACMA.No.36O5 of 2OOa Rs.15,0O0/- per month. Though no document is irled by the appellants - petitioners to prove the income of the deceased, as a agriculturist and seasonal businessman the deceased might have been earning atleast Rs.4,OOO/- per month. L6. In Pranay sethil Supreme court observed that for serf employed or fixed salaqr person future prospects have to be added and also reasonable figures of conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.4O,0OO/- and Rs. 15,000/_ respectively. The age of the deceased is shown as 30 years in clairn petition, 32 years in Ex.Al-charge sheet, 32 years in Ex.A2 _ inquest report and 32 years in Ex.A3 - pME report. Hence the age of the deceased is taken as 32 years and he falls within the age group of 31 to 35 years and the appropriate multiplier is .16,.

17. I The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: S1.No. Name of the Head 1 2 J Income Add 4oo/o future prospects (as per Prana_v Sethit) Deduct I / 3th personal expenses (as per Smt. Sarla varma v. Delhi Trans towards ration2 rt Co Compensation awarded by this Corrrt Rs.4,OOO/- per month Rs.5,6OO/- [4,000 + 1,600l (a,OOO x 407d = 1,600 Rs.3,733l- Rs.5,600 - Rs.1,867l- 1/3th of 5,600 Rs.1,867l- '(zoos) 6 scc rz r l 718 BRMR, J MA: ,tA.No.3605 0f 2008 4 5 6 7 8 Annual income Multiplier'16' l,oss of estate Funeral expenses Consortium (for three persons) Total compensation 2 Rs.44,7!tr /- 3 733x1 Rs.7,16,7 )61- 44 796x1) Rs. 15,0( )l x Rs.15,0( Rs. 1,20,C )0/- (Rs.40,00{) - each} Rs.8,66,7 36/- Rounde<l off Rs.8 6 i30 17 .2 The learned Tribunal has awarded interest t the rate of 7 .5o/o per annum, which has to be enhanced to l Zo as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others vs. Loken([ a Rathod and others3.

18. In the result, MACMA.No.3605 of 2008 is all rwed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced z s under: a) The impugned award dated O2.O4.2OO|\ passed in O.P.No. 1709 of 2OO2 stands modihed. b) The compensation awarded by the 'l ribunal i.e., Rs.5,27,0O0/- is enhanced to Rs.8,66,73ol logether with interest at the rate of 97o per annum from ttr, date of hling the petiLion lill payment. c) The respondent Nos.l and 2 are hereby dire c -ed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally u.it r interes[ an{ 3 2022 scc Onl,ine sc 1683 \: a/a BRMR, J MACMA.No.36O5 of2OOa ,l costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Appellants - petitioners are directed to pay court fee on the enhanced compensation. e) Appellant No.l - petitioner No.l is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,33,365/- and she is permitted to withdraw her amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. f) Appellant No.2 - petitioner No.2 is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,6O,019/- with costs and interest thereon. As the appellant No.2 - petitioner No.2 is minor, his share €rmount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till he attains majority. g) Appellant No.3 - petitioner No.3 is entitled for al amount of Rs.1,73,346/- and she is permitted to withdraw her amount with costs and interesL thereon lvithout furnishing security As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs. Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR '\>- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman [Vtotor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad

2. One CC to Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies ,NY HIGH COURT BRMR, J DATED: 0811212025 ( . . -.-. .. ,.....-:- , j 5l/\iF )i^\;., L/A- ..:.\ a) fj) i ' r\r\ zffifl '.t\r'(_\\ '5]i .J-ii 1:.- ../ - 7: .\ (. ' ,:/ ''/ :::2'' .rl-;. JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.3605 of 2008 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT GOSTS 6 )1 1[ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 3605 OF 2008 Between:

1. Pitla Pushpa @ Nagamani, W/o. Abbaiah, aged about 25, Occ Household Rl/o., Rudrur Village, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad-District.

2. Pitla Naresh, S/o.Abbaiah, Aged about 12 years, Occ: Student R/o.Rudrur Village, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District.

3. Pitla Mogulawa, Wo.Nadipi Abbaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Household Rl/o.,Rudrur Village, Vami Mandal, Nizamabad District. [Appellant No. 2 is minor claiming compensation underthe guardianship of his rnother i.e. appellant No. t hereinl ...APPELLANTS AND 1 Y.Venkateshwar Rao, Sio.Gopal Krishnaiah, aged Major Owner of Tractor No.AP 25 T 749 and Trailer bearing No.AP 25 T 750 iVo. Ethonda Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabd District.

2. The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office Godown Road, Beside Hotel Mayur, Nizamabad. R1-remianed exparte before the Tribunal no notice necessary vide C.O. dt 27t\t16. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act against the order dated 20-02- 2008 in MVOP No. 1709 of 2OO2 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and none appeared for Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs. 5,27,0001- to Rs. 8,66,730/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment;

3. That the respondent Nos 1 and 2 be and hereby dir, awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and : already paid if any within a period of 60 days from th: copy of this judgment;

4. Appellants-Petitioners be and hereby directed to pir' enhanced compensation;

5. Appellant No. 1-Petitioner No 1 be and hereby entitled 4,33,365/- and she is permifted to withdraw her anr, interest thereon without fumishing security;

6. Appellant No. 2-Petitioner No. 2 be and hereby entitled 2,60,019/- with costs and interest thereon. As the app: NO. 2 is minor, his share amount shall be kept in nationalized Bank till he attains majority.

7. Appealant No. 3-Petitioner No.3 be and hereby entitled 1,73,3461- and she is permitted to withdraw her anr, interest thereon without fumishing security; and 8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ,cted to deposit the rsts less the amount date of receipt of a Court fee on the :r an amount of Rs. unt with costs and or an amount of Rs. lant No. 2-Petitioner xed deposit in any or an amount of Rs. unt with costs and Sd/. I\I JAWAHAR REDDY ASSI iTANT REGISTRAR -z SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cunr I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad

2. Two CD Copies t{y HIGH COURT BRMR, J DATED: 0811212025 DECREE MACMA.No.3605 of 2008 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \')-r ?T