The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.549 0F 2o2L JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.01 .2O2O in M.V.O.P.No.1067 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the deceased was going on Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP-O9-BV-0241 as pillion rider on 06.02.2016 at about 8:30 p.m., while his friend Pavan was riding the motor bike and while they were proceeding on NH-65 towards Hyderabad, '*,hen they reached near Rudraram Village, the crime vehicle i.e., Goods Carriage Lorry bearing No.AP- 16-T8-3579 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came and dashed the motor bike of the deceased from behind, due to which both the deceased and rider of the motor bike sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Apotlo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad where the deceasedguccumbed to injuries on 07.02.2016.It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about '19' years and was l ( , i { ! :i i i i i ; I i i :l i I : : : i : ;ii ETD,J MACMA No.549 2021 studying Engineering. They filed a claim lretition seeking Rs.20,0O,0(10/ - towards compensation.

4. Learrred counsel for respondent Nos.l ancl 3 remained cx-

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No ;) filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of the pe:tition and they further contended that the accident has not occu:red due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry a:nd that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Bajaj Pulsar and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e ., Insurer and owner of the Bajaj motor bike. Thc:1' further denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1 2 WTrcther the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driuing of the driuer of tne uehicle Goods Carriage lorry bearing No.AP-|' 6-T8-3579 causing death of N. Akash? Whether the petitioners are entitled for <:ompensation. If so, to what e.tT'tount and from uhom?

3. 'llo what relief ? 3 ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021

7. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PWI and 2 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.Bl was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.13,36,000/-. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the orders passed by the Tribunal is contrary to la'uv and that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the earnings of the deceased to be very meagre, and that the deceased who was an Engineering Graduate had bright prospects of earning Rs.25,000 l- per month and that the Tribunal has further deducted 50% of his income and has awarded a very meagre amount under various heads. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation. I 1. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that, since the deceased was a Bachelor and a non earning member, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and !l 4 MACMA No.549_2021 also has ::ightly deducted 50% of his earnin;q,s and therefore, prayed to c:onfirm the order passed by the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this court frames the follorving p,:ints for determination:

1. Whether tLrc claimants are.entitled for ,=nhancement of compensation. If so, to what extent?

2. Wh.ether the order and decree of the Tribunal need. any interference? To what relieJ?

3. 13. Eeiq!_Ne.li a) The petitioners case is that the deceased was an Engineering student and had bright prospects of earning around Rs.25,o00/- per month. In support of their case, they filed Exs.A7 to A9. Ex.A7 is the SSC certificate Ex.A8 is the Intermediate certihcate and Ex.A9 is the Marks Memo issued by Sri Indu colleg;e of Engineering and Technologr. The said documents reveals that the deceased u,as a student of Engineering at Sri Indu College of Engineering. b) It is admitted by PWl that there are backlogs as per the Marks Memo under Ex.A9 showing that the dec:eased failed in certain subjects in First and second Year oI Engineering. considering l.he said aspects, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.l2,ooo l- per month. since, the deceased had 5 ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021 certain backlogs in First and Second Years on Engineering, it cannot be held that he was a very bright student. But it is proved by the petitioners that he was pursuing Engineering at the time of his death. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, it is held that Rs. 15,000 f - can be taken as monthly income of the deceased c) As per the dicta laid down in .Alctional Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Othersl, 40Vo of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged about 19 years, adding 4Oo/o towards future prospects would give Rs.21,000/- per month (Rs.15,000 x (Rs.15,OO0 x 4Oo/ol), which comes to Rs.21,00O/ - x 12 = Rs.2,52,O00/- per annum. d) The claim petition is filed by the parents and sister of the deceased. Since the deceased is bachelor at the time of the alleged accident, 5O% deduction need to be made to the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs. 1,26,0OO I - (Rs.2,52,000 x 50%). e) The Secondary School Certificate filed under Ex.A7 reveals the age of the deceased as 19 years. Therefore, the age as revealed under Ex.A7 is taken into consideration. The multiplier should be I fl,&ar17 scc 5157 "..1,..i i, !; i: 6 MACMA No.549 2021 chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, asi per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma a. Delhi Transport Corporation't. The deceased being aged abotrt 19 years, thc appropriate rnultiplier to be applied is '18'. Therr:fore, the loss of dependenclr comes to Rs.22,68,000/- (Rs.1,26,00tJ x 18). 0 In '-he light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.1.5,O00/- tou,ards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/ - towards loss of consortium have to be awarded. Further, it g'as held that the said amounts have t.r: be enhanced by iO% for evc'ry three years. g) In Magma General Insurance Cornpang tr imited a. Nqnu Rrrm @ chuhnt Ra,m and others3, the Apex court has elaborately discussed ti'rr: principles laid down in Pranag sethi's case and has further hel,l that not only the spouse but the parents of the deceased are also entitled to loss of filial consortium. Applying both the atrove cited decisions to the present case, the claimant Nos.l and 2 who are parents of the deceersed wourd get Rs.48,OOO/- each towards loss of consortiu;nr, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,000/- and further an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards funera.l expenses and 'zoog (q scc t2l '1zort; 18 scc lio 7 ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021 Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate have to be awarded. Therefore, it is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.24,00,00O/- towards compensation, while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,36,000/-. Thus it is held that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation.

14. Point No.2:- ln view of the findings arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal needs to be interfered with regard to the quantum of compensation. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from 13,36,000/- to t \ 24,OO,OOO I -.

15. Point No.3:- t f In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded, uide Order and Decree dated 13.Oi .2O2O in M.V.O.P.No.|O67 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, from Rs.13,36,000/- to Rs.24,O0,00O/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 o/o prcr annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed B MACMA No.549 2021 to deposit the compensation amount rvith accrued interest within a period of l.r.r,o monttrs from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment zrfter deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, thc appellants are entitled to rn,ithdraw the said amount vvithout furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as ailotted by the Tribunal. The judgme)rrt copy shall be made availirble subject to the payment of deficit court fee by the appellants. No costs. Miscellaneo,-rs petitions, pending if any, in th is appeal, shall stand closeci //TRUE COPY// SD.T.JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER I To, City Civil Court at Hyderabad

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl r\,Jditional Chief Judge, 2- one cc to Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate IopUCl 3. One CC to Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies ABK ..:rijf,fjr*rF.. ''"' - =Trl - 1' 'r HIGH COURT DATED: 271031202s I t JUDGMENT MACMA.No.549 ot 2021 STATE r_) [1 rLt, lrffi {.i ,x=g,3ggr:;l ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 \I ? { I i, l i I i I 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Between:

1. N.Pratibha, (Died ) 2. N. Govardhan, S/o. N. Yellaiah aged 48 Years, Occupation Nil residents of H.No.3-112, 1st Floor, Sahabhavana Township, Rajiv Swagruha, Anand Nqgrt Pandlagqda, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District, presently residents of H.No.2-2-1 13511D, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad

3. N. Anusha, D/o. N. Govardhan aged 17 Years, Occupation Nil. (Petitioners No.3 being minor, represented through Her natural father and next best friend, the Petitioner No.2 herein) residents of H.No.3-112, 1st Floor, Sahabhavana Township, Rajiv swagruha, Anand Nagar, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District, presently residents of H.No.2-2-113511D, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ...Appel lants/Petitioners AND

1. V. Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o. Prasad, Aged Major, Occupation Business RI/o.H.No.59-4-18, Patamaa, Vijayawada Urban, Vijayawada, Krishna District (Owner of the Goods Carriage Lorry bearing No.AP-{6TB-3579)

2. The National lnsurance Company Limited, Manager, Babu Khan Estate, Plot No.611, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. represented by its Divisional 6th Floor, Opp: Parishram Bhavan, 3 G. Buchi Raju, S/o. Sankara Rao aged 40 Years, Occupatiqn Driver of crime Lorry R/ o, H.No.5-11, Gosala, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 1067 of 2016 dated 13-01-2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. ...Respondents ORDER: Tlris appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgrnent and Decree of the Tribunal and the rnateriil papers in the MVOP and irpon l'rearing the arguments of Sri Kasireddy Jagraihpal Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri N.S.Bhaskar Rao, Advocate fbr the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3. This Court cloth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the IVACIVA be and hereby is Allowed. 2 That the Compensation amount awarded b the Tiibunal-cum-Xl Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, is enhanced from Rs.13,36,000/- to Rs.24,00,000/- and the enhanced amount of cornpensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. However, the interest for the period of deray, if any, is forfeited. 4. That the appellants shall pay the deficit Court. Resp,rndent Nos. 1 to 3 be and hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date r>f receipt of a copy of this Judgnrent after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

5. On such deposit, that the appellants be and hereby, entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

6. The Judgment copy shall be made available subjed to the payment of deficit Court fee by the appellants.

7. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and B. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII SD.T.JAYASREE DEPUW REGISTRAR -/'(r SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, 2. Two CD Copies City Civil Court at Hyderabad ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 2710312025 I I DECREE MACMA.No.549 of 2021 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I ,ilr