The High Court · 2025

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they w€)re arrayed before the Tribunal

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on

17.09.2011 at about 23:00 hours, in front of DVM College, L.B Nagar, wl'rile the petitioner was going on a Hero Honda bike bearing No.AP-09-A-0820, he was hit by a Lorry bearing No.AP-29-U-7785 being drirren by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from behind, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries ernd died. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4 l, th.: respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 2 ETD,J MACMA No.424_2021

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-29-U-7785 was not having valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial.- "1

3. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in the death of Rakesh Soni, due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AP-29-U-7785 by its driver? Whether the petitioners are entitled for the claim amount, if so from whom? To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to ,A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.81 was marked. B. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,65,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. ( \. I 3 ETD,J MACMA No.424_2021 -I ,,/ /,

9. Heartl the submissions of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned Standing CrlUoS€l for respondent No.2

10. Leanred counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal ha:s attributed 20% contributory negtigence on the rider of the two wheeler, but in the result portion, the same is not deducted. The reason stated by the tribunal in this judgment is that the deceased rnras not wearing helmet and hence, he has considered the negligence of the deceased to be 2Oo/o. He further argued that the non-wearirrg of helmet does not contribute to the occurrence of the accident and hence, the same cannot be considered and the finding of the tribunal is not proper on that regard. He further argued that the deceased is '23' year old and they have also filed Salary Certificate under Ex.l\9. The tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.5,0001 per month, which is very low and that the tribunal failed to consider the future prospects while calculating the compensation. He further argued that the deceased is a B.Com Graduate, hence prayed to assess thr: income of the deceased atleast @ Rs.7,000/-. per month and drhance the compensation. \t

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the tribunal has righfly recorded a finding of ,/ i I t I I I f 4 ETD,J MACMA No.424_202L contributory negligence of the deceased as he was not wearing helmet and that the quantum of compensation has to be deducted accordingly, which was not done by the tribunal. He further argued that the income as assessed by the tribunal is very right and that there is no need to enhance the said amount. He further submitted to follow the guidelines laid down by the Apex court in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. pranay Sefhi & Others.l

12. ln view of the above contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows.-

1. Whether the claimants are entiiled to enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunat need any interference ? To what relief ?

3. 13. Point No.1: a) The claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal. Their case is that the deceased was a B.com Graduate and thus, had a good potential to earn more income than that was assessed by the tribunal. ,;: - i{ I 1 AIR 2017 SCC 5157 \ \ 5 ETD,J MACMA No.424 2O2L b) The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per month. Ex.A9/Salary Certificate filed by the petitioners, it is issued by Birla Kirana store, showing that the deceased vuas employed in their Kirana stores from 1s.04.2011 and worked till 16.09.2011 as a part time employee, as a collection boy and used i:o look after whole collections and billing and that he was paid a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. c) PW3 is examined in proof of Ex.Ag, his evidence revears that he is the o'runer of Birla Kirana Stores and that, he has been running the said shop since, 2008 at Ramnagar. He has stated that the deceased worked with him for eight months as Accounts clerk/collerction Boy and that they used to pay him by way of cash. ln his crosis examination he admitted that he did not produce any record periaining to the Birla Kirana store and has not produced any salary vouchers. He has admitted that he has not issued any appointment letter to the deceased. Thus, the tribunal has held that the earning of the deceased are not proved and hence, has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioners have filed Ex.A10/ssc certificate showing that he . hassecured1.tdivisioninSSCExamination.Thoughthepetitioner coufua argued that the deceased was a B.com Graduate, no such Certificate is filed before the trial Court. ,/ 6 ETD,J MACMA No.424 2O2l d) ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance company Limited2, the Apex court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. But in the present case, the accident occurred in the year ZO11 and the deceased is a bright student, aged 21 years. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas's case, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,0001 per month. e) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited vs. Pranay sethi & others3, 4oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged'21' years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 6,000+2,400 would give Rs.8,400/- per month, which comes to Rs.8,400/- x 12 = Rs. 1,00,800/- per annum. 0 Since the deceased is bachelor at the time of the alleged accident, 50% deduction need to be made to the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.1,00,800 x 50%). '1zott; t2scc236 3 nrqorz scc s1s7 \- { I t' i t i , i I I 7 ETD,J MACMA No.424 2O2L 7- g) The rnultiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased €ls per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Tran,sport Corporationa, the deceased being aged '21'years, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.9,07,2001 (Rs.50,400 x 1B). h) ln the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts snould be enhanced by 10% every three years i) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and otherss, the Apex Court l'tas elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sefhf's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants and would get Rs.48,4001- each, hence, ttre compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,800/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.1B,15Ol- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. { o 2oo9 (6) scc 12l '(zors) 18 slc t30 \= i!ll 8 ETD,J MACMA No.424 2021 j) ln all, the petitioners are entifled to the following compensation amounts: 1 Compensation under the head of loss of dependency

2. Com pensation towards loss of consortium to the petitioner

3. Compensation towards loss of estate

4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Total Rs.9,07,200/- Rs.96,800/- Rs.18,1501 Rs.18,150/- Rs.{0,40,300/- k) Thus, the compensation to which the petitioners are entifled is calculated as Rs.10,40,300/- while the Tribunar has awarded Rs.5,65,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entifled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 1,4. Point No.2:- It is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,40,300/- from that of Rs.5,65,000/- that is awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- !n the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimants is parfly allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 27.o2.2o1s in \-..-r 9 ETD,J MACMA No.424 202L M.v.o.P.ttlo.700 of 2012 passed by the chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident ,3laims Tribunal-cum-l Additional chief Judge, city civil court, siecunderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,65,0()0/- to 10,40,300/- and the enhanced amount of compensertion shall carry interest @ 7.so/o per annum from the date of claim pr:tition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if arny, is forfeited. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of rer:eipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. on such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount as per their respective shares as allottecl by the Tribunal without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY ANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief 2. One CC to SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/ABK Hr ii.f.ifi:"-."'* ' .,' :J !B .H HIGH COURT DATED:1 8109/.2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.4',24 ot 2021 'THE S 2028 * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. d{{}" G X.6' / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA OEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 424 OF 2021 Between:

1. Hulas Chand Soni, S/o Chandan Mal Soni, Aged abou! 61 years, Occ- Gold Smith.Both are R/o. H.No. 3-2-84612, Chilkalguda. Secunderabad

2. Mrs. Munni Devi, Wo Julas Chand Soni. Aged about- 58 years, Occ- Housewife. (Both are R/o. H.No. 3-2-846n, Chilkalguda. Secunderabad ...APPELLANTS AND

1. A. Ramalingaiah, S/o A Bikshamaiah. Aged about- Major, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 3-9-300/C, Mansoorabad, Chintalakunta, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Reliance General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Legal manager, Ofi-4-1-327 to 337 Sagar Plaza, 4th Floor, Abids Road, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree daled 27 .02.2015 passed in M.V.O.P No. 700 of 2012 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 and SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, advocate appeared for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed. =-Y..-.*=-3z / ,/

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.5,65,000/- to 10,40,3C01- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization and that the interest lor the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

3. That the claimants be and is hereby shall pay the deficit court fee 4. That the respondents be and are hereby directed to deposit the compen:;ation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from ther date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount'f any already deposited.

5. That on such deposit by respondents, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal without furnishing any security.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal llTrue Copyll SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY ANT REGISTRAR N OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Veh icle Accident Claims Tribuna m-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. (with records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies. GE/ABK w q \ HIGH COURT DATED:18/09/;2025 DECREE MACMA.No.4'24 o12021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. \ -\*"b Xe