The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This appeal arises out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy, in MVOP.No. 224 of 2017 dated

05.08-2021.

2. Appellant herein is the respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the petitioners and respondent Nos.S and 6 herein are tlre respondent Nos.l and 2 in M.V.O.P. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents. 1 I

3.1 Petitioners have filed MVOP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. IO,OO,OOO/- with interest at the rate of I8o/" per zrnnum under different heads for the death of the deceased-Sonai Mohan. 3-2 Petitioner No.l is the father, petitioner No.2 is the mother, petitioner No.3 is the brother and petitioner No.4 is the sister of Sonai Mohan. / BRMR, J MACMA-No.267 of n22

3.3 On 21.O3.2O16, Sonai Mohan and his sister Sonai Preethi (petitioner No.4) were proceeding from Patancheru towards Andole village on a motor bike bearing No.TS-EF-7295 as pelitioner No.4 has to appear SSC exam. Sonai Mohan was riding the motor cycle in a moderate speed, at about O8.00 a.m., when ttrey reached the limits of Choutakur village meanwhile one lorry bearing No.AP-O9- V-4935 came in opposite direction driver by its driver [respondent No. 1] in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the bike. Due to which Sonai Mohan and Sonai Preethi received severe injuries, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Sanga Reddy from there Sonai Mohan was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, where he was succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on

21.03.2016 at 04.00 p.m.

3.4 A case in Crime No.28 of 2016 was registered at Pulkal Police Station against the driver of the crime vehicle. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the registered owner the crime vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.3-insurance company. The deceased Sonai Mohan was hale and healthy at the time . of accident (2 1.03.2016), was a private employee, earning Rs. to,boo/- per month, contributing ttre same to ttre family and \ \ was aged about 20 years. The petitioner Nos.l and 2 have lost their / / ,/, 3/ ro BRMR, J MACMA.No-267 of 2022 son and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 have lost their brother, his love and affection and prayed to allow the O.P.

4. Respondent Nos.l and 2 were set ex-parte before t1le Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter and contended that the driver of ttre crime vehicle was not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident and he has not satisfied the requirement of Rule-3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Respondent No.2-owner of the lorry breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Respondent No.3 denied the age, occupation, income and health condition of the deceased. Further stated that the claim is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The Tribunal framed tlle following issues: I 1) Whether ttrc death of deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle? 2l Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, as prayed for, if so, at what amount and &om whom? 3) To what relieP

7. Petitioner No.l was examined as PWl, also examined PW2 [Dayanand], got marked Exs.Al to A9. Respondent No.3 did not adduce any evidence and got mark Ex.B l-policy. I I I I 4lro BRMR, J MACMA.No.267 of 2022

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence let in by the petitioners has partly allowed the O.P by awarding an amount of Rs.9,37,200/ - with costs and interest at the rate of 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition 129.06.2017l till the date of realization, holding that tJle respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The above said amount was apportioned and petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased were awarded an amount Rs.3,68,O00/- each along with costs and interest and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 who are the brother and sister of the deceased were awarded an amount of Rs. I,OO,OOO/- each along tdth costs and interest accrued thereon and the petitioners were permitted to withdraw 50o/o of the awarded amount along with costs and interest and rest of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in their individual accounts in any one of the nationalized bank for a period of two years.

l,earned counsel for the appellant-respondent No.3 submits that the Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the crime vehicle was not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident 12 l.03.20 l6l and awarded exorbitant amount and future prospects t cann{t be taken at the rate of 4Oo/o. The Tribunal wrongly treated the deceased as an employee without any evidence and pay slip, ,/ lArr' ,/ s/1o BRMR, J MACMA-I'1o.267 ol 2022 failed to answer the contentions raised by the appellant and prayed to set aside the impugned award dated 05.08.2021. lO.1 Notice to respondent Nos.l to 4 - petitioner Nos.l to 4 was served but no one appeared to contest the case. 1O.2 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent Nos.S and 6 herein are not necessarJr' parties to the present appeal.

11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record-

12. Now the point for consideration is: whether the award passed by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.224 of 2Ol7 dated 05.08.202 I requires interference of this Court or not?

13. Ex.Al is the PIR, which goes to show that crime is registered against unknown vehicle on the compliant given by Sonai Balappa ot 22.03.2016 vide Crime No.28/2O16 for the offence under sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. Though Ex.A1-FIR is registered against unknown vehicle but the PS Pulkal has conducted investigation and frled charge sheet. Ex.A2-charge sheet goes to show that the accused therein is Mangali Mallesham, who is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-09-V-4935. Ex.A4 is the inquest report and Ex.AS is the post-mortem examination report, which goes to show that the death of the deceased was only because of \ I I I 6/to BRMR, J MAC.M-F!No.267 of 2022 tl.e injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.A6 is the MVI report, which shows that the accident has not occurred as a result of mechanical failure.

14. The evidence of PWI is that the deceased Sonai Mohan was earning an amount Rs.t0,00o/-per month as a private employee, in support of his contentions he has got marked E*.A9-original wage report issued by t}e contractor. Ex.A9 goes to show that the gross salary of the Sonai Mohan is Rs.7,688/- per montJr. For the month of Januaqr, 2016 the deceased net salary is Rs.2,8O5/- for 11 days, for the month of February net salary is Rs.6,1OO/- for 23 days and for the month of March, 2016 net salary is Rs.4,175/- for 17 days. Though PWI has not examined the contractor who issued Ex.A9 certificate, the Tribunal has considered tJle age of the deceased and assessed the monthly earning at Rs.6,O00/- per month, as the accident occurred on 21.O3.2016. The linding of the Tribunal with regard to the assessment of tlle earning is appropriate.

15. The eye witness to the incident is PW2 who is the driver of the auto bearing No.TS- 15-UC-839 1, his evidence is that on

21.03.2016 when he was proceeding from Sangareddy towards Jogipet in his auto, when he reached the limits of Choutkur village at O8.OO a. m., Sonai Mohan and his sister Sonai preethi, were / BRMR, J M,A(]MA No267 of 1)22 proceeding from Sangareddy towards Aadole village on their bike bearing No.TS- 15-EF-7295 il:, front of his auto in a moderate speed and in a correct direction but at the same time the driver of ttre lorry bearing No.AP-O9-V-4935 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit their bike from the opposite direction, as a result Sonai Mohan and his sister Sonai Preethi received injuries and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy, from there they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, Sonai Mohan died while undergoing treatment on

21.03.2016 at O4.O0 p.m. Though PW2 was cross-examined by the insurance company's counsel he denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence and he is not cited as a witness in the charge sheet (Ex.A2).

16. Insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned Exs.A4 and A5 shows the age of the deceased as 20 years. Ex.A7 is the secondary school certifrcate of the deceased Sonnayya Mohan which goes to show that his date of birth is 16.05.1998 as the accident has occurred on 21.03.2O16 his age as on the date of the accident is about 17 years. The Tribuaal has rightly added 4O7o of future prospects of the deceased towards ttre monthly income and applied multiplier 'i8' for the age group of 15-2O years and also awarded amount towards loss of estate and funera.l expenses. I I I i 8/ l0 BRMR, J MACMA.No.267 of2022 \

17. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is as under: Sl.No. Name of the head I I I .) J 4 5 6 7 Income Add 40% future prospects Deduct 5Oo/o towards personal exPenses Total income Multiplier'18' Loss of estate Funeral expenses Total Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.6,0O0/- per Rs.8,4O0l- (a0% of 6000) +6,OOO) Rs.4,20Ol- (8,400 x 5O%) Rs.5O,400/- per annum Rs.9,o7,200/- Rs.15,O00/- Rs.15,O0O/- Rs.9,37,2OOl-

18. Though PW2 is not cited as a witness in Ex.A2 but his evidence cannot be brush aside in view of the fact that the accident has occurred in front of his auto. The evidence of PWl, PW2 coupled with Exs.Al, A2, A4, A5 and A6 goes to show that accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-O9-V-4935. L9. karned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal failed to answer the points raised in the counter. Appellant- respondent No.3 stated in the counter that the driver of the crime . vehicle do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the t \ accident. To substantiare the same, appellant-respondent Ng.3 has -/- 9/to BRMR, J MACMA.No.267 of 2022 not produced any evidence that the driver of the crime vehicl,e do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Furtlrermore, the driver of the crime vehicle is charged for ttre offence under sections 3O4-A and 337 of IPC. In absence of any evidence on behalf of the appellant-respondent No.3 it cannot be said that the driver of the crime vehicle is not possessing valid driving licence as on the date of accidence. The Tribunal has also answered the said fact in the award.

20. Ex.B I is the insurance policy issued by the appellant- respondent No.3 which is valid from 24.12.2O15 to 23.12.2016 for the lorry bearing No.AP-09-V-4935. Policy is in force on the date of accident i.e. 2 1.O3.20 16.

21. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of. 7.5o/o pr annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, which is appropriate.

22. The Tribunal has answered all the contentions raised by tlle appellant-respondent No.3 in proper prospective and righfly fixed of ttre salary of the deceased Sonai Mohan at the rate of Rs.6,0O0/- per month and awarded compensation under dillerent heads is appropriate, appellant has not made out any case to set aside the impugned order. / 10/ r0 BRMR, J MACMA.No.267 of 2022 t

23. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed.

24. MACMA.No.267 of 2022 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs, Interim orders granted, if any, shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/applications stands closed_ SD'- T. SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// --...\ ECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE B.R. (For His Lordships kind Perusal SUOHAN RAO To, 1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. 11 LR Copies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

5. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

6. Two CD Copies ABK Y-t, 't 'l HIGH COURT DATED: 0710912025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.267 of 2022 E STAI€ H j3 -*)o 02 i$ 2$?$ (' ti ")' ..,,, + c '- L: a.:'! DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \^ coPd> ,k*' I i i t 3448 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FME PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTIGE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 267 OF 2022 Between: M/S Universal Sompo General lnsurance Cornpany Lirnited, Throu Manager, 204, Jade Arched, 1-7-2841293, Near Paradise Hotel, M.G. Secunderabad, Policy Cover note No. UAGIA/2015178667, Valid 24. 12.2O 1 5 to 23. 1 2.201 6. gh its Road, ...AppellanURespondent AND '1. Sonai Maruthi, S/o Jayappa, Aged 49 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Chimalapadu Village, Kangti Mandal, Sangareddy District, Now R/o. H. No. 1 0- 82, Ambethkar Colony, Patancheruvu Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District. 2, Sonai Laxmi, Wo Sonai Maruthi, Aged 45 years, Occ. House hold, R/o Chimalapadu Village, Kangti Mandal, Sangareddy District, Now R/o.H.No.10- 82, Ambethkar Colony, Patancheruvu Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District.

3. Sonai Pavan Kumar, S/o Sonai Maruthi, Aged 24 years, Occ- Student, R/o Chimalapadu Village, Kangti Mandal, Sangasreddy Dstrict, Now Rl/o.H.No. 10- 82, Ambethkar Colony, Patancheruvu Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District.

4. Sonai Preethi, D/o Sonai Maruthi, Aged 23 years, Occ. Student, R/o Chimalapadu Village, Kangti Mandal, Sangasreddy District, Now R/o.H.No. 1 0- 82, Ambethkar Colony,Patancheruvu Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District, 5. Mangali Mallesham, S/o Arjunaiah, Age. 35 yrs, Occ. Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP-09-V-4935, Rlo 3-7211, Sivampet Village, Pulkant Mandal, Sangareddy District

6. Abdul Suban Abdul, S/o Abdul Ghani, Age. Majar, Occ. Owner of Lorry bearing No. AP-09-V-4935, R/o H.No.2-4-4, Mir Mershi Keri, Sadasivpet Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District. R5 and 6 afe not necessary) ...Respondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgrnent and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 224 of 2017 dated 05-082021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Clairns Tribunal-cum-Principal Distrkrt and Sessbns Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 7 ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is Dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. I SD/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. Two CD Copies ABKw \r HIGH COURT DATED: 07lOAl2O25 DECREE MACMA.No.267 ol 2022 I I DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t\ d$el) &-