The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTI CE M.G. PRIYAD ARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.15 0F 2008 JUD GMENT: l.Dissatisltedwiththecompensationawardedbythelearned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional District Judge' Nizamabad (for short, the Tribunal) in O'P'No'516 of 2OO1' dated 17 .ll.2006 (as amended vide orders dated 23'O3'2007 in l'H'497 of 2OO7), the claim petitioners in the said O'P' preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount'

2.Forthesakeofconvenience,thepartieshereinafterbe referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal'

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioners' who are the wife and children of Late Kasam Mohan Reddy (hereinafter referred as the deceased), filed a petition under Section 166 (1)(c) and163-AoftheMotorVehiclesAct,lg8SreadwithRule455of A.P.M.V.Ru1es, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs'8'00'O0Ol- on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicie accident that occurred on 01.OI2000 at about 10'15 a'm' on N'H'7' near T.V.Tower Kamareddy town lt is stated by the petitioners that on 01 .0 1.2000, when the deceased as a piliion rider was travelling along with his friend on Suzuki Motorcycle bearing No'AP-25E- 7799 and, were proceeding from Nizamabad to Vemulawada and t.' l I l 2 ,;. MGP,) MACMA.No.15 ol 2OOB when reacht:d near T.V.Tower at Kamareddy tov,n or_r lrLH.7 road at about 11.1S a.m., a TVS Champ Moped bearir.g No.,\p_25C_4224 came fr:m opposite direction at a high sper:cl in a rash and negligen _ manner and ciashed the motorcycle of he der;eased. As a result, tlte r1,:cg.".O fell down and received seve;.e Head injury and injuries .o c ther parts of the body. Immediately. the d eceased was shifted t I Ciovernment Hospital, Kamareddy, frrm there, he was referrecL to \IMS Hospitar, Hyderabad and lie sur:cumbed to injuries v 'hile undergoing treatment.

4. it i I stated by the petitioners that the dr.ceaserl u.as aged about zLC ]rr_.ilrs and was hale and healthy z nd u as earning Rs.10,0OC /- per month through Dairy Farm and Ils.2,O.),0 OO/_ per annum [F roliS;h agriculture. Due to the accident, the petitioners lost their bread winner and were finding difjicult to ek: out their livelihood an<l hence filed claim petition seeking compt nsation of Rs.8,00,OC O/. against the respondents. 5 Resporrrlent Nos.2 & 4, who are the owncrl of T\rS Champ bearing No AP- 25C-42 24 arrd Motorcycle bearing Ii o.Ap_ );tr-7799, remained e {-parte

6. Respondent Nos. 1 & 3/New India Assurance Coml:any rep. by its Brarch lvlanager and Divisional Manager filed ttsr counter ,,1, MGP.J MACMA-Nq.15 oJ 2OO8 denying the averments made in the claim petition including' age ' avocation, income, rash and negligent driving of TVS Champ moped and contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it'

7. Based on the pieadings made by both the parties' the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for trial:- 1 . Whether the accident tuas due to rash ond negligent diuing of the TVS Clnmp Moped beaing No'AP-25C-4224 diuen bg its diuer?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If and. agoinst tt-thich of the So, to LDhat amount respondents? 3. To uhat relieJ? In order to prove the above issues, on behaif of the 8. petitioners, PWs.l to 3 were examined and Exs Al to A15 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced; however Exs.B1 & 82 were marked with consent' g . After considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly a'llowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs 5'36'000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by all the respondents jointly and severally within one month from the date of order' 4 MGP,] N1At.MA.No.15 of 2008

10. Havi rg not satisfied with the said compensarron ar:eount, the claim petit oners filed the present Appeal seeking enherncement of the same, 1 1 . He:rr I arguments submifted by Sri S. S rrcndr:r Reddy, learned co rnse I representing Sri V.Tulasi Reddl', learnerd counsel for the appellants/ petitioners and Sri P.Harinath Guptrt, learned Standing cor-rnsel representing Respondent No.3/lnsurance Company. )er'-rsed the record including grounds of Appeal.

12. The :on tentions of the learned counsel fo - Appr:llants as stated in LL e grrunds of Appeal are that the learnec 'i'ribr_rnal ought to have trLk en the income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/- per month and calculz te lhe compensation. It aiso failed to crnsidcr the oral and docr.rrtentary evidence available on record and awarded meager cor -rpc rrsation and hence prayed to allorv t hc ,\ppeal by enhancing .hr: c ompensation amount.

13. On tt e other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 3/lnsuri.nc,: Company contended that the lezLrnecl Tribunal, after con s dering all the aspects, had .awarc erl rr:asonable compensati rn .irr w.hich interference of this Court is unu,a rranted. 5 MGP,T MACMA.N?.15 ol 2008 t4 Now the point that arises for determination rs' Wlether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount? PO NT:- 15. Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident and liability of the respondents and since the hndings arrived at by the Courtbelowonthoseaspectswerenotchallenged,thereisno necessity to again delve into the said aspects' This Appeal has been llled by the claim petitioners only with regard to enhancement of compensation. 16 A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the impugned the Tribunal assessed the income of the judgment shows that deceased @ Rs.a,O0O/ per month, deducted 1/3'd towards personal expenses, applied relevant multiplier and calculated loss of earnings @ Rs.5,12,000/- Apart from this' the learned Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs 2,O0O/- towards funeral expenses' Rs.S,OOO/- towards consortium and Rs 17,000/- towards medical expenses and transportation which ultimately arrived at a total compensation of Rs.5,36,0O0/ -

17. As far as income of the deceased is concerned' though petitioner No. 1 stated that her husband used to earn Rs' 15'000/- per month by doing milk business and Rs 2'0O'OO0/- per annum 6 MGP,J MA(MA Na 15 of 2OOB by cultir'.a -ingl agricultural 1and, but they failect to file any documenta ry prroof showing that the deceased I sr:d to do milk business, except the letter issued by Sarpanch of C r:rm f,anchayat, Mallaram r nder Ex.A13, however the said certihcate has not been taken int: conr;ideration as it was issued in his private capacity. Therefore, -he learned Tribunal considering the rlate o' accident and age r rf thc deceased, assessed his mon .hly i ecome @ Rs.4,0007 w'hi,:h this Court hnds reasonable and i; L-ro1 inclined to interfere q,i lh tl-re same. Since the Tribunal failed tr-, au.rrrd future prospects t o tLLc income of the deceased, this C,;urt, i;1, relying upon the d ecis otr of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ll.e casc between Nrrtional Insu;rance Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi and othefs 1 , herc,by add 4O%o towards future pr rspcct s to the established income of the deceased for the deceased being: below 40 ycars at th( tilne of accident. Then the net future ;nontl-rly income comes to Rs.S,trOo/-. Since the number of depen,,lants are .3,, if 1/3.4 is dec ucr.r:d towards personal expenses ol Lhe dcce:Lsed, then the net n-rc nttrly income comes to Rs.3,733/-. Ihe a13c of the deceased ari p,lr inquest and post-mortem reports rvas 36 years. Hence, conr;idr'ring the same, the appropriate mulr iplier is ,15, as per the guic eli:res laid down by the Apex Court in liarla Verma u. 1 2o't7 AcJ 27ot) i I t ;, I ! I 7 MGP,J MACMA.N,.15 oI 2OO8 Dethi Transport Corporation2 ' Therefore' the total loss of income on account of the death of the deceased comes to Rs'6'71'940/-' Further, the petitioners were awarded with a sum of Rs'2'000/- towardsfuneralexpensesandRs.5,ooo/-towardslossof consortium which this Court finds it to be meager and hereby enhances the same to Rs'77,000/- by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nationo,l Insurolrce Co' Ltd' VsPranag Sethi & others (2077 ACJ 27OOl' Thus the appellants are entitled for a total compensation as detailed below:- S.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded Tribunal Amoutrt awarded bY this Court 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Monthl lncome Rs.4,OOO Addition of 4Ook towards future ros ects Loss of earnings arrived after deduction of 1/3'd towards Personal expenses and a n multi Rs.5,600 / - Rs.5,12,000/- Rs.6,71,940/- Funeral ENSES Loss of consortrum Rs.2O00 Rs.5 oo0 Medical & Transpoftatlon Rs.17,000/- S Rs.77,000 / - TOTAL COMPEN SATION Rs.5'36' ooo/- Rs.7'65' 9401- I l ' 2oo9 Ac! 1298 (sc) 8 MGP,] t 1ACMA-No-15 of 2008

18. In ,he result, M.A.C.M.A.No. l5 of 2O0g is piurly allowed by enhancin g rh: compensation awarded by the rearned .rr ibunal from Rs.5,36,C0O,/ - to Rs.7,6S,940/_ along with inte:esr (a 7.5 o/o per annum fr cm Lhe date of petition till the date of r:aliz:rt ion payable by all th,: Re spondent Nos.1 to 4 jointly and s,everally within a period of tw,t months from the date of receipt o1 a c,opy of this judgment tlpon such deposit, the appellantr; are entitled to withdrarv lhe same as per the apportionment ma,lc bv _he learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. l9 Miscell;rncous petitions pending, if any, shall stanri closed //TRUE COPY// SdA T JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR :\t li.-.-- '{izarnabad. '1 . The Chairmar, [\/totor Accident Claims Tribunal_cur ^ *dS9^rl i E iE 3 3 i: 4. Two CD C :pier; ".# 1,",,,^,m,? #i3 3 Lt:x?i1':,r3 ?3sl lWith Records) ,'SEOT|ON OFFTCER n- I Additional Diskict To I I I I, I a _*..r3t.!,tal \ {--. HIGH COI.'RT DATED:1C)10212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.15 of 2008 / )s tr: S -r-4 r€ r- .JjL) a- 61 ritn ilE ( a I a:.\ '( -::-. PARTLY AILLOWING THE MACMA ( IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD . MONDAY, TFIE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI :15 CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO MOTOR ACCIDENT oF 2008 Betureen: Occ: household.

1. Smt. Kasam Umadevi @ Umarani, Wo Late Mohan Reddy' aged 35 years' 2. Kasam Preethi, Dio. Late Kasam Mohan Reddy' aged 16 years' Occ: Student 3.. Kasam Keerthi, D/o. Late Kasam Mohan Reddy' aged 13 years' Occ: Student All are R/o. Mallaram Village, Nizamabad Mandal and District' (Aooellants Nos.2 & 3 are being minors rep' by their Guardian and Natural i'loiner i.e., APpellant No 'l ) ".APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 1 2 The New lndia Assurance Co'Ltd ' through its Branch Manager^Kamareddy t liJ'.;:i i:ebrrz. 'fre"r.rv rr'r",ir""i ioii' klmareoov' nizamabad District' G. Panchakshari, S/o. G' Lingaiah aged: Ivlaior'.Occ: Teleohone supervisor R/o. H.No. 5-6-60/8/E, r'*'ii]Yv?fi'gli i"tf"qqy rown' nizamabad District' ibililiM;r;Ws Churp uuaiins No AP-25c-4224) The New lndia Assurance Company Limited' Through its Divisional Manager' Divisional office, nizamaqlo,-d^rt''ze Eu6rrasrrnigar' Nizamabad (lnsurer 5i'rtr-oioiuearing No.AP-25E-7999' 4. Nandan Reddy, S/o' Balaiah' Agerd: maior' R/o H'No '1-3-95' Jandgally' Nizamabad District, owriei'6i'ivroioi cv"r" 6earing No.AP-25E-7 999' 3 ,..RESPONDENTS/RsPndts' Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of Motor vehicles Act' ' against the Judgment and decree, made in O P NO 516 of 2001 daledlT-11-2006 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge' at Nizamabad. iS*''''..', .'s$-rfr ".ffi - 'li .-v ;- :.,.-l_.,'?i' :'Eu 'i:'#=,""4ffif..;"$'$" - -- ...i. -...., rr:--i ; '.j. " -.s;:-,. - .: -' ': This appr:al ctming on for hearing and upon perusin I the grounds of appeal, the Judgment a rd Decree of the court berow and the materrar paprers in the MVop and upon hear ng the arguments of SRl. v ruLASl REDDY, ,{dvocate for the appellants and cf sRl. P HARINATH GUprA, counsel for ffe Respondent No.3 and of the Responde nt N cs 1 , 2 & 4 not appeared in either in person or iadvocate. This Court doth )rder and Decree as follows allowed

1. That the Motcr Accident civir Misceilaneous Appear be ancr hereby is parfly 2. rhat the corrpensation^ amount awarded by the T ribunai be and hereby enhanced fronr Rs.5,36,000/- to Rs.7,65,940r-arong vrith interrest gl.s,"t per annum frr,m the date of petition tiil the date of rearization payaotJny ati lne responderrt Nos. 1 to 4 Joinfly and severaly within : period' of two'months ^ [9, the date of receipt ofa copy of this Judgment; 3 That upor sucl deposit, the appeilants oe aio neieoy entifle,J to withdraw the . :9me as p er the apportionment made by the learned iribunal; 4 That save as erforesaid, the decree of the Lower cour: shal r;tands confirmed 5. That there sha I be no order as to costs in this appeal. in all othe respects; and //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ isEc:TtoN oFFtcER To 1 The chai,nan Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cur- | Ariditionar District 2. Two CD C rpies, Judge, at f lizanabad. HIGH COLIR]' DATED: 1010212025 DECREE MACMA.No.15 of 2008 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACIVIA ( 9 A >L