The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 7: Sri Papaiah Peddir .ula The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIXONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.377 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company-appellant/respondent No.3 hled the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to 'learned TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2Ol7, dated

05.12.2019, wherein, claimants, who are the wife, children, parents and sisters of the deceased Md.Arif, hled the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the reFpondents towards the death of their family head/sole bread winner in a road trafrc accident that took place on 19.05.2016.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Iearned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants hled M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2O17 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased r 2 Md.Arif. It is contended that on 19.05.2O16 at ak cut 7:00 a.m., while tl-re deceased/Md. Arif along with one li Llhar A1i u,ere proceeding on motor cvcle bearing No.TS 09 El() .+0O6 as rider and pillion rider respectively from Hyderabad to ()ulbarga side ald u,hen thel, reached near Pepsi Company. I c,thireddypally Village limits, Sangaredcly District, driver of the ' ractor bearing No.TS 5 UA 870 1, Trailer bearing No.TS 5 UA t ?'00 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with I L lh speed and u.ithout follou'ing the trafhc rules, dashed the r r torcycle of the deceased from the opposite direction, due to ,,hich, M.d.Arif sustained grievous injuries and died on the spor zurd his friend Sathar Ali died while undergoing treatment in C: ndhi Hospital. The police of Sangareddy registered a case in Cr':Lt.l22 ol 201.7 against the driver of the Tractor bearing No." I 5 UA 8701, Trailer bearing No.TS 5 UA 8700.

4. The contention of the claimants befot., the learned Tribunal was that, due to the sudden death of r r,:ir sole bread winner of the family in the said accident, they be :ame destitute apart from losing his love and affection a r cl sought for 3 compensation from the respondents, who are driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle

5. Before the learned Tribunal, the 1"r and 2nd respondents/driver and owner, even after issualce of summons and notices, remained ex-parte. The respondent No.3 / Cholamaldalam MS Genera_l Insurance Company Limited, frled a counter-affidavit, denying their liability, disputing the manner, in which, the accident took place, age, avocation ald income of the deceased, financial and family conditions of the claimalts, insurance coverage to the crime vehicle stating that the compensation amount claimed by the claimants was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribuna_l framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whetler the pleaded accident ocanrred resulting in death to the uictim uiz. Md.Arif, S/ o.Sri Ishnq @ Md.Esar Gadde due to rash and negligent diuing of the Tractor beaing No.TS 15 UA 87O1 and Trailer bearing No.TS 15 UA 87OO? 4 it) Whether ttLe petitioners are entitled to anA conl ensation and if so, at tuh-at quo.ntum? iii) To uthri reliej?

7. After perusing the oral arrd documentary :'ridences artd going into the entire record and the evidences t lilced by both the parties, the leamed Tribunal allowed the : lairn petition arrd granted compensation of Rs.17,88,600 / . along with interest @,7 .5% per arrnum. B. Being aggrieved by the quantum of the :ornpensation arnount awarded by the learned Tribuna,l, the pre sent appeal is filed by the Insurarce Company on the ground t-l rt the learned Tribuna-1 ought to have taken Rs.4,5O0/- per mol i-r as notional income by following the decision rendered b) the Hon'b1e Srrpreme Court in the case of Ram;achan,d.rap)) a 0s Mantger, Rogal Sund.orann Alliance Insurance Compc ng Limitedt, instead of Rs.7,SOO/- per month. It is further r: rrrtended that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen tha t respondent No.3/claimalt No.3 is the father of the decerl ru:d arld it is shown that he was working as a driver, as su(:l ., the iearned 1 etR 2o lt sc 2951 5 Tribunal ought not to have treated respondent Nos.S to T lclatrnant Nos.S to 7, who are sisters of the deceased, as dependents on the income of the deceased, as such, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted l14tn of the income towards personal expenditure of the deceased instead of 1 / Strr. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natlonal Ins'urance Compang Ltmited os pranag Sethi & other*, addition towards future prospects shall arise only if the deceased has established income but in the present case, the income of the deceased is neither established nor proved, as such, the Tribunal ought not to have added future prospects and ought not have awarded a sum of Rs.17,88,600/- with interest at 7.SYo per annum towards compensation against the claim arnount of Rs. 15,00,000/- is erroneous and liable to be set-aside. Hence, prays to a-llow the appeal. 2 zotl ACt zloo <-,' 6 g. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos' - to 7 submits that after considering the entire evidence avail:L r;e on record' the learned Tnbunal has awarded just compe r sation' rvhich needs no interference. Hence, prayed to dismiss 1l t: appeal'

10. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned < :unse1 for the appellant/Insuralce Company and Sri Papaie i-" Peddakula' learned counsel for respondent Nos. I to 7 /claht ants' Perused the materia,l on record.

11. The main grievance of the appeliant befrrrt this Court is that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken I month instead of Rs.7,5OO/- relying on Ra,7.ct' case cited supra as there proof of income ' claimants. As per the evidence of PW 1 , the :s;.4,500/- per 'handrappa's ,laced by the Jeceased. was working as a scrap worker and was earning R; 15,o00/- per month and was contributing the same towards no other proof was placed before the Tribur [-Lis family but a1 except the evidence of PW1, further, ttre learned Tribuna FLas taken the income of the deceased as at€s.4,000/- per r r,rnth and the 7 learned Tribunal has added 407o towards future prospects basing on Pranag Sethi's case. The contention of the appellant is that the leamed Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- by relying on Ramachand.rappa's case, instead the learned Tribunal has taken Rs.7,5OO/ per month as salary adding to the same 407o towards future prospects i.e, Rs.10,500/- per month, by deducting 1 / 5tr, of the amount for personal expenses and having added the multiplier at '17' , taking into consideration of the entire ca.lculation made by the learned Tribunal, this Court does not see arry error committed by the learned Tnbunal in the assessment made and arriving at Rs.7,50O/ - per month, in the opinion of this Court, it appears to be on appropriate lines and that the learned Tribunal taking into consideration of ground realities and the age of the deceased, has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/-. The other grievance of the appellant is that, the I ( learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of 1 / 5ft from ttre income of the 8 deceased. Considering the fact that the clairn: tt Nos.l to 7 are the dependenrs on the deceased and the cre,ir:.rnt Nosr.s to 7 being are sisters of the deceased, the learnc I ,lribunal rightly deducted 1/Str of the earnings of the dc,r ,ased towards personal expenditure. This Court does not ,i rJ any error committed by the learned Tribunal, r.l,hi,: L needs no interference by this Court, as such, the appezrl s liable to be dismissed.

12. In the resuit, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed < rnhrming the award dated 05.12.2O19 passed in M.V.O.p.No..j i.l of 2017 by the leamed I Additiona-l Chief Judge, Cit-t 3ivil Court, Secunderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pendir 1 , sha_ll stald closed. \ To, Sd/. A. S;I IEENIVASA REDDY ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR ,.9 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman [\4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Ar Jitional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. One CC to Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPtJ ) 3. One CC to Sri Papaiah Peddakula, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies KVR&am G ;;f!. , { .._1 : I tto 20?E -\,2 o Y: HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.377 o12020 DISMISSED 0) >b [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No:. 377 OF 2020 Between: Cholamandalam M.S, General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Regional Manager, Olo 2nd Floor, MIG - 74, Dharma Reddy Colony, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad. ...APPellanUResPondent No.3 AND

1. Fatima Begum, W/o Late Md. Arif, Age'. 24 years, Occ: Household 2. Master Mohd. Mashaq, S/o Late Md. Arif, Age: 5 years, Occ. Student, (Respondent No.2 is minor and is being Represented by his Mother and Natural Guardian Fatima Begum i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) 3- Md. lshaq @ Md. Esar Gadde, S/o Late Nabisab Gadde, Age: 47 years, Occ: Driver,

4. Chand Bi, W/o Md. lshaq @ Md. Esar Gadde, Age: 41 years, Occ. Housewife 5. Rihana, D/o Md. lshaq @ Md. Esar Gadde, Age: 15 years, Occ: Student, 6. Ruksana, D/o Md. lshaq @ lt/d. Esar Gadde, Age: '14 years, Occ: Student, 7. Khaja Bee, D/o Md. lshaq W/o tvtd. Esar Gadde, Age: 't 1 years, Occ: Student, (Respondent Nos.s to 7 are minors and are being Represented by their Mother and Natural Guardian Smt. Chand Bi i.e. Respondent No.4 herein) All are Rl/o H.No.9-2-24, Alunda, Gulbarga, Karnataka, Presently Rl/o H.No.3- 2516, Addagutta, Secunderabad. . . .Respondent Nos.1 to 7/Petitioners B. Pallapu Yellaiah, S/o Ramulu, Age. Major, Occ. Driver of Tractor bearing No. TS UA 8701 & Trailer bearing No. TS UA 8700, Rl/o H.No.2-27' Thirumalapuram, Shankarampeta (A), Medak District - 502 271

9. Katasani Saidi Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Age. Major, Occ. Owner of Tractor bearing No. TS UA 8701 & Trailer bearing No. TS UA 8700, R/o P.No.25' Ayyappa Colony, Pothi Reddy Pally, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana - 502 001 ...Respondent Nos.7 & 8/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.355 of 2017 dated 05-12-2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. .' :- This appeal coming on for hearing and upon pent ing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower court and 1r 3 materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Mr. A. Ramakri ; rra Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and sri papaiah peddakura, Advocate for the I l{)spondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil lViscellaneous Appe: be and hereby IS dismissed; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeat. Sd/. A. Ii IEENIVASA REDDY ASS I ;IANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER l The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-r r c Jitionar chief Judge, 2. Two CD Copies City Civil Court, Secunderabad. KVR'kam 6 HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 DECREE MACMA.No.377 of 2020 DISMISSED