The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NAII DIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.537 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: The petitioners/ claimants fi1ed the preser t appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehrcles Aci, 1988 against he Award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims 'I r bunal -cum - Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter refi rred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.322 of 2018, dated O9.C. .2O20, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,00O/- on account of the d: .t h of Yelgetwar Sunil (son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter reft rred to as "the deceased") in the accident occurred on 27.O5.2018.

2. For convenience, the parties wiII be hereinait: ' referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners/c aimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.322 of 2018 under Section 166 f the M,V.Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of the de,; ased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rers l and negligent manner of the driver of the tractor. :

4. It is contended that on 27.05.2018, at abor- t 7:O0 PM the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing \ r.AP 25 Q 5047 from Bichkunda to Pedda Devada village along witL he pillion rider Halmandlu, when they reached near Bichkunda rus stand, the driver of the Tractor bearing No. TS 17 9799 ct ne in opposite 2 larR :1 M, A. C. hI.A. l'Io. 5 3 7 of 2 02 o direction with a rash ald negligent marlner and dashed the deceased motorcycle, due to which they fell down and sustained injuries over the body. Immediateiy, they shifted to hospital' but the doctors d.eclare the deceased as brought dead'

5. The Police, Bichkunda registered a case in Crime No'42 of 2Ol8 against the driver of offending vehicle' The appellants/clarmants claimed an amotint of Rs'20'00'00O/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads' The contention of the petrtioners before the Tribunal' was that 6. petitioners lost their bread winner due to demise of the deceased and petitioners future has become dark, and they have to depend on others for their day to day basic needs and prayed the Tribunal to awaJd just comPensation.

7. Respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicie remained ex-parte' Respondent No.2 hled counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition including the malner in which the accident took place, age, avocation arrd income of the deceased and further submitted that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and there is no liability on the part of respondent No.2 to pay compensation and respondent No'1 failed to furnish the particulars of policy, date etc., as per the provisions of the M.V Act and prayed to dismiss the claim petition' 3 tvlvR.J tu|.A.C.4! .No.537 of 2O2O

8. Basing on the pleadings ald averments mac.t by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the accident took place due to rash t nd negligent diuing of Tractor beaing No.TS 17 9799 by its .iuer causing the death of Yelgetwar SYnil? ii) Wlrcther the petitioners ore entitled for compensL ion? If so, to uhat amount ond from whom? iii) To uhat relief?

9. During the course of enquiry on behalf of peli benrs, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and marked trxs.Al to A6- Ex l i1 -copy of the insuralce policy was marked on behalf of respondentr;

10. After considering the material on record an,1 the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal alir ved the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.7, l L,6OO/- zrlong with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum. I 1. Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount a varded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is fiIed on the fr Iowing arnong other ground that the learned Tribunal did not chor e to consider the evidence placed by the petitioners i.e., Ex.A6, whi: r is the salar5z certificate issued the Contractor, showing the income c ' the deceased @ Rs.1,O00/- per day. It is further contended thz : the learned Tribunal did not award compensation under the oth : conventional heads and prayed to enhance the compensation amour ', 4 IllVR,(,r tw.A.C-M-A.No-537 of 2O2O

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by the deceased. As far as compensation of the deceased is concerned, the deceased was hale and health and was aged 26 years and was earning Rs.2O,000/- per month by working as a Mason. The Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.20,OOO/- pet month instead of Rs.4,000/- and ought to have consider Ex.A6 salary certihcate and the learned Tribunal did not zrward compensation under the head of 'parental compensation'as per the judgment of Hon'l:le Apex Court rn Magma General Insurance Compang Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ramr.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - National Insurance Company Limited submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, and needs no interference.

14. Heard. Srt Kuriti Ptem Naidu, learned counsel representing Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri T.K.Sanjag Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No'2 - Insurance Company. Perused the materials available on record' None appear for resPondent No. I ' 20t8 (18) scc l30 5 ,IV]YR.J M.A.C.)l t. r.No.537 of 2O2O

15. Admittedly, the respondents have not frle c cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. . 's such, it can be deemed that there is no dispute regarcling ability of the respondents, age of the deceased and the naturt c thc accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this -r;peal is that: "i) Whether the leamed Tibunal has rightlll monthly income of the deceosed? ii) Wlrcther the petitioners are entiiled for tL r compensation, if so, to what ertcnt?" r.ssess lhe enhonced Point No.1

16. Admittedly, the deceased died due to injuries r; Lstained bv him in the accident occurred on 27.O5.2018. The petitio r r:'s claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,0OO/- per nr nth by doing agriculture and mason work and labour work to : L; bs t a ntizrte the claim, the claimalts filed Ex.A6 - salary certiEcate, rs the claimarts failed to examine the author of Ex.A6. Hence, I I e Tribuna_l has rightly rejected Ex.A6 salary certificate of the ct:eased, Ibr the reason that the author of the said document was no - :xamined.

77. It is pertinent to look into the settled law lz id down by the Hon'lrle Supreme Court in Latht Wadhuta as. I tate oJ Bihat'z wherein it was held that even when there is no rroof of income 2 2001(8) SCC 197 7 6 M.A.C.M.A. No.537 ,VIIR.J f 2020 and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts.

18. In Shaikh Sadik Shaik Rafique a. Reliq.nce General Insurance Compang Limited. q.nd others?, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount of the deceased, who was unskilled labour to Rs. 10,000/- per month, and the relevant paragraph No.5 reads as under for read reference: "5. Ra,machandro,ppa us. Manager, Rogal Sundarann Alliance Insurance cotrytang Limited detennined an income of Rs.4,500/ - per month in the gear 2004 for a coolie. A Cnnstitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limiled us. Ptanay Sethi ond Others fouruJ that there taould be an incremental increose in the income which according to us utould be reasonable if ftxed at Rs.SOO/ per month for euery successiue year. In the present case, the qccident occured in the year 2015, 11 years after 20O4 ond going bg the pinciples stated in the afore-cited decisiorts the appellant, an un-skilled ruorker would be entitled to claim monthlA incom-e of Rs.1O,OOO/ -"

19. In view of recent judgment, dated 13.O5.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaik RaJique's case alnd lAtha Wadhua's ccse (cited both supra) and looking at the avocation of the deceased and considering the ground realities, this Court is inclined to take the notiona,l income of the deceased r 2025 SCC Online SC 1092 7 MIR.J M. 4-c- I .44e.5 3 Z_el2 e2 e 1 at Rs.9,OOO/- in place of Rs.4,OOO/- per month frr re-assessment of the compensation.

20. By taking, the deceased income notionalll z,s Rs_9,000/-. The annual income of the deceased would come t: lts. 1,0g,000/_. Apart from that, as per the decision of Honble S.r rreme Court in National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. prct, og Sethi and. otherst and considering the age of the deceas,: I as 26 _r,ears, additional 4O'% of the income has to be added :owards future prospect to the monthly income of the deceasec . Ihcrefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come t: Rs. 1,51,200/_ (Rs.1,O8,000/- + Rs.43,200/-). The deceased wa:; bachelor taken 5O% of the income towards his personal expens(: as it shall be deducted from Rs. 1,51,200l-, which comes I r Rs.75,600/_ (Rs.1,51,200 X 50%). As per the column No 4 of scherlule prescribed in the judgment of the Apex Court in { arta Vertna a. Delhi Transport Corporatlsrls, as the age of t re deceased is taken as 26 years, the appropriate multiplier ap.rlicable for the deceased's age is '17', which is not disputed by tr, th the parties. Thus, the total loss of dependenry can be answero I as and would come to Rs.12,85,200/- (Rs.75,6OO x t7). 4 2017 ACJ 2700 5 zoo'.r ,tct tzes 1sc; ! 8 .ifl\IR.J U.AO, LI.A-No.s 3 ZoJ 2 02 o

27. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.i5,000/- + 7Oo/o + 10%o) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,0OO/- + lOo/o + lO'Y") towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

22. Further, considering the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 being the parents of deceased, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.aB,aOO/- x 2) under the head of 'parental consortium', as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

23. On overail re-appreciation of the pleadings, materia-l on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and the same is given in the table below for easy reference. i) ii) ual Income (of the deceased) 9,OOO / - X 12 = Rs.1,08,000/- Tota] Annual Income = Annual Income + Futu Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) = Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,2OOl - Rs- 1,51,2O0l I i I-l iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased 1 (Rs.1,5r,200/- (-) Rs.76,600/-) = Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs. 75,600/- x 17 = Rs.75,60O/- Rs.12,85,200/- iu) t t 9 rvlvR.J M.A.C-lt .A.No.537 of 2020 ) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads == Loss of Estate + Funera-l Expenses + loss of parental consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.96,80O/- Total Rs.1,33,100/- Rs. '14, 18,300/-

24. Thus, in all the appellants/claimants are :ntilled ro the enhanced compensation of Rs.14,1g,3OO/- as agair st the awzrrded amount of Rs.7,91,600/- by the learned Tribunal.

25. Accordingly, thc M.A.C.M.A is a_tlowed in par_ enhancing the cornpensation lrom 7,91,600/-to Rs.14,1g,3OO/- (Rr pees Fourteen Lakh Eighteen Thousand and Three Hundred Or:t 7) ,"vith interest at the rate @ 7 5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount f om the date of petition till the date of rearization. The respondentr; are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs anc inl erest after giving due credit to the amount already deposite<l if any, within three months from receipt of a copy of this . udgment. The compensation amount shall be apportionr:<l among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and in same ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. On such deposi._ the clajmants are entitled to withdraw the same without furnislL: ng any surety. There shall be no order as to costs. l0 M.A.C.M.A.No.537 o ]YIYR.J f 2020 !

26. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REG //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman, lr,lotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum - Principal District Judge at Nizamabad.(With records)

2. One CC to Sri. Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. T. Sanjay K. Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KVR/DL \* HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/202s JUDGMENT MACMA.No.537 of 2020 --.1 1\t\ \$t. $t i!t .i---. I t 1 \ PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL G l .oe"- \k--, --<v' to\" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 537 OF 2020 Between:

1. I\,4r.Gangadhar Lachamanna Yelgetwar, S/o Laxmanna, Age 50 years, R/o Bolegaon Village, Biloli Tq., Nanded District presently residing at Oubba Colony, Nizamabad.

2. Smt.Kalavati Gangadhar Yelgetwar, W/o Gangadhar Lachamanna Yelgewar, Age 47 years, Occ Household, R/o Bolegaon Village, Blloli Tq., Nanded District presently residing at Dubba Colony, Nizamabad ... Petitioners/Claimants AND

1. Mr.Yembari Rakesh, S/o Y.Balram, Major, Owner of Tractor bearing No TS17- 9799, R/o H.No.1 -24, Kowlas Village, Jukkal lr,4andal, Kamareddy District, Telangana State

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office, At APSFC Building, 1 st Floor, Subashnagar, Opp. Z.P. office, Nrzamabad - 503 002 (Policy No.61060031170100000819 valid from 31 10512017 to 30/05/201 8) ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 09.01.2020 passed in Ir.1.V.C.P.t.lo. 322of 2018 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Clairns Triburral-cum - Principal District Judge at Nizamabad. This appeal cominE or! for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Lecree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri. Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and l\,4r. T. Sanjay K Singh. Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 2, and none appeared foi' the Respondent No. 1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the N/ACMA be and hereby is partly al cir ed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 7,g1fuOL to Rs. 14,18,300/-(Fr :ees Fourteen Lakh Eighteen Thousand and Three Hundred only) with inter r t at the rate @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of p€ t itn till the date of realization;

2. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to dr,1 csit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due cred t i ir]e arnount already deposited, if any, within three months from the rer;r:i rt of a copy of this Judgment; 3 That the compensation amount shall be app,) oned among the appellants/Claimants in the same manner and is samo -i tio as ordered by the learned Tribunal; 4 That on such deposit, the claimants be and hereby a.r entrtled to withdraw the same without furnishing surely;

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal srr I stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// sd/. ASIa\ ,t,l \' {, OSMAN ALI BAIG ; ]TANT REGISTRAR - ----t --* \ SECTION OFFICER To, The Chairman, I\,4otor Accrdent Claims Tribunal-cum - l) rncipal District Judge at Nizamabad. Two CD Copies 2 KVR/DL YY HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.537 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL L{.c'o Yr- (p!t