Sri A v. K. S. Prasad

by the parties awarded an amount of Rs.S, L4,6991- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till actual deposit payable by respondent No.1 alone and the claim against respondent No.2 is dismissed.

12.1 Learned counsei for the appellants submits that the learned Judge did not consider the future revisions in salary of the deceased Sunkari Shankar though PW4 has categorically stated that for every five years there wilt be a revision in salary as per fixation of wage board and that the appellants are entitled for just compensation. The Tribunal erred in exonerating the respondent No.2 - insurance company from its liability in making payment of compensation to the appellants - petitioners on the ground that tlrg^driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driying +/ sl14 BRMR, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2Ol2 licence ar] on the date of accident [O1.O7.2018]. The learned Judge heavily placed reliance on the evidence of RW2 and Ex.A7 in concluding that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence as on tl-re date of accident. As a matter of fact RW2 stal.ed t-hat he has no record with him to verify whether the driver of the offending vehicle applied for conversion of his licence to transport licence from non transport licence or not. L2.2 Thr: learned Tribunal ought to have directed respondent No.2 to first pay the compensation amount to the appellants - petitione:-s and recover the same from respondent No.1 instead of dismissing the claim petition against the respondent No.2 insuranc3 company and the leaned Tribunal has awarded less amount, which requires to be enhanced. In support of his contenticns, counsel has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Kalpanaraj and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport CorporatLonl. (ii) Mona Baghel and Others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav and Othe:rs2, (iii) Kulwinder Kaur and others Vs. Prashant Sharma and another3 and (iv) Sunita and others Vs. United India Insurance Compan5' Limited and othersl. ./ r (20ts)2 {)cc'764 2 2022l,a.uSuit (SC) 1405 3 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1077 4 2025 LawSuit (SC) 964 6lt4 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l539 of 2Ol2

13. Notice issued to respondent No.l in the appeal is refused hence it is a deemed service.

14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation, the appellants - petitioners are not entitled for enhancement of compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

15. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material'

16. Now the points for consideration are: (i) Wtrether tl-e appell.ants - petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation? (ii) Whether the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation . {irst and then recovery the s€une from respondent No.l [owner of auto trolley bearing No. AP-36-W-76991? (ii| Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.8S of 2OO8 dated 27.05-2OlO suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court or not? t7. Leargred counsel for the appellants - petitioners has field calculation memo by serving copy on the learned counsel for \ / respondent No.2. / a1 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 1539 of 2012

18. The appeal is filed by the appellants -petitioners questioning the quar:.turn of compensation and the liabilily of respondent No.2 also.

19. Th:re .s no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident has occurred and the issue before this Court is with regard to enhancement of compensation and liability of respondent No.2. POINT.No.1 2o.l rht: evidence of PWl is that her husband was drawing an amount c,f Rs.15,094.89 towards salary per month, after his death they lost the support as her husband was the sole earning member of the fanrily zrnd the deceased was having 18 years of service. 2o..2 In her cross-examination she stated that her husband was drawing rnore than Rs.15,000/- salary. She denied the suggestion that her husband was not contributing his salary towards maintenance of the family. 2I.I PW,l is the clerk of GDK-1O incline, GDK, his evidence is that the date c,f su.perannuation of the deceased is 31.ro.2or9. As per Ex.A4 tht: deceased salary is Rs.15,094.89. gross and as per December 2OO7 the deceased salary is Rs.13,211/- and the deductionii are Rs.3,469/- from the total gross salary of \. I 8lt4 BRMR, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2Ol2 Rs.15,094.89 i.e., CMPF - Rs.1315/-, FPS Rs.142/-, RBPS.I - Rs.55/-, RBPS.2% - 2l8l-, FBIS - Rs.t}l-, LIC - 1,7091- and Others Rs-2O/- and the salary will be increased for every f-rve years as per Wage,Board Report. 2l-2 In his cross-exarnination he denied the suggestion that Ex.A4 is a created document for the purpose of the case and also denied that there is no loss of income to the family of the deceased.

22. Legal Manager of respondent No.2 is examined as RWl, his evidence is that Ex.B1-policy conditions are violated. Evidence of RW2 is in respect of driving licence of Vijay Kumar K. It is apt to note here that appellants have challenged the quantum hence there is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident has occurred. Hence it is not appropriate to refer the .rrid".r." of RWl and RW2 in detail.

23. The learned Tribunal computed the compensation and observed as under: Coming to the case on hand, it is found the deceased was aged 48 years two months and his monthly income is Rs.11 ,4621- and therefore multipLicand comes to Rs.1,37,54a/- fis.I1,462/- x L2l by applying U/s.163-A read with second schedule, 2f 3ra formula referred supra in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, 2 /3,a of his annual income comes to Rs.9 L,696l-, Since the deceased is aged 48 years two months, the multiplier applicable as per the above cXart is I 9lL4 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l539 of 2Ol2 '13'. The amount comes to Rs. 11,92,O48f -, fuom this 1/3'a has to tre deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased and the amount comes to Rs.7,94,699 /- (Rs...1,9),,0481- - 3,97,349/-). The compensation that would be payable to the petilioners under the head loss of life, loss of depe ndency is held 7,94,699. Apart from this arnount, petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards consortium, the petitioners No.2 and 3 being the minor children of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of esitate, the petitioners are further entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.S,OOO/- towards transportation of dead body. Fronr the above assessment of the claims made, the following amounts are awarded under the specified heads:- Compensation for loss of life Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Transportation of dead body I 2. 3. 4. 5. Consortium TOTAL: Rs. 7.94.699-00 Rs. 5.OOO-00 Rs. 5,OOO-00 5.OO0-00 Rs. 5,000-00 Rs. 8,14,699-OO Rs.

24.1 In Kalpanarajl Supreme Court observed that gross income of the deceasecl has to be taken while computing the compensation and future prospects is warranted.

24.2 In Mona Baghel2 Supreme Court observed that the compensation can be enhanced and the award cannot be restricte(1.

24.3 In Kulwinder Kaur3 Supreme Court observed that future prospects ha.ve to be added in addition to establish income. \. ..* tol14 BRMR, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2Ol2

25. The learned Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased as Rs.ll ,4621- after the deductions. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalpanaraj case' gross income of the deceased - Sunkari Shankar is taken as per Ex.A4 which is Rs.15,094.89 and the appellants - petitioners are also entitled for future prospects from the gross income of the deceased as per the decision stated supra and as per the decision in Kulwinder Kaur3. Though the appellants petitioners have claimed Rs.18,00,000/- they are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mona Baghel2. The age of the deceased - Sunkari Shankar is taken as 48 years and the dependents are 5 in number hence his personal deductions are taken as 1 l+'a of his income. The deceased falls within the age group of 46-50 hence appropriate multiplier is '13'. They are also entitled for loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium which have to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years as per National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethis. POINT NO.2:

26. Insofar as exonerating respondent No.2 is concerned the learned Tribunal observed as under: "Coming to the aspect of liability on the respondents; since it is hetd in Issue No. I that the accident had occurred due to thg rash \ {tzorzl 16 scc 680 LL/14 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l539 of 2Or2 and negligent driving by the driver employed on the respondent No.l autc rickshaw trolle-v. it is held the Respondent No.l is liable to pay the ,:ompensation. There is no dispute and the Ex.B.1 policy would. shorir the vehicle of R. 1 was insured with Respondent No.2 and it covers third party risk, but the insurance companv denied liability contending the driver ernployed on the said auto rickshaw troiley rvas not holding a valid and effective driving licence, and they have proved by examining their witnesses RW.l and the witness from the RTA offic,: RW.2 and by exhibiting Ex.B.2 extract of driving licence of the drivr:r that the said driver was holding only a non transport driving licence whose extract u'as also brought by RW.2 to the court from the licencing authority Warangal that, the driver was holding onty L.M.V non transport driving licence, rvhereas ne was found driving a transport. vehicle auto rickshaw trolley. I am afraid such a power is not invested in this Tribunal as that direr:tion was given by their l,ordship invoking Article 42 of Conr;titut.ion, whereas this Tribunal has no such power to invoke the said article. Thr: above discussion leads to answer this aspect the issue, since therr: was breach of terms of policy by Respondent No. 1 as the driver appc,inted by him was holding only a non transport driving licence, whereas he was found driving the offending vehicle which is a tranlsport, commercial vehicle, hence, the insurance company is not liabft: to pay the compensation."

27. Respondent No.2 cannot be exonerated from the iiability for violation of the policy where the driver of the crime vehicle who was holding Light. motor vehicle non transport driving licence. pay and recover (:an be order as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunitao. \ s*

28. This court is of the view that the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation first and recovery the same from respondent No. 1. L2lt4 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l539 of 2Ol2

29. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Sl.No Name of the Head 1 2

3. 4

6. 7

8. lncome Add 30% future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi5) Deduct I l+tn personal expenses (as per Smt. Sarla varrna v. Delhi Transport Corporation6l Annual income Multiplier'13' Loss of estate Funeral expenses Consortium (for four persons) Total compensation Compensation awarded by this Court Rs.15,094/- Rs.19,622/- [15,094 + 4,5281 (15,094x3O%) =4,528 Rs.L4;717 /- 1t9,622 - 4,9O5I | /4u of 19,622 = 4,905 Rs. 1,76,6041 - (14.717 x l2l Rs.22,95,8521- {1.76.604 x 131 Rs.16,5OO/- Rs.16,50O/- Rs.1,76,O00/- (Rs.44,000/- each) Rs.25,04,8521- 30- The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of

7.5o/o per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9Yo as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and othersT.

31. In the result, MACMA.No.1539 of 2012 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanc.j.._?g;fr=d".t t11zoosy6 scc 121l ' 2c/22 scc onl-ine sc 1683 \ \ t \ 13114 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 1539 of 2Or2 a) Tht: impugned award dated 2T.OS.2OLO, passed in O.t'.No.85 of 2008, stands modified. b) The compensation au,arded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3, 14,699 / - is enhanced to Rs.25,O4 ,gS2 / _ together with interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the datr: of filing the petition till payment. c) The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to first deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 6O days fronr the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and therr recover the same from the respondent No.l (owner of the vehicle). d) Appr:llants - petitioners are directed to pay court fee the enhanced amount. e) Appr:llant No.1 petitioner No. r is entitled for an amorrnt of Rs.12,52,4261- and she is permitted to withrlraw her entire amount with costs and interest therr:on without furnishing security. 0 Appellant Nos.2 and 3 - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entifled for an amount of Rs.5,0O,gTOl- each with costs and interest thereon. As the appellant Nos.2 and 3 - ;retitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minors, their share t4lt4 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l539 of 2OL2 amounts shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationahzed bank till they attain majority. g) Appellant No.4 petitioner No.4 is entitled for Rs.2,5O,485/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs. . JAWAHAR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. One CC to Sri A. V. K. S- Prasad, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to Sri A. Veeresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to Sri R. Sheetal Kumar, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1

5. KVR (v \ \ HIGH CO,URT BRMR, J DATED: 05/1 212025 I ,t / , JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.INo.1539 of 2012 'r-i- It: i l-.-r 0 5 ti'i 'i''Jl6 $) lr' t'I\ --: .: ALLOWED WITHOU'r COSTS ft-,\ *coR'& IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DEOEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1539 OF 2012 Between:

1. Suhkari Laxmi Wo. late Shankari, aged about 40 years, Occ: Household 2. Sunkari Srinivas, S/o.late Shankari, aged about 17 years, Occ: Student, Minor 3. Sunkari Mahesh, S/o.late Shankari, Aged about 16 years, Occ: Student 4. Adicharla Savithri, Wo. Late Rajaiah, aged about 35 years, Occ: Household 5. Sunkari RadhammaWo Late Rayamallu [Died], Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are minors rep. by their natural Mother Appellant No.'l Sunkari Laxmi. All are Rl/o. Rathnapur, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 'l . Nerella Bhaskar S/o.Mankaiah, Aged Major Occ: Owner of Auto Trolley Bearing No.AP 36 W 7699 R/o.H.No.11-23-9A, LB Nagar, Waragnal.

2. lClcl Lombard General lnsurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Warangal Branch, Warangal Town and District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 85 of 2008 dated 27lO5l2O1O on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, Advocate for the appellants, Sri A. Veeresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and Sri R. Sheetal Kumar, Advocate forthe Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1' That the MACMA be and hereby^is atlo_w_ed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 8,14,699 to Rs. 25,04,852f t5gether wiili intereit'dt tne rate ^ gf 9o/o per annum from the date of filing ihe petiii6n-titt p"v*"nt --- - 2' That the respondent No 2 be and iergti/iJ-oirecleci iJ tii=t deposit the awardecl amount with interest and costs le6s the amount alreaOy-p-iid-fi;;t within a period of 60 d-ays from the date of.receipt or iCopv ; "iifliJjrogr",it and recc,ver the same from the respondent No 1 (o*nur of tn-e ,eniCt6) 3. That the Appellant-petitioners be and hereby are oir"Ct"o t" p;i g-girt f"" on the enhe nced amount; 4' That the -appellant No. 1-Petitioner No 1 be and hereby is entitted for an amount r>f Rs 12,52,426 and be and hereby is permitted to withOraw ner entire amount rvith costs and interest thereon without'furnishing se;riitf - 5' That.the Appellant No. 2and 3-Petitioners No z C s who are minors be and -*iin lrgreby are entifled for an amount of Rs s,oo,gzol- tosts ano interest there on and their share amount shali be kept in ixeo oepoiit in ,ny nationali::ed bank tilt they attain majority; 6. Appellant No. 4-petitioner No. 4 ug_.rTi hereby is entiiled fro Rs 2,50,4gs and be and lrereby is .permitted to withdr"w h# amount with costs and interest thereoh without furnishing security; 7 ' That savr> as aforesaid, the decr6e of the Tribunat shall stand confirmed in all 8. That ther: shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. other aspects; and "ntir" "rrn v Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1' The Chait'man, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge, Ka,'imnagar.

2. Two CD Ccpies KVR pH HIGH COTJRT BRMR, J DATED i 0511212025 ( * () t- .tHE S 5il t.l Ir !'. f, 7fl7fi * DECREE MACMA.lrlo.l 539 of 2012 ALLOWED WITHOU-T COSTS \ ,{&p