The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl. A. GANGADHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI S. AGASTHYA SHARMA The Court made the following : JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.524 of 2o23 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Ram Chandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel lor the appellants/claimants, Sri A. Gangadhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri S. Agasthya Sharma, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4/lnsurance Company. Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by appellant Nos.2 to 4lclairrrant Nos.2 to 4 aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2O2 of 2016, dated O4.O I .2023.

3. Initially, the claim petition was filed by the one Revoju Raju claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. During the pendency of the claim petition, he died and his legal representatives were brought on record as claim petitioner Nos.2 to 4.

4. On 28.O7.2O 15, the deceased as pillion rider aiong with another as rider was going to Ganneruvatam from Karimnagar on \ .- \l 2 motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 AP 4109. When the motorcycle reached S.C.Colony, Kamanpur Village, one RTC bus bearing No.TS 03 UA 3101 driven by the respondent No.l in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle causing fall of the deceased and the rider of the motorcycle died on the spot. The deceased went into coma after the accident and he was shifted to Sri Laxmi Hospital, Karimnagar and was treated as an inpatient from 29.07.2015 to

06.08.2015. Further, the deceased underwent surgery for fracture of both bones right leg and then was shifted to CAIMS Hospital, Bommaka-l and was treated as in-patient from 06.O8.2015 to

17.08.20 15 and then u,as shifted to Sri Laxmi Bhadrakali Hospital, Karimnagar and treated as inpatient from 17.08.2015 to

07.O1.2016. Thereafter, since he did not recover from coma, he was brought back to the house. On 04.09.2016, he died. During the interregnum betu,een 07 .O1.2016 to 04.09.2016, he was fed with medicines through pipes in the form of liquid. Due to this accident which resulted in death of the deceased, claim petitioner Nos.2 to 4 sought compensation of Rs.50,OO,0OO/-.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimants got examined as PWs 1 to 5 and exhibited Exs.Al to A16. Respondent No.4 /lnsurancy' \io*p..,y got examined RWI and exhibited Exs.Bl and 82. ,/ / \/ I 3

6. Upon considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,65,9661- with interest at 7 .Soh per annum. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and, 4 were directed to pay the said compensation jointly and severally while dismissing the petition against respondent No.3/TSRTC. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is prelerred seeking enhancement.

7. In grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that as the deceased was in coma from 29.06.2015 to 07.01.2016, the claimants suffered mental agony zrnd hardship attending him at various hospitals. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1 ,00,000/ - towards attendant charges which is meagre considering the length of time period of hospitalization. No compensation was awarded towards mental agony and hardship suffered by the claimants. The deceased was working as Carpenter and earned Rs. 15,000/- per month and the sarne was proven from the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 but the Tribunal has erroneousl-y taken his monthlv lncome as Rs.6,O0O/-, leading to grant of meagre compensation. There a-re three dependents and no compensation was awarded towards consortium with increase of 10% on said amount and no amounts were awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. On the basis of aJorementioned grounds, the clh[mants sought enhancement of compensation. )- Y-=- 4

8. During arguments 1n appeal, the learned counsel for the claimants/appe'llant Nos.2 to 4 referred to the compensation awarded in the face of prolonged hospitalization and treatment taken by the deceased over a period from 29 .06.2015 up to his death on 04.09.2016. It is argued that there is a need to enhance the compensation on several counts i.e. increasing the monthly salary while computing loss of source of income, loss of consortium and on other counts such as loss of estate and funeral expenses.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award passed alleging that the Tribunal considered all the aspects and awarded just compensation.

10. A perusal of the au'ard shows that medical expenses were granted based on the evidence adduced for an amount of Rs.7.73,566 I and Rs.1,OO,OO0/- towards transport and extra nourishment and the szrme do not require any interference.

11. As per police record, the deceased was a Carpenter aged 28 yea,rs as on the date of his death in the year 2015. In this context, the learned counsel for the claimants referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Neeta v. Divisional \ / I I I 5 Manager, Maharashtra SRTC, Kolhapurt, rn'herein the income of a Carpenter is taken at Rs.12,0OO/- per month. The facts of said case are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the deceased in Neeta case (1 supra) 'n'as not only doing the skilled job of Carpentry but also deriving income from agriculture occupation from their agricultural lands. In the instant case, the deceased was only a Carpenter without having ownership of any agricultural lands deriving income there from.

12. Having regard to the evidence adduced by the claimants, since the income of a labour can be taken at Rs.4,5OO/- per month as per Sri Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd..2 with increase at some percentage per annum, the income of a skilled carpenter can be taken at Rs.7,000/- per month.

13. Coming to the compensation under the head of loss of dependency to which the claimants are entitled, as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others3, 407o future prospects has to be added as the deceased was self-employed. Thus, the net monthly income comes to Rs.9,BOO/- (Rs.7,OOO/- + '(zors) a scc sgo '1zou1 r: scc z:o {izorz) ro scc sao 6 Rs.2,800/-). As there are three dependents, considering the net annual income at Rs. l,17,600l- (Rs.9,80oxl2), if 173'a of the said income is deducted towards personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be Rs.7B,4OOl-. If the said amount is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier '17' as was rightly taken by the Tribunal relying on Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporationa, the total compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' would be Rs.13,32,800/ -.

14. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. l,OO,OOO/- towards attendant charges. On account of prolonged hospitalization for a period of seven months, the compensation towards attendant charges is increased to Rs.2,OO,O0O/-.

15. There is a need to enhance @ lOo/" in every three years on the funera-l expenses and loss of estate for which Rs. 15,OOO/- each was awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, consortium was granted to claimant Nos.2 to 4 at Rs.4O,0OO/- each, also carries at lOok enhalcement in every three years. Therefore, the claimants are awarded Rs. 18,150/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of es\ate. Further, the claimant No.2 to 4 are awarded Rs.48,4OO/- o 1zoos1 o s.c.c. rzr a 7 each towards spousal consortium, parental consortir.rrn and {ilial consortium respectively. Thus, in all, the total compensation payable to the claimant Nos.2 to 4lappellant Nos.2 to 4 would be Rs.25,87,8661 -.

16. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.22,65,966l- to Rs.25,87,866 l-, which shall carry interest at 9o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimant/appellant Nos.2 to 4 in the sarne proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, claimant/appellant Nos.2 and 4 are permitted to withdrarv their respective share amount without furnishing any security. As far as claimant/appeilant No.3 is concerned, she is entitled to withdraw her share after attaining majority and till then, it wili be kept in Fixed Deposit as per the Award passed by Tribunal. There sha-ll be no order as to costs. 8 Miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in this appeal, shall starrd closed. SD/.M,NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -r1 //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, Judge, Karimnaga(with records, if any)

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District 2. One CC to SRl. RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. A GANGADHAR Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI S. AGASTHYA SHARMA,SC (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies GEipsl w \ \ I HIGH COURT DATED:21l0812025 't;i .'.Art S --,() c) 20 t_ t t B 2ffi * G) ):- * JUDGMENT MACMA.No.524 o12023 I PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS +.@ #* IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY.THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT 134421 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 524 OF 2023 Between: '1 . Revoju Raju, S/o. Ellesham, Age. 28 years, Occ. presently Nil, prior to the accident Carpenter in Raju Wood Carving Works, Mankammathota, Karimnagar, un-sound person, represented by his wife, Guardian/Next friend, Revoju Mounika @ Lahari, Wo. Raju, Age.24 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Ganneruvaram village of Beijanki mandal in Karimnagar district. (Died on 4-9-2016 during the pendency of the M.V.O.P, as a result of motor vehicles accident injuries). Hence, his L.Rs. Petitioners No.2 to 4 are brought on record as per the orders.

2. Revoju Lahari @ lVlounika, Wo. Late Raju, Age about 35 years, Occ. Household, (wife of deceased Petitioner No.'1 Revoju Raju)

3. Revoju Sathwika, D/o. Late Raju, Age '1 1 years (minor) represented by her next friend/guardian Revoju Lahari @ Mounika, Occ. Student (daughter of deceased Petitioner No.1 Revoju Raju)

4. Revoju Sudhawa, Wo Late Ellesham Aged 61 years, Occ. Household (mother of the deceased Petitioner No.1 . Revoju Ra.iu). All are residents of H.No 7-79lA, Ganneruvaram village Bejjanki Mandal Siddipet District (Previously Karimnagar District). ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND

1. Billaboina Raju, S/o. Balaiah, Age 33 years, Occ. Driver of Hired APS RTC Bus bearing No TS 03 UA 3101, R/o. H.No. 9-723212, Ramnagar Karimnagar Town and District.

2. Durgam Venkata Sai Krishna, S/o. Rajesham, Age. about now 51 years, R/o. H.No. 5-80, Gundi village, Ramadugu mandal. Karimnagar District (owner of TS RTC Bus bearing No. TS 03 UA 3101).

3. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Divisional Manager-cum-Vice Chairman, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Secunderabad.

4. The National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Sadguru Complex, H.No.2-3-'184, 1B4lA, ll Floor, Kaman to Bus Stand Road, Karimnagar branch (lnsurance Policy Cover No. 551200131 11416300000951, valid from 16-9 -2014 to 17-9-20'15) ..,RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 7 Appeat filed und dated 04.01.2023 passe the chairman, Motor ve: Judse, Karimnasar section 173 of M'v.A' against order and Decree in M V o P No ,or'.il' hicle Accidentt ;,;;-";r'r'# ::J", ffij::,;:i,:l i This appeai comir for hearing and u; appeal, the judgment the case and upon ;Y::ll'; ;t'hl'i1;:'^,[: ":f :ff ::,:: "rJ'^"' ^j.-i::'"."."ttn" Advocate i",*,.;il:ff1;:T#rffiI: f sR RAM'no"'*" *^" for Respondent No"l' *", and sRr ;;'peared '.AGASTH'A ";"";; .HARMA, ol.' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: dvocate appeared r", *."r"Ilrl"JjT, '1. That the Motor Accic arowed.

2. That the compensatk lent civir Misceraneous Appear be and is hereby parry ;:L::ff iH:,,",":y j:Hl::1::;r#I:lj;ff lced amount from the date of petition tiil the date of ":::::i rearization. ? That the compensation claimanuappel";;-;;.;""'mount sharl be apportioned o in the same proportion in compensation amounts *url e directed by the Tribunal. among the which original

4. That the Respondent N months from the date 'o] ', deposit,craimanu"pp"rrof , receipt of "no 4 shail deposit said amount within two respective.n",""ro,nlt..l*' and 4 ; ,,#::iJtffi,J ;'jl t without furnishing any security. 5. That as far as the clair ' "";;;;;,:ne withdraw her share ,o"rn'n"roullant Depos it o *",; ^S; l;;# ffiT:;';;i: ,; ". 0 ",.,n " No.3 is conc Ji,:":l"'; I f'. ,,,at Lrtcre snall be no order as to costs in this appeal - SD/-M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I llTrue Copyll To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- itional District S CTION OFFICER Judge, Karimnagar.

2. lwo CD Copies. GE/pslw I I HIGH COURT RYJ DATED:21l0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.524 ol2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS .d"lt \ &u*