The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnter m Stay granted in lA No. 03 of 2024 in IMACIVIA No. 534 of 2024 dated 03lOSl201'-4 by permitting the petitioners/respondents No. 1 to 4 herein to withdraw the deposited amount in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the, Respondents 1 to 4: Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR JUDGMENT: HeardSriA.RamakrishnaReddy,learnedcounselforthe appellant,andSrisamaRavikiranReddy,learnedcounselfor respondents/claimants and perused the record' 2. The Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed assailing the order passed by the learned Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- principal District Judge, Adilabad, (for shott, 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 dated 30.t2.2022, partly allowing the claim of the claimants to the extent of Rs.27,7o,oool- together with interest @7.5o/operannum,outoftheclaimofRs.35,00,000/-onaccountof the death of the deceased, viz., Aqune Girish, in road traffic accident, occurred on 17.01.2020 at about 1.30 AM at chopparipalli Village' Adilabad District.

3. The facts leading to filing of the MVOP are that on 17'01'2020, the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No'TS 01 EM 1568, as a pillion rider, from Bellampalli to Mancherial, being ridden by the 1st respondent and when they reached Chopparipalli Village Highway road, the 1* respondent drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed TSRTC Super Luxury Bus bearing No'TS 2 20 Z 00t3 coming in the opposite direction, as a result in the deceased fell down rn the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body ;rnd subsequently, he succumbed to injuries on 18.01.2020 at about 2.0{) p.m.

4. Basinr; on the complaint, the Police, Kasipet, have registered a case, vid,= Crime No.3 of 2020 under Section 304-A IPC against the rider of tre motor cycle. It is further stated by the claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident and he was aged abrlut 41 years and was earning Rs.25,0001- per month by running ;r Motor Driving School in the name and style of "Arjune Motor Driving lichool" vide licence bearing No.0UADB/2018 issued by the RTA, Adilabad. Further, the deceased used to earn Rs.3,00,000/- per annum by doing agriculture and his entire earnings were contributed for the rvelfare of the family. Therefore, the claimants are claiming an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- towards compensation against the respondents.

5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit disputing the craim of the claimants. Further, the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessirre and exorbitant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the Op. 3

6. The learned Tribunal basing on the pleadings framed the following issues for consideration: '.1.Whetheraccidentoccurredon17.01.2020atabout1.30p'm. at chopparipalli Village High way road, due to rash and negligent riding of the motor rycle bearing No'TS 01 EM 1568 by its rider/resPondent No. 1?

2.WhetherArjuneGirishSustainedinjuriesinthataccidentand died of the injuries?

3.Whetherthepetitionisbadfornon-joinderofnecessary parties?

4.WhethertherespondentNo.lwasnotholdingvalidand effective driving licence as on the date of accident?

5.Whetherthepetitionersareentitledtocompensation?Ifso,to what amount and from which respondent?

6. To what relieP"

7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants-appetlant' PWs.lto3Wereexaminedanddocuemnts-Exs.A.1toA.8Were marked.Nooralordocumentaryevidencewasadducedonbehalfof the resPondents.

8.LearnedCounselfortheappellantcontendedthatthelearned Tribunal ought to have seen that, even though the claimants asserted that they had filed Ex.A.7-Licence issued by the RTA, Adilabad, on

05.0l.20lStothedeceasedforrunningadrivingschoolandhad examinedPW.z,nodocumentWaSfiledtoprovethatthedeceased 4 was actually running a driving school as on the date of the accident. It is fufther contended that, in the absence of any cogent and concrete evidence regarding the income of the deceased, taking his monthly income as; Rs.20,000/- and calculating the 'loss of dependency' on that basis, is highly excessive and erroneous.

9. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in considr:ring the age of the deceased as 40 years solely on the basis of the Post-Mortem Report. He submitted that, in Ex.A.I-FIR, lodged by the de:ceased's own brother, the age of the deceased is stated as 41 years, and Ex.A.2, the inquest repoft, also confirms the same. Thereforr:, the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceasecl as 41 years and should have applied the multiplier of '14' instead of '15'. Hence, he prays that the order passed by the rearned Tribunal be set aside.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that, during examination, PW.1 categorically deposed that the deceased was running a motor driving school in the name and style of "Arjune Motor Driving schooli vide licence bearing No. 01/ADBlzotg issued by the RTA, Aclilabad. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the contention advanced on behalf of the deceased that he 5 was earning more than Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and, instead of granting the income claimed, restricted it to Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by the learned Tribunal does not warrant interference by this Court.' I l. On a careful examination of the evidence on record, this Couft finds that the Tribunal rightly relied upon Ex.A.7, the licence issued by the RTA, Adilabad and the testimony of PW.1 to conclude that the deceased was engaged in running a motor driving school. In the absence of any documentary evidence from the respondents, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the deceased's monthly income at Rs.20,000/-. Though documentary proof of actual earnings was not produced, the nature of the deceased'S occupatign, reasonably supports the income assessed by the Tribunal.

12.lt is also to be noted that the claimants consistently pleaded that the deceased was earning substantial income from agriculture, estimated at Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, however, failed to consider the aspect of agricultural income while computing compensation. Had the Tribunal taken such income into account, the notional monthly income would have been higher than Rs.20,000/-' Nevertheless, the Tribunal, in order to meet the ends of justice 6 restricted the monthly income to Rs.20,000/- to ensure fairness. The resultant r:omputation of Rs.27,70,0001- under various heads is found to be rea:;onable and in accordance with settled principles governing motor accident compensation. consequently, this court finds no justificaticn to interfere with the well-reasoned award passed by the Tribunal.

13. In the result, the Motor Accidents civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissec. No costs.

14. Pentling miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Cheirman, [Vlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabacl.

2. One CC to Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4, Two CD Copies AS w '"-' . -. .t#,:,1 r r;': : , '. '. HIGH COUIIT GPK, J DATEDT 21,t1112025 ? ' ,,. .\ i , ] :. iJ ) i"i ' .... (:) 0 5 tii\n t02B 'll' -.i. f;. JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.N'o.534 of 2024 DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS G.ufA &p IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 534 OF 2024 Between: CholaMandalam MS (Chola MS) General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office. D.No.8-6-'l 1, Vijaya Complex, Kothirampur, Hyderabad Road, Beside Andhra Bank, District Karimnagar ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND

1. Arjune Sanjaria, W/o Late Arjune Girish Aged 36 years, Occ. Household 2. Arjune Varad Kumar, S/o Late Arjunel Girish, Aged 15 years, Occ. Student 3. Arjune Pournimi, D/o Late Arjune Girish, Aged 10 years, Occ. Student 4. Arjune lndira, Wo ArjunePrakash, Aged 65 years, Occ. Household (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minors and are being Represented by their mother and natural guardian ArjuneSanjana i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) All are Rlio H.No.2-4, Dhannura (B) Village, Dhannura (B) Mandal, Adilabad Diskict

5. Ganesh Bodkuntawar, S/o Sambashiv Bodkuntawar, Aged 31 years, Occ. Owner Cum-Rider of motor cycle bearing No. TS 01 EM 1568 and Government Teacher, Rio H.No.7-77, Bela Village and Mandal, Adilabad District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS (Respondent No. 5 is not necessary party to this petition) Appeal filed under Section '173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree dated 30-12-2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.233 ot 2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad. 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. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for'the appellant and Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos, l tct 4. This Court doth Crder and Decree as follows:

1. That the l/otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other aspe,cts; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY T REGISTRAR S //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad. 2. Two CD tlopies AS \qr HIGH COUIRT GPK, J DATEDT 2111112025 I C) ( * sHE1 0 5 ltAR z[l2fi t DECREE MACMA.JSo.534 of 2024 DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS ,\ttf'lt Yr--