The High Court · 2025

apilcil:'inp ,'.r: i.lc rp1-rtllarri :lld Sri Yara Slii'ra Kumar' leamei counsei rci-)r'csentirg S|i ''\. S.){rire-\'ua, lean'ieci coutrsei alrpea|ing fbr respondtnt' \

2. 'fhe prescnt VIACiiA is t,leri by Insurance ComPanY btirlg as.grieved L',-r'thc c,rcler do-tec 28.03.20!7 passed in M\r'O'P'No l615 o1' i0 I I by ihe Charrrnan, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-eum-XIV :\dciitir-'rnai f ;iigf -iLrdg.c iFirsl Track Cor-rrt), City Civil Courts' tiyderabad itar Shor.t 'ti're Tr";rrrri.ai') insof-ar as alL,:rving the claim of the clairnants granting cornpeF.saiion of t{s-27,86,500i- along with interest at 7 '5o'/o oet' anrrum lr.or.i.r r-hr ijair c1' fhc petitlon to till the datc of deposit rvith p i-opo!"tion a'.c cosl\. as arhitr:1 . i. The facts leading ro the t-lling oiivlVOP before the leamed'lribunal are that on 04.02.20 i 0 err about 9.30 a.m. u,hile the deceased Mangali Abhiiash s./o.Ag:n-raiah "r''1s rr'.1r:iljr':- as piiiion rider of' n1otor cycle Y,q6g bearing No.AP-llAF-6780 driven b,v one Ahrneci 'trclrrl Latcef tiom Hyderabad to Dundigal side and when they reached r rr luluisanrmaguda X Road of Qutubuilapur Mandal, Ranga Redd; l)isir:cL ,h,. tlrivc-r'o1'tXlM Eicher vehicle bearing No.irlll-3iCQ-464i corr.iinr liom Bachupalli village towards II;-delabad at higir speed in a rash an n.rrligeut rranner while trying to ovcrtake an unknown vehicle at a deep , rrrr c, hit the rnotor cycle o1-thc der:cased in opposite dilection. rc-sulting .,r'i- ,:h. the rider o1'the motor cycle Ahr.nr:ci ,Abdul l-ateeI- fell down and diccl ( r iiic -c:)ot r.i'hiie the piilion rider deceascd Abhilash sustained head irr iiry and multiple fractures.

4. ImLnediatclr alicr the accidt'nt. the Ceceased A1';lr llslr u, as shilicd to Bala.ji Hospitai. Kompalli and thcreafier to NIMS i los1- ,ial, Punja_u.utta on 07 -02-2010, where he undcrwent treatrncnt upto 10.0(r. 'l lC and later w,as shifted to BGS Flospital. l]angalore on I I .05.1(ri0 i r bcirer rrearmenr The deceased Vvas again shifted to Global Hospitr r. lll cie|abad on

30.1 1.2010 anrl iater shilted to Gandhi lJospitai, :ler.underabad on 0l-12-2010 and underrvent treatment upto 03.12.2t) 0. Due to the deteriorating condition of the deceased, he was shiftecl -' NINIS ilospital, Hyderabad on 03.12.2010, where he succumbed to irri rries on the same duy. "iia.' J

5. Respondents/claimants contended that the deceascd was pursulnB B.Tech Engineering course and was a meritorious student with brilliant academic record bringing iaurels to the College by participating in National falent Evenrs and winning medals' The deceased was recognized for inventing a rerllote-controlled heiicopter within 8 K'Ms' range' which received pubiic and media attention The deceased also invented [7 formttlas, attd re cognizing hls brilliance. one A'Raghavende r of Flyderabaci establishcd''HAWK.sAeroModeling'.(rrrodelofAeroPlarrs)atSuitan Sahi, Hyderaba<i. A partnership firm rvas established betrveen the deceased Abhilash and A.Raghavender under registered deed dated i5-0I-2010' The deceased also used to tutor the students of l" to 3'd year Aeronautical Engineering students and eam Rs'50,000/- p'm The deceased noted to have a brilliant tuture due to his inventions and would have eamed sis.nificant month[l"incotne had he been alive'

6. The respondents/claimants further contended that they seek compensation for the untimely death oi the deceased' claiming loss of present and future eamings and they became bankrupt due to the death of the deceased, and they asserted that the deceased had a high eaming potential of Rs.,I,00,000/- p'm' clue to his inventions and accolades Therefore, approached the learned Tlibunal by way of MVOP No' I 165 of 4 ,r. \ 2011 under Seclion I6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, lgl li (for sl.rort 'the Act') and Rule 475llB olthe A.P.Mokrr Vehicles Rules l9li() r/w Section 140(c) olthe Acl claiming Rs.60.00,000i- torvards c()n:il rsi tir:n frtrn the appellant.

7. Before the learned Tribunal, the 5'l' respon,i tt h,:r'ein. and l" respondent in thc O.l'. i.e. orvner of Iricher Vehicie rti' rin,:ri ): pofie 8 The appellant hercin. rvho i.-s r"'r l'espondent:it il r ll) i',,.rri c()Lutt,Jr denying the allegations rnade in the Claim Pctition s1z'i r r. tllili! no irotice was served on the appellant Company either by the orvr--,er oi ihe vehicle or by the claimants intbnning about the accident. It u,a: I ir*Jrcl conlcnded that they have no knowledge about the crirninal case in ( - No.l,i ol' lOi 0. as they have not received any notice. The appeiiani ( ':n,panv liulher stated in the counter-affldavit that as per Section 134(c) ci lhc A,:t, it is the mandatory duty of the insured to tuntish the partic,.riars i t hc ilt:ad person and the narne ol the driver and particulars oi drivi;,; llcerice. The appellant denied that the rider of the motor cycle u'as i virg valid and I effective driving licence to drive the rnotor cycle as on lh( tat,: o'accident The appellant contended that the rider o1- the motor cycle -i rv,r the sarne in a rash and negligent jnanner rvithout following/observ ir-re ..tltlc Rules and l contributed for the cause of accident and as such, the appellant Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. However, the appellant Cornpan.v lurlher contendeci betbre the iearned lribunal that in the event of granting an)/ colnpensation to the claimahts, the same has to be restricted uncier the Act, and the ratc ot"interest shall not exceed 60/o p.a as on the date of passing of the award. g. Basing on the pleariings of thc respective parties, the lcamed 'fribunai iiamed the lbilorving issues: '' l. lI'hctht'r ihc pleuLlctl tttc'icltni Llitetl 0i ()2.201A t'us ttccurred due to the rash and negligent dritittg oJ the driver of crime vehicle t e. DCi'l Eiclw No.ivlH-3 ICQ-16-/I nnd the[her thc deceased )lunguli Abhiiltsh dietl duc to lhe tuiL! lrcidcilr'? 2) lihe ther lhe pclitioners ore enlilled./br conDensatiotl, and if'so io t;hut quttnlum and t'herhar lh: tt inrc vehlcle v'us ott ned by the lirsi res?ont.lent uncl in.:ured rilh th.e .sccond respondenl ttnd 'rt itut i.s the Iiabilrt.v o/ the responLlcnt? 31 'lo u,har reliq/? "

10. Before the leamed Tribunal, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant. However, Ex.B-1, which is copy of Insurance policy was rnarked. On behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.l to 5 were examined and Ers.A-1 to A-29 and Ex.X-1 \!'ere marked 6 E.EBW .;,fi;.' \. '; \ 1 1. During lhe course of examination, P.W.2 Y.l-ar,r 'i Radhika, rvho is an eyc-witness to the incident, testitled that the drir,cr' ,r 'D.- NI Eicl.rer rvas ciriving the vehiclc in a rash and negligcnt mannel i iri)e rnrning tron-r Bachupally viilage towards Hyderabad and collidert r lir thc motor *,cle frorn the opposite direction, and that panchayardars ')n(lu(iing incluest confirmed that the accident was occurred due to the ,isl- :-icl ncclirent driving of the driver of DCM E,icher vehiclc

12. P.\ /.1 B Seshagiri Rao, Superintendent in-:hrlr, riiiin.l S::clion !n NI\4S Hospital deposed that the deccascd was adntiit'l u L;-:l- Ilosnilal on 0702.2010 on account of accident ancl dischare,..' ,rr 10.06.20 I0. P.\\'.4 P.Rajesh. Assistant Billing lvlanagcr, BGS i[.rer.l lfuspiial, Bangiiiore also stated that the deceascd was adrnittecr ; thi ir hospitai on 1'l.06.10i0 and discharged on 01.07.2010 after tr:atr_r.' , . 1.r.,\-[ .,slror.vs that one Ishan Ali Khan, who is the friend of the rider r i tht. ntotor c.'-cle, in uhich deceased was proceeding as pillion ridel', ga, L crrrniriainr io r:hc police with regard to the accident, basing on which, the rl|ie registered a case in Cr.No.3rt of 2010 under Section 304-,4. and 337 ,,1 \:

13. Ex.A-4 copy of Post Mortem Examination c,,ted 14-i2-1010 discloscs that thr: doctor conducted Post Mortem Exau ir tir',n i,n the dead 7 body of the deceased. Ex.A-5 discloses that the Motor Vehicle inspector inspected the crin-re vchicle. ln support of the contentions made on behalf of claimants^ Exs.A-i and A-4 were marked as proof disclosing the age of cieceased as 21 years.

14. Basing on the evidence of P.W. l, which is corroborated by the evidence ol'P.W.2 and supported by Exs.A-1 to A-5, the learned Tribunal heid that the accident occurrcd only on account of rash and negligent dri,iing of tlie driver ol DCM Eicher..,ehicle bearing No.lt4H-3 lCQ-464i. The learned Tribunal also recorded that there is no rebuttal evidence on behalfofthe appellant 15 Learned Tribur.ral funher heli tlrat thc agc oi the deceased is established as 21 years, and that P.W.i stated that the deceascd used to earn Rs.50,000/- p.rn. by tutoring to Aeronautical students

16. Regarding the eaming capacity olthe deceased, the learned Tribunal relied upon a decision in Ramulamtnu Vs. Venkulesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangaloret wherein it was held that the minimum salary for a technical person with a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering (Computers. Electronics or Mechanical) can be taken as Rs. 12,000/- p.m. ' uooolo) ALD 684 .$l 8

17. Basing on the material evidence avaiiable l record, leamed Tribunal held thai the appellant Company as wcll ..r i rhc -5 r' respondent herein arc jointly and severally liable to pa-! conrpens.' on oi 17,86,500i- along with interest @. 1.5% p.a. lrom the datc of OP Li I Ihe drtt of deposit with proponionate costs

18. In respcr:t of'lirture prospects, it is settlcd positio- rf [ar', tliat in case of'seli:ernplovecl Dersons or those on fixed rvagcs^ ir'tr r ciec.'ase<i r.iclirr was belorv 40 vcars. a 50% addition is apolicable 1,(' lhe ar'lrral incomc w,hile computinc. the future prospects. Secondly. if th: r - cea-std r,,,as in rhc age group of 4() to 50 years, an addition of 30%o for futrr, r' pr:ospccts should bc applicablc, ani thircily, '.he actuai income fbr thc sri i r al:rrliriion shorild be the income rriier- paying tax. In case deceased is a bl, reior, 5070 ol the deceased's income is typically deducted for personai :, I .ivng e\l)enses when calculating loss of dependency, as bacheio!'s arr . ssJlrcd to spend more on themselves. All the above principles rverc ric ci,rrl'n by the Hon'ble Suprerne Coun in Rajesh and others Vs, l'ujhir Singh and others2. r 20 l I l,loi '\c'J / 9

19. 'fhe learned Tribunal calculated thc loss of dependency based on the deceased's contribution to the claimants i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- and applied multiplier of '18' (fbr the age of 2l) in terms of the decision in Sarla Vermo Vs. Delhi Corporotion und tnother'r resulting to Rs.19,44,000/-. Despite P.W.1 stating that Rs.35,00,000/- rvas spent on deceased's treatment, Thc evidence of P.W.i and P.W.4. quantifies thc medical bills paid towards treatment to the deceased to a tune of Rs.5,59,034/-, thercby the learned 'l'ribunal partll' allowed the ciaim granting a total cotnpensation of I{s.27,86,500/- aiong with interest @ I .5%o p.a.

20. During the course of arguments. learned counsel lbr the appellant vehemently contended that the calculation made by the learned Tribunal is erroneous, and the learned I'ribunai ought not to have caiculated stating that the deceased rvas a final year Engineet'ing Student and that in the absence of any proof of income, taking notional inconle, thc iearned 'I'ribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000i- p.m., rvhich is held to be erroneous thereby, contended that the leamed Tribunal ought not to harre considered the income of the deceaseri as Rs,12,000/- p.m r uoog ACJ 1298 l0 \ 21 ' Leamed counsel for the appeilant furlher co,i. rle.r tirat the rearned -l-r'ibunal comnrit',ed a gra\/e error in adding 50% to'.i i ,-ci( rutrrc prospL.cts instead cf aclding 40% in respect of unemplove,l .ec:.rl.rd. ivhich is corrtrary to thc' lau. laid down b1,.the Apex Court irl Srt, ,r l,ernn (supra)

22. I'herefcrre. learned counsel for the appelrant .)rtlr:d.d that thc lealned 'l'riburrai aw,arded total compensation of R\.1 7 ii6.s0l),,- instead o1. R-s.l-r,94.500/-, tlterebv thc iear-ned Tribunal graritecl i. \ e.s :. olnl-1e nsaiiolt 1o the clairnants. .,\.hich is crroncous.

13. lVc hav-. givcn our. earnest consideration ii., ;te p,;adirrgs ancl perused the recorcl 21' .'\dr:.r itteclly. thc conrentions put fofih by the iear, . d :urrrsel iur the appeiia,t bcfbrt: the leamed rribunal by way of counLe ; .rflicl r, ir. arc oriv deniai oi' lacts. l_.,ut there is no pleading rvith r.es,r ( : t t.) [i1e cxccss conrpensirtlon' ''rp: i1 trorn that, neither any witnesses 'i :rc cxamine cr rror there .,r'ere an1, documents rnarkcd on behalf of the ai .,eltrr;t Cornpanv except rnarking lnsurance policy document. However, rc rrnecr oounsel for the appellant co,te:rds that ivhen there is no income .i ire rre,-eased. the leamed 'Iribunal or,rght not to have taken notional incorr, . Bul iaking into consideration the evidence on record as rvell as : : .iLrtlErnent in i I I I i I I I I L #fryr Ramulamma (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that there cannot be any doubt to say that the deceased would have rninimum ol Rs'12'000/- to Rs.1i.0001 per month and that even IVth class employees are also getting rnininrum ol Rs.7,000i- to Rs.10,000/- p'nr' depenciing upon their scrvice' -therefore, considering the normal scales being eamed by the Govemmcnt employ'ees and also the minimum wage scales fixed to the technical person, rvho is holding a bachelor degree in computers or electron'ics or mechanical. can be considered as Rs' 11,000/- per rnonth' and tbere tbre held that the incotne olthe graduates in Engineering i'e' B Iech cannot be fixed less than Rs.12,000/- per month, otherwise, it amounts to neglecting the ground ol realitY.

25. It is contended by the appellant that the Tribunal encd in calculating the luture prospects at 5 0olo instead of 40%' This Court obseles that when the fribunal passed its award on 28'03'2017, it was guided by the then prevailing decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh (supra)' which permitted an addition of 50% towards future prospects for a bachelor. It rvas only later, in National lnsurance Co' Ltd' v' Pranay Sethil decided on 3 1. 10.20 17 , that the constitution Bench settled the law by fixing the addition at 40o/o for self-employed persons below 40 years of 1 i:orzl t6 scc 680 E,@ ,s .,:iir age. Thus, thc Tlibunal cannot be faulted tbr applyinl he rario of Ra.iesh (supra). ivhich heid the ficld on the date of the arvard ':6. [-- i cn othe: rr ise, cornpensation under the Motor' " matte:- oi' rigitl compulation but ol ensuring 'Just i', npcrtsltiolt" undel' .-hicle: Act is not a Section 168 o' tirt Ac1. In Nagappa v. (iurudayal ti nghs. the Hcin'hle Suprerre Court e;rphasized that there is no upper ji;; it or ;'e striction in awarciing conri..ensation arrd that the ciut,v- oi the Cor,r is io :!'cule a lal!-. reasona'll,r anrl r.-.r,,itablc rn-,ount rather than a stricth nt iht:rrit,tical f,qrr|e 21 . 'l'his CoLrrt observes that the present case has ler aincd pending tor nearl-r, l5 y'eals. -l'ire parents of thc deceased, u,ho lo r thei,- young scn aged 1l 1,'ears in Lhe prirne of his life, have had t(, Lrnduri i)rotracLed litigation. in R..I). Hattangadi v. Pest Control (Indirr) Pvr. l-td.0, rhe Suprctrc Cor.rri h,:lii that rr,hile assessing compensati,r;t C,.ruris r.r-tust iilscr cor-rsiclcr non -pe ,c -r rr ialy damages such as mental ag,r ry, h:l.rlship, und inconvcniencc -'ultercd by the ciaimants. In this baci..:irop. even if the future prospects ai'c recaiculated. at 40%o as per Pranay iethi r'supra), the prolonged dela;, lnd litigation expenses faced by th: clain:ants would justiI an additionai amount to balance equities. '(2003) r sct' 27.i o .llR I,,,)5 :;c' 7a-; :w t3

28. It is also relevant that under the conventional heads. the Tribunal a*'arded only Rs. 16,650/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. 'l-he ('onstitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), as explained in United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur7, fixed these amounts at Rs.25.000/- each, subject to tuture revision. Similarly, the Hon'ble Suprcrne Coun in Magma General Insurancc Co. Lttl. v. Nanu Ram8 1'scc'gnizcd thc rrght of parents to fllial consortium, fixing it at Rs.40,000/- c::ch. ri,hich aiso deselvcs rnarginal enhancement in line with present slai-Lda::,is.

29. ihis Courr considers it appropriate to sustain the total compensation awarded by.. the l-ribunal, despite lhe 40oh future prospects instead ol- 507i, by glrntine corlesponding enhancement under conventional heads and tou,ar"ds litigation/incidental expenses. This adjustment approxirnately equals thc diffcrcnce of Rs. I ,92,000/- pointed out by the appellant.

30. Even otherwise, the Act is a beneficial legislation. It is indecd a sen"led principle of [ar,r' that cornpensation in cases of motor vehicle accidents must be just, fair, and reasonable, so as to provide solace io the dependents of the deceased. The deceased being a bright and promising '(zo:o)ttscct * (u,Lrg) t8 scc t-10 w 1-l student, whose untimely death in the motor acc'r (rnt iras left the dependents in prolirund gricf and financial disttess. Th. loss <,f such a lif-e at a r, ct1, i:all1' alti cannol bc mtasLu'gcl mercl)' irr lt1.'r1 r 1.1) lcrils. and the compensation ari arclcd nlust idca!iy rellect noi ,nllr the present Cepcndencl but er'ro the fiit:-rre pl'cspects of thc decersr : -l I - Accoldingll. this (loult hoids that the oi,'; rll crrtnpensation dctem-,ilre,i bv tl:c -i t ibiinai represents "jr.rsL compe,, .i iiorr'' i:t tc-rms oi Sectiol 1irS ol Lirc ,,\cr. i he lotal a,r'ard is theiefo.i 'ur'tarr1ed. and no i cdr.iction ,\ ",va'iilricai i2. Accordinpli, lv'I.A.(1.M.A.No.2477 of 20 l7 is tlis rose'd of. intcrim orders. ii any, r;l,irii star.:ci r ircated. ,\ll.connectec[ apl)i i irti(,n: sirall stand closeci. fherc slrail 'oc t-to or.der as tL) c()sts SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, )#k 1 . The Chairman, N,4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-XlV Addl. Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [C PUC] 3 One CC to SRI A S NARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] +. lwu ULJ \,uptcS ASR/PSL t HIGH COURT DATED:24109t2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.2477 ot 2017 I .,,,' > i - - -i>- : r. F'is:r \z\ $11 3,i! ;!_;l _f '-1 i\ DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL L a 10 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 2477 OF 2017 Between CHOLAMANDALAM MS. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., Rep by its Manager, Office situated at 6-3-1093, Sth floor. V.V.Vintage Boulevard, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. APPELLANT AND

6. MANGALLI AGAMAIAH Sio Late Yellaiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ Employee, R/o H.No. 9-1-34115118, Bapu Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad. 7. Smt. M. Eshwaramma,, Wo. M. Agamaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ house wife, R/o H.No. 9-'1-34/15/18, Bapu Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad. B. Mangali Sai Kiran,, S/o. Mangali Agamaiah, Aged about 16 years, Occ Stud-ent, R/o H.No. 9-1-34t1i|18, Bapu Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad. (Being Minor Rep. by R-1)

9. Smt. M. Manemma,, Wo. Late Yellaiah, Aged about 96 years, Occ house wife, R/o H.No.9-1-34/1 5/18, Bapu Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad 'lO. Prathamesh Pruthviraj Bansod, S/o.Mr. Peruthiviraj Bansod, {9e Major, Occ owner of Eicher No.tviH 31-CQ-464'1 , R/o.Plot No.62, NARI Road, sugat Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra State, lndia. (R-4 is not necessary) RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the orders passed by way of Judgment and Decree in 0.P.No. 1615 of 201'1, dated 28-3-2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Addl. Chief Judge, (Fast Tract Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad //' ORDER: Thrs appeal cominO.91 for hearrng and upon ;:rusing; the grounds of appeal the Judgment and Decree or tne ro*er cirlrtino trre r -ate.iar papers in the Petition and upon hearino the arguments of sri A. Ramakrishrr; Reddy, Advocate for the appettant and s'i yari sniva-rumai, nd;.;i" ;;;;rentrrr, Sr A S. Narayana Advocate for the Respondent No.2. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows: ] ]nat this appeal js be and hereby disposed of. 2. That this Court hotds that tn" 3 That the totar award rs therefore.*t;iil ';;i"no 4. That there shall be no order as to costs. Tribunar represenls "iust compensation; ri ier-,isrof secti rn 168 of the Act. redu:rion is rruarranted. "r"rriiiorp"isation dek:r rined by the I;D/. A.V.S.PRASAD TIE PUTY REGISTRAR I I .'TrDr,l r,{-f tC FP To 1 2 The Chairman, Motor Accrdents Claims Tribunal-cum_XlV_, \dd l. Chief Judge, (FTC) City Civi, Courts Hyderabad. lwo CD Copies. ASRiPSL HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 DECREE MACMA.No.2477 of 2017 .'...' !.' ,: ,/\ r'; .:] ''r"tj 1 \, 't .: -),.. \:. .\.'. ti'i ltifr DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL \t, %