The High Court · 2025

" Counset for the Appeltant(s): SRI PALLE SRIHARTNATH, ADVOCATE counsel for the Respondent No.3 : sRl KONDAD| AJAY KUMAR, ADVOQATE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2: _ _ _ _ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.465 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 01.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.28L of 2O18 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that the deceased K.Sravanthi is the wife of petitioner No.l and that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are her children and that she died on

08.04.2018 while she was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle being driven by her brother, while returning to Jagadgirigutta after having darshan in Pochamma temple, situated on the outskirts of Nandigama village. It is their case that, when they were proceeding near Celebrity Nature Venture, a car bearing No.AP 28 BV 0342, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike in the opposite direction, as a result of which, they fell down and the deceased sustained grievous head injury and that immediately after the t* I 2 MACMA No.46s_2021 '\ t accident, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment, underwent inpatient treatment for nine days but has succumbed to injuries.

4. Respondent Nos.l and 2 filed their counter denying the averments and contended that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligence of the car driver but the rider of the motor bike himself caused the accident due to his own rash and negligence and that the driver of the car was holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident and in case if he is held liable, it is the respondent No.3, the insurance company which has to pay the compensation as the car is insured with it and that the respondent Nos.l and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Respondent No.3, the insurance company filed its counter denying the material averments and contended that the driver of the car does not hold a valid driving'license as on the date of accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. They further denied the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. 6- Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: .t 3 ETD,J MACMA No.465_2021 1) whether the death of deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negrigent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle? 2) whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what amount and from whom? ! : 3) To what result?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A6. on behalf of respondent No.3, Ex.Bl was marked with consent but no oral evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence of record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 1 1,45, 2oo /- as against the claim of Rs.2O,oo,ooo/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. 9- Heard the submission of sri p.Sriharinath, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

10. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a very meager compensation and that the deceased was a tailor by profession and used to earn Rs.12,oo0/- per month, while the Tribunal has taken only Rs.6,o00/- per month as her earnings and that the Tribunal has not granted proper amount under the head of loss of consortium and also that \ \ 4 ETD,J MACMA No.465_2021 it has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and towards mental agony. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.3 i.e. the insurance company has submitted that there is no inlirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and that it has rightly taken the incorne of the deceased to be Rs.6,O0O/- per month and therefore there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: I 2 Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? Whether the Award and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relieP

13. FOINT NO.1: a) The claim petitioners in this appeal are aggrieved with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is their case that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,000 l- per month as a tailor. However, no proof is liled in this regard. 5 ETD,J MACMA No.465_2021 b) It is the common observation in the societ5r that many radies do undertake tail0ring work at home, apart from attending to househord works. In the absence of any proof, some amount of guess work is required in assessing the income of the deceased. c) In Ramo,cho,nd,rappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sund.aram Alliance Insurqnce compang Lrmrted,t, theApex court has herd that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs'4,Soo/- per month can be safery taken as the income. But in the present case, the deceased used to do tailoring work as per the contention of the claim petitioners. Therefore, ofi a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle raid down in Ramachandrappas's case, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month and the same amount is taken by the Tribunal also. d) As per the dicta taid down in Nationa.r rnsurance com?tang Limited vs. prcinag sethr & ottrcr*, +oyo of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 35 years, adding 4oyo towards future prospects would give Rs.g ,4oo /_ ' 1zo I l; t2 scc 236 2 ntR 20.t7 scc 51s7 t =. : 1 : : t I i I .1 :i :l i i i i: I t, !' . 6 ETD,J MACMA No.465 2021 (Rs.6,0O0/-x 4OllOO : 24OOl-l per month, which comes to Rs.84O0/ - x 12 = Rs.1,00,800/- per annum. e) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, .1/3'o deduction need to be made to her income towards personal expenses and this would come upto Rs.67,200/- (Rs.1,00,800/- (-) Rs.33,600/). 0 The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.AS reveals the age of the deceased as 35 years. The contention of the petitioners is that the deceased was aged only 28 years as on the date of death. But no other proof is filed in this regard. Therefore, the age as revealed under Ex.AS is taken into consideration. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarlo,. Verma. a. Delht T?:ansport Corporations. The deceased being aged 35 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '16'. Therefore, the loss of dependency as calculated by the Tribunal holds good i.e. to the extent of Rs.LO,75,2OO l-. g) However, there is a difference with regard to the awarding of amount under the head 'loss of consortium'. In the light of Prry Setht's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and t zooe 61scc I2t // 7 ETD,J MACMA No.465_2021 Rs.15,ooo/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.4o,ooo/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded. g) rn Magma General Insurance compang Ltmited o. Nanu Rf^ @ chuhnt Ram and. othersa, the Apex court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in pranag sethi,s case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the craimants would get Rs.40,oo0 /- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.L,2o,oool- instead of Rs.40,ooo/_. But for this amount, there is no other error that is noticed with regard to the award passed by the Tribunal and it is opined that the enhancement of compensation from Rs.r rr4sr2ool- to that of Rs.12,25,2ool- would be justified in the present case. point No.I is answered accordingly.

14. FOINT NO.2: In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the award and decree passed by the Tribunal need interference with regard to the amount granted for ,10ss of consortium,. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 1 1 ,45,2OO / - is enhanced to Rs. 12,25, 2OO / _. I \ olzors; 18 scc r30 \ I I 8 MACMA No.465_2O21

15. POINT NO.S: In the resurt, the MACMA fired by the appelrants is partry allowed, modifying the Award and Decree dated 01.03.2021 passed in M.v.o.P.No.281 of 2org passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-prl.District and sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, enhancing the compensation from Rs' 11 ,45,2oo/- to Rs. L2,2s,2oo/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 0/o pf"t annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. on such deposit, the appelrants are entitred to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securiqr, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if qny, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- MOHD. DEPUry REG SECTION OFFICER I cipal District & To, 1

2. 3. 4. ffiJ:,' ,,t d ! -F.f!-*t I *!,; t* t. HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.465 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \\ 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT F}YDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT . THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 465 OF 2021 Between:

1. K. Nagireddy, S/o. Sangareddy, Aged 35 years, Occ. Driver. 2. K.Vamshithreddy, S/o. K. Nagireddy,Aged 12 years, Occ. Student, 3. K.Varun Reddy, S/o. K. Nagireddlr, Aged 10 years, Occ. Studenl Claimants 2 and 3 are Minors U/G ship of their natural father i.e., Claimant No.1. All are R/o. Ananth Sagar village,Narayankhed ltlandal,Sangareddy District. ...Appellants AND

1. R.Narsimulu, S/o. Hanmaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ. Driver, R/o. H.No. 1-1- 8/89, Shivapur, Sadashivpet Mandal, Sangareddy Dist. 2 3 tt{.Ashok Kumar, S/o. M.Revanappa, aged 45 years, Occ. Owner of car bearing No.'AP28 BV 0342, H.No. 3-8-361411/1, Sadashivpet Mandal, Sangareddy, District, K.S Reliance Generai lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, sagar plaza, 4th Floor, Abids, Hyderabad. (The Respondents land 2 are not necessary parties in this Appeal) ...Respondenb Appeal filed under Section 173 ol Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P. No. 281 ol 2018 dated 110312021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions J.udge, Medak. at Sangareddy. 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Sriharinath, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Kondati Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and none appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed

2. That the Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby enhanced fr.om Rs. ++,45,200/- to Rs. 12,25,24U- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.SYo per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

4. Respondent No.3 be and hereby directed to deposit the compensation . amount with accrued interest within a period of two months frorn the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

5. On such deposit, that the appellants be and hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

6. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. $u- MoHD- ts[{ArL Ury REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy.

2. Two CD Copies ABK/NVB / / HIGH COURT ETD,J DATED: 2810212025 DECREE MACMA.No.465 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \t\s