The High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. Nalajala Amala and 3 Others, Wo Late Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ. House Wife. Nalajala Ravi Kumar, S/o Late Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 25 years, Occ. Student. Nalajala Jyothirlatha, D/o Late Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Student. All are Residents of H.No.2-1-306, Old Police Colony, Ashok Nagar, Manuguru, Khammam District. Presently Residing at H.No.2-311, Pandurangapuram, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

4. Chintala Mallaiah, S/o Ramachandru, Age Major, Occu. Business and Own€r of Lorry bearing No. AP-20-W-3037, R/o H.No.B-l-201112,Yipala Singaram, Manuguru, Khammam District. . . . Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Petitioners ...Respondents No.1 to 3/Respondent No.4

Counsel for the Appellanb: SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I I -7 1 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO .460 0F 2o2L JUDGMENT: This appeal is Iiled by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 22.O2.2O21 in M.V.O.P.No.615 of 2Ol7 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Prl. District Judge, Khammam (for short "the trial Court').

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

04.09.2016 at about 5:45 a.m., the deceased was hit by a Lorry bearing No.AP-2O-W-3037 near KCHP Bunker at Manuguru, due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the said lorry as a result o[ which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and died. The wife and children of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.21,OO,OO0/-. 4l The respondent No.1-driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex-parte. 5) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of tJle petition including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further denied the occurrence of the accident and have denied their liability to pay compensation \ I I I u ETD,J MACMA No.4m 2021 \ 2 contending that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident.

6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 7) Wether the accident is occuned on 04.09.2016 tuas due to the rash and negligent act of the diuer of the Lorry bearing No.AP- 2O-W-3O37 o-s pleaded bg the petttioners? 2) Wether tlrc petitioners are entitled for claim of compen-sation as praged ? If so, to tLhat Elantum, and from which of the respondents ? 3) To utat relieJ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioncrs got examined PWI and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B 1 r,r'as marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of RS.26,7O,OOO/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the lnsurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for tJre appellant and Sri Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

10. lcarned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has completely erred in quar-rtification of compensation and that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the petitioners have not filed any proof with regard to the age, avocation and income of I I I I 3 FTD,I MACMA No.460_2021 the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW2 and the Salary Certificate frled under Ex.A6, but still has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2O,OOO/- per month, which is highly excessive. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount of compensation. He therefore, prayed to set aside t]re order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

11. The respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the employer is examined as PW2 in this case and that basing on thc oral evidence of PW2 itse[ the Court can assess the income of the deceased and that the Ttibunal has taken only Rs.2O,OOO/- while the evidence of PW2 is to the effect that the deceased used to earn Rs.25,O0O l- per month and that even as per Ex.A6, the salary of t hc cieceased is Rs.25,0OO/- per month and he prayed to cnhance thc compensation by taking the income of the deceased as Rs.25,O00/ I ). Basc<i on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the lblkxling points for determination: 1 2 lUhether th.e ampensation granted bg the Trtbunal is lust and reasonable? Wlether the order and. d.esee of the fial Couft need anV itterference? t .1. To what relieP 4 ETD,J MACMA No.460 2O21

13. ITTOINT NO.1: a) It is asserted by the petitioners that the deceased used to work as a Senior Clerk/Supervisor in Shiva Parvathi Coal Transport, Manuguru and used to earn Rs.25,0O0/- per month. They got examined PW2 to prove the earnings of the deceased. PW2 is the Proprietor of Shiva Parvathi Coal Transport Company, his evidence reveals that the deceased was working as Senior Clerk in their Transport OIIice and that he used to pay Rs.25,O00/- per month towards salar5r and that he has issued Ex.A6/ Salary Certificate. In his cross examination he has admitte d that their Transport Oflice is not registered, but he has stated that they have Membership with the Transport Association at Manuguru, and that no permission is required from any authority to cstablish a Coal Transport Office. He admitted that Ex.A6 does not contain any Sales Tax number or Tin Number. He statcd that he used to pay salary by way of cash to the deceased and that he could not maintain any register with regard to the payments made to the deceased. Thus, the contention of the appellants counsel is that, it is only jus the oral evidence of PW2 that he used to pay a salary of Rs.25,OOO/- to the deceased and that there is no basis for issuance of Ex.A6 because he did not maintain any registers and that the sd{d Transport Company is not a registered one ,/a' ,., 5 ETD,,' MACMA No.450_2021 b). A perusal of Ex.A6 shows that it is issued on the ktter Head riI of Shiva Parvathi Coal Transport Company by the Proprietor i.e., PW2. It is borne out by record that while ttre deceased was walking at the Coal Bunker, he was hit by the lorry, resulting in the accident. c). The petitioner counsel has relied upon RotJroati and others Vs. United India Insurance Compang Llmltedl; wherein it was held that; the evidence of employer is sulficient to take into account the eerrnings of tJ.e deceased and that no strict proof of evidence is recluired in this regard. In light of the said decision, and considering the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A6, it is opined that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as lts.25,O00 / -. d) Thc Tril;unal has considered the principles laid down in National Insura.nce Compang Limlted. Vs. Pranag Sethl & Others2, b1. the Apex Court and has assessed the future prospects to be 257,, an<l has also taken into account the deduction of 1/3.,1 since the clirirnants are three in number. It has also applied the righ t multillrt'r. ' lolt ,rc.J lts.r 2 An zott scc 5157 I I \ 6 ETD,J MACMA No.460 2021 \ e) It is revealed from the Post Mortem Examination report under Ex.A3 that the deceased was aged 46' years. Therefore, it has applied the multiplier of '13'and thus, has arrived at a just compensation. f) Since all the principles are considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation, it is opined that there is no need to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Point No. I is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2: In view of the frnding arrived at point No. 1, there is no need to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and the same is upheld. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- ln the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 22.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.615 of 2Ol7 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum Prl. District Judge, Khammam. No costs. I I Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam I \J I 1*

2. One CC to Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy' Advocate [OPUCJ 4. Two CD CoPies ABKATVBw HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 \ JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.460 ot 2021 \ J r-AT€ 1t '5 o I f B L t$t$ i 6) .> ::'- * 1,.- DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Gdd' F,,, l3+a,a1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 460 OF 2 o21 Between: Cholamandalam M.S. General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented Registered Head office, Dare House, 2nd Floor,No.2, N S C Bose Chennai - 600 001 . by its Road, ...Appe lla nURes po ndent No.2 AND $ Nalajala Amala and 3 Others, W/o Late Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ. House Wife. e Nalajala Ravi Kumar, S/o Late Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 25 years, Occ Student. l. Nalajala Jyothirlatha, D/o Late Nageshwar Rao, Aged aboul22 years, Occ Student. All are Residents of H.No.2-1-306, Old Police Colony, Ashok Nagar, Manuguru, Khammam District. Presently Residing at H.No.2-3l1, Pandurangapuram, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. q Chintala Mallaiah, S/o Ramachandru, Age Major, Occu. Business and Owner of Lorry bearing No. AP-20-W-3037, Rl/o H.No.8-1-2Ol112,Vipala Srngaram, Manuguru, Khammam District. ... Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Petitioners ...Respondents No.'l to 3/Respondent No.4 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and d€cree in M.V.O.P.No.615 of 2017 daled.22l02l2021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy. Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. / I e' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree daled 2210212021 in M.V.O.P. No. 615 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam.

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

3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR D \_------ ION OFFICER I To, 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam.

2. fwo CD Copies ABK/NVB Y*- HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 DECREE MACMA.No.460 ot 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Lt .dd X^;"