High Court · 2025

HIGH COURT DATED i1510712025 T€i ."$$ s, \, ,,'?, ,t ':.. I.t- 't r -_. .. l. ' .'.4 z*.- ; :*'i'':.'-:'' i::1 :.. .: "' ' DECREE MACMA.No.609 of 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA coP(€"d u 8o€ rN rHE HrGH couRIf?$#F^:JiJE oF TELANGANA $4421 "fiiBY-J[5f,1"'inHwa'19?'i'J' PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT' JUSTICE RENUI(A YARA 3':""'"'19":f "?11"J dated 03-02-2023 ri nooitional Chief t' o ril?i"$*y""#itri:*f, f ##xni:ffi "Y""r:;u ma nd al a U rm ila " yl:*'^":,1Y1[[il as e : 3 5 Years' occ: H o usewire' p'n u "'*' ]'5r' ili" i'"' -'t I lX";ii':: f:t'1tt::f " 2 . P e r u m a n d ii,i:';r:l::.;tfj;I?ii,i*?:"ffi ,{':;[i:aiY;;b'c:N 5. perumandffi ffi;;r'" rry1o'itn"'l#;; A;' 60 Y""t' occ: Nil' vitlage.and Mandal' Alt are Resident or 4-230,di^6'e;roiv'-cr'utGiar Ranga Reddy District, er"r""nirf Ati. Z-;-tSiEi;i' nmbeipet' Hyderabad' (petitioner No.3 beins minor I"[i"J",i,";;y fi;ir-naturar Mother and guardian of 1" Petitioner) - " " " ...A''ELLANTSTCLAIMANTS AND

1. Dharmareddy Alibadha, S/o. Mallareddy, age: Major, occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-g, Kondapur, Ghatkesai'fvtanOat,-Ranga nedOy District' (Owner of the DCM Lorry bearing No'AP 29W-2421)' 2. HDFC rrgo lnrrrince comprnv t-imilg{,,.represented by its Legal ltilanager' *t party ,L""- ;i;;r,li Fili' o-c.i+0i1, ppp: Jalaagam Vensalrao Park' RoadNo.l,Banjara.--Hitt",Hyderabad.(Policy/Cert.No. 2315200909933401000, ii) Policy vaiiO t'om 201L 2015 to 11'11'2016) years, occ. DCM Driver, R/o' 1-3- 3 e 7, p, r, a J

3. Mohd. Mansoor, s/o.Khade";*iir,;gp.27 a,., s n o n g i', iv, r, g O o Y: [1?i 3i,' 3Elffir?[gi"] o N D E Nr s " " '*n Counsetfor the Appellants: Mr' C'M' Prakash CounselfortheRespondentNo'2:SriA'RamakrishnaReddy The Court delivered the fotlowing: JUDGMENT i , t i i T a i t i t t : f i : i { :, THE HON'BLE SIVIT. JUSTICE REITUKA VARA JUDGMENT:- ,'his is a, appeal filed b-v t.e appelrants/claima.ts the orcier, dated o3.a2.2,23 passed in ivf.v.o.p.No.4sz of 20L6 by the learneci IX Additro,ar chief judge, cit-v civii court, Hyder^:abad. 2. Heard both sides Perused the record. aggrieved by 3' The brief iacts oi the case are that the appeila,ts fired claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00, ooo/- on accor.lnt of death of one P'Sr-rdhakar (deceased) in a roard trafiic accident. on o2.12.2015 at about 9.3o P.M. $,hen the decease,c rvas proceeding torr,.ards Jagityal town from Mukkircddl'paliy i. his D(rM iorry bearing No.l\p 31uy ggo2 and u'hen the DCM loriy',vas in turr] to go to Bawarchi Hotel, Masjipur X road, another DCM lorry bearing No.AP 29w 242L driven try its driver i, a rash and negligent riranner coming from Mulugu side towards Hyderabad side, cashed the DCM iorry bearing No.Ap 31Lry ggo2, as a result, flames spread quickly and the DCM was exproderl into flames. The body of the deceased caught tire causing burnt injuries. The deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, secunderabad in 1og Ambulance for treatment and he succumbed to the injuries whiie Undergoing treatmenl on 09 ' 12 '20 i 5 ' / \ .\ , ; : 2

4. The appellants/claimants got examined P.Ws.l to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A9. The respondents got examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B 1-cop1, of policy. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,74,ooo/- with interest at 9%o per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

5. In grounds of appeal, the appellants disputed the quantum of income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.lo,000/- per month being driver-cum-owner of DCM van in the year 2015. Further, it is argued rhat the Tribunal failed to take future prospects into consideration and arso awarding compensation towards consortium. 6' Heard the learned counser for the appeilants at rength on the income of the deceased. Learned counser argued that the Tribunar has erred in taki ng the income of the deceased at Rs. lo,ooo / -per month and the income at Rs.2O,OOO/_ per month would be just and that taking reasonable.

7. In response, Iearned counsel for the respondent/insurance compan-v argued that the Tribunar has taken the monthiy income of the deceased at Rs.l0,O00/_ and the same is appropriate as per living standards in the year 2015. 8. \., Having regard to the ve-_ - - LrrE verslon presented by both the learned : counsel, the income of a driver at Rs.4OO /_ perday is on the lesser side. \ j I I I i I t I I i I I |: ! I ! 9 l t 3 Since the deceased r,r'as also the owner oi the DCM lrrrry, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.50O/- per day. Accordingly, the income of the deceased per month would be Rs.15,OOO/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,BO,OO07'- pe:r annum.

9. The age o[the d.eceased is42 _]'ears as on the date of the accident. As per the judgrnent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nrrtional Insurance Compang Ltd. a. Pranag Sethi and othersl, if future prospects at,25ort, is added to the annual income' the net annual income comes to Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.1,g0,ooo/- + 45,o00/-). since there are five dependentsonthedeceased,ifll4,noftheincomeisdeductedtovr,ards personaiexpenses,theannualcotltributionofthed'eceas:citothelamily t wouldbeRs'I,68,750/-'lfthesaidamountismultipliedbythe appropriate multip lter '14" as per Sarla Verma a' Deltti Transport' Corporation2,thetotalcompensationunderthehc:rd.of.lossof dependency'would be Rs'23' 62'500l-' ln addition' thc appellants are entitiedtopaymer-rtoiRs.18,150/-towardslossofestate,Rs.ls,iSo/- torvards loss of spousal towards funeral expenses' Rs'48' 4OO l- consortium' The appellant Nos'2 and 3 are entitled t-o payment of Rs.48,4ool-eachl.orvardsparentalconsortium.TheappellantNos.4and 5areentitledtopavmentofRs.4S,4o0l-eachtoward'sfilia]consortium.I I 'zorz 101 17o (sc) '1zoos1 6 s.c.c' 121 4

10. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.13,74,000/- to Rs.26,4O,8OOl- with interest @ 9o/o per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents jointly and severaily within a periocl of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdrau, the entire amount as apportioned by the Tribunai, without furnishing any security- However, the appellants are directed to pay the deficit Court- fee on the enhanced compensation. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad'(with records' if any)

2. One CC to Mr. C.M. Prakash, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SriA. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/PSLI ! t t I ! $ ! : I { I J n ":, i;r. x- E I

1..., 1r', .s s" t a t :. r':i' ri )+ HIGH GOURT DATED i1510712025 JU GMENT+DECREE D MACMA.No.609 of 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA G *s# &.-"