The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.Ito. 1258 OF 2Ol6 JUDGMEITTi Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 23.12.2015 '(hereinafter u,ill be referred as 'impugned award') passed by the Motor Acciclents Claims Tribunal - cum - Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyclerabad (hereinafter will be referred as Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.854 of 2O73, the petitioners/claimants. have liled the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioners, who are the parents of "Mr.Dharanidhar Redd/ (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased') have hled claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 15,0O,OO0/- from the respondent Nos. I ar,d 2 for the death of their son in the road traflic accident on 10. I 1.2012. The brief facts of the claim petition filed by the petitioners, is as under: a) On 1O.11.2012 the deceased along with his friend Satish were proceedings on CBZ Motorcycle bearing No. AP 2a CB 6525 from Bowenpally side to Secunderabad and u,hen they I reached near Muslim graveyard turning at Tadbund, the driver of Oil Tanker Lorry bearing No. AP 2a TC 9735 (hereinafter will be referred as trime vehicle') drove the same in rash and negligent manner at.high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to which the deceased along with his friend fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately they were shifted to Shitus Hospital, Habsiguda Cross Roads, wherein the duty doctors declared that the deceased was brought dead. c) The deceased was unmarried, hale, healthy and a'ged about 27 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.15,OO0/- per month. The petitioners lost their. future life supporter and maintenance holder and are very much worried for their future. The petitioners have spent huge amount towards transportation, funeral etc. The respondents being owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 15,OO,000/ -.

4. In reply to the above claim application, the respondent No.2 filed counter and whereas the respondent No.1 remained exparte. The Respondent No.2 denied the petition averments and mainly contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. t I l MCPJ It was further contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased himself and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation amount to the petitioners. It was further contended that the claim of the petilioner is excessive and exorbitant in all proportions. On the above grounds prayed to dismiss the claim application.

5. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues. i) Whether the pleaded accident had ocanrred resulting in death of deceased late B. Dharanidhar Reddy, due to the rash and negligent driuing of lorry beaing No. AP 28 TC 9735 bg its diuer? it) Whether the petitioners are entitled to onA compensation and, if so, at tuhat Etantum and uhat is tle liabilitg of the respondents? ii/ To tohat relieJ?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioner, PWs I to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.Al to A12. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.Bl Copy of Insuralce policy was marked. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for Rs. 16,66,739 /- but restricted thc compensation to Rs. 15,OO,OOO/- on the ground I T I that the claimants have filed the claim petition only for Rs. 15,OO,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/ petitioners preferred the preseqt Appeal to enhance the compensation.

7. Heard Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellants/ petitioners, Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and perused the record including the grounds of Appeal. B. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned Award. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners and deceased. There is also no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of PW2 (eyewitness to the accident) coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.Al (FIR) and A2 (inquest report) has arrived to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. Further, there is also no dispute with regard to the subsistence of the policy at the time of accident as evident from Ex.B1. t I I 5 MGPJ

9. The learned Tribunal by relying on Ex.A7 (salary certificate) issued by Innov Source Solutions Private Limited and the oral evidence of PW3 i,e., the Accounts Officer of the Company, wherein the deceased used to work, has hxed the monthly sa1ary of the deceased at Rs. 10,763 /- and annual income at Rs. 1,29,156/- (Rs. 10,7631- x 12 months). As per Ex.Al (FIR), A2 (inquest), Ex.A9 (lD Card), Ex.A10 (driving license of deceased) and Ex.Al1 (Pan card of the deceased), the age of the deceased is 27 years by the date of the accident. Since the deceased is 27 years, by relying on the decision of'the honourable Supreme court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Traasport Corporationr, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the appropriate multiplier as '17' for calculating the compensation- The learned Tribunal has considered the future prospects @ 50o/o and thereby arrived to a sum of Rs.64,578/- (Rs.1,29,156/ - x SOVol. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,93,734l-(Rs. 1,29,156/ - x Rs-64,578/ -). Since, the deceased was bachelor/unmarried, the learned Tribunal has deducted 5O7o from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and thereby the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to ' (2tnqr 6 sc( t2r I I \ Rs.96,867/- (Rs. 1,93,734l- - Rs.96,867/-). Thus, the loss of dependency arrived by the learned Tribunal by multiplying the annual income of the deceased with appropriate multiplier "17' comes to Rs. 16,46,739 /- (Rs.96,867 l- x 171.

10. The learned Ti"ibunal awarded Rs.5,OOO/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.S,OOO/- towards transport charges and Rs.10,O0O/- towards loss of love and affection. However, as per the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others2, the deceased being unmarried, the claimant/ petitioners are entitled to Rs'33,O00/- under the conventional heads (Rs'30,ooo/- + 107o enhancement thereon) towards loss of estate (Rs. 15,000/-) and funeral expenses (Rs. 15,OOO/-). Further, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 being tJle parents of the deceased are entitled for fiiial consortium at Rs.8O,0O0 l- i.e., Rs.40,0OO/ to each of the petitioners as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Magma General Insuraace Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.17,59,739/- (Rs. 16,46,739l- + Rs.33,000/- + Rs.80,000/-). , 20t7 ACJ 2700 t I 1 1. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants/ petitioners is that the learned Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation upto Rs.15 lakhs. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.25,O00/ - towards funera-l expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards 'transportation chaiges, Rs. 1,00,O0O/- towards loss of estate and love and affection, Rs.5O,OO0/ - towards conventional heads. It is to be seen that as per the decision of Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the conventional heads includes funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate.

12. A perusal of the impugned Award discloses that though the learned Tribunal arrived to a conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for Rs. 16,66,739/- restricted the compensation to Rs. 15,00,OO0/- on the ground that the claimants have filed the claim petition only for Rs.I5,O0,OOO/-. Though the claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 15,OO,000/-, in Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain aad another4, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. In view of the principle laid down in the above r 20ta L-aw Suit (SC) 904 4 2024 INSC 777 \ said decision, this Court is of the view tJrat the learned Tribunal ought not to have restricted the claim of the petitioners to Rs. 15,00,0O0/-, more particularly, when the claimants are entitled for compensation more than Rs. 15,00 ,OOOI_. Thus, in all, petitioners/claimants are awarded Rs.lZ ,59,739 /_ towards compensation

13. It is the specihc contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration tl're incentives entitled by the deceased while arriving to the monthly salary. In this connection, the learned counsel for the claimants relied upon a decision reported in S. Rhama and others v. Tamil l{adu State Transpiration Corporation opined that Limiteds, wherein the High Court of Madras perks should be included for computation of monthly income as the same would be added to his monthly income. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the evidence of PW3, who deposed that they used to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the deceased towards incentives. But there is no documentary evidence adduced bn behalf of the claimants to establish that the deceased was paid any incentives or perks apart from the sa1ary mentioned in Ex.A7. s 201 1 AqJ 2509 t t I \t{Cr{tIo IJsa.f 2016 Thus, the above contention of the learned counsel for the claimants/petitioners is unsustainable

14. It is to be seen that out of the compensation of Rs. 15,00,O00/-, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs'6'50'O00/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.8,50,OO0/- to petitioner No'2 and also permitted the petitioners to withdraw part of the compensation amount and rest of the compensation amount in ar;y nationalized balk for a period of two years' It is perlinent to note that by this day the Lime frame fixed by the learned Tribunal with regard to the deposit of part of compensation amount in any nationalized bank, has already been completed and the purpose for which the learned Tribunat has passed such direction might have been fulfrlled' Further' this Court feels it appropriate to apportion the compensation arrived by this Court in equal proportion among the petitioner Nos' 1 and 2 as they are the parents, who have equal right on their son i'e'' the deceased.

15. The learned Tribunal awarded rate of interest @ 9oh per annum. However, as per t1-e decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh ard others v. Rajbir Siogh arrd others5 this Court is 5 20t3 ACJ r4O3 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 I I I t I I ( \ \ inclined to reduce the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9%o per alnum to 7.5o/o per annum.

16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned Award passed by the leamed Tribunai is required to be modified to the extent of above observations.

17. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. l5,O0,OO0/- to Rs. 17,59,739/-, which shall carr5r interest @ 7.5o/o per €rnnum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. . . The respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them in equal proportion without furnishing any securitlr subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed Sd/. T. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER 1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge' City Civil Court' \) //TRUE COPY// Hvderabad.(with records, if anY) 6i';'bCi; d;i iagaihpal neooV Kasi Reddv Advocate.[o^PUC] il; d6 i;5;iV V;[;ta Ranii Reddv' Advocate IoPUC] Two CD CoPies To, \,Il 2 3 4 HIGH COURT DATED: 2810112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1258 of 2016 r-\tr sTAI I 't iJ 27lrAn2$[ ,l a lr, r)E--..r-C '---4..- ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS a> IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE l PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1258 OF 2016 Between:

1. Smt. B. Venkata Lakshmi, Wo Neelakanta Reddy, Aged 50 years, Occ Household.

2. B. Neelakanta Reddy, S/o Late B.Yella Reddy, Occ Nil (Both R/o H.No 3-2-142125C, Nimboliadda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad) ...APPELLANTS AND 1 Syed Ariful Hassan S/o Syed Aziz Bakth, Occ Business, Aged Major, R/o H.No.2-4-721168, Fortuiew Colony, Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Ranga Reddy District.

2. National lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep by its Regional Manager, Regional Office # 5-6-568, 1" Floor, Jubliee Building, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. Appealfiled under Section 173 of MV rrr;;l:;::I:::1T:::::1: daled 23.12.2O15 in M.V.O.P No.854 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident ^., Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate for the appellants and Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 and none appeared for Respondent No. 1 either in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Motor Accident C.ivil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount form Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rs. 17,59,7391- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization;

2. Thal the respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment;

3. That on such deposit, th6 petitioners be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them in equal proportion without furnishing any security subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sdi- T. JAYASREE AS S At\r'l- REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, To, Hyderabad. vH

2. Two CD Copiesv I I I ..: HIGH COURT DATED: 28101t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1258 of 2016 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS @ ) t 1