Apex Court laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi & Others and Magma General lnsurance Company

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : _ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT reM THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.6 47 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 23 '1 1.2004 in O p.No.52g of 2000 passed by the chairman, Motor Vehicre Accident craims Tribunar-cum-ll Additionar Dlstrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District (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 petitioners before the Tribunal was that on the intervening night of 30.04.2000/0'l .0S 2000 the deceased was going on his motor bike bearing No.Ap-2BL-976.1 from BHEL to Kukatpally as a pillion rider towards his residence and when it reached near Royal lndia Hotel at Chandanagar, a lorry bearing J,,lo.ADT_2702 came from behind, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the Hero Honda, due to which the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over the thighs of the deceased. lmmediately, he was being shifted to Gandhi Hospital, SecJfrerabad and he died on the way. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- t rD,l MACMA No.4/ :02] 2

4. The respondent No.1 has filed counter denyir I the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of th I accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and that in case if any compensation is awarded, it is only respcndent N:2, which wouid be liable to pay compensation as their vehicle is insrr ed with.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denyrrr ; the averments of the petition rarith regard to the occurrence of th< accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess varid driving rcense ancJ that their company is not liable to pay compensation. 6 Based on the above pleadings, trial Court las framed the following issues for trial:- 1 Whether the accident occurred on 30.04 2OO0/A1 0S.2O0O at about 1.:00 .a.m. near royal lndia Hotel of Chat ( lnagar, on account o.f.the rash and negligent driving of the drtv _. of {he brry bearing No.ADT-2702 white dashed the Hero l.lir la bearing No.AP-281-9761?

2. Whether the petitioners are enti ed to clatm any Lc upensaton and il so, for how much2

3. /f so, to what relief? 7 . To prove their case, petitioners got examine,l pWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respt rdents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked. ,..-./ --.:. 3 ETD,J MACMA No.647 2021 B. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,80,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned I counsel for the appellants and Ms. P. Satya Manjula, learned counsel for respondent No.2

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal failed to consider the evidence in a proper perspective and has awarded meager amount towards compensation. He further argued that they have filed Ex.A7lSalary Certificate to prove the income of the deceased, but the tribunal has failed to consider the same He further argued that the tribunal has granted very low amount under various heads and thus arrived at a low amount of compensation. He therefore, prayed to consider the rguidelines of Apex Court laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others and Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others and has prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the tribunal has considered all the aspects and has 4 tlDl MA:MA No a.l l 2121 awarded just compensation and has prayed to uplr ld the same by dismissing the appeal.

12. ln view of the above rival contentions, the po r ts that arise [or consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2 3 Whether the claimants are entitted to etl, ncement ai compensation? Whether lhe Order and Decree of the rnleierence 2 Tribu t I need any To what relief ? "l 3 Point No.1: a) The claimants are aggrieved by the quantunr c f compensation granted by the tribunal. lt is their case that the p: itioner usccj to work in AL Agencies and earn Rs.3,8001 per nr nth. They filed Ex.A7 to prove the earnings of the deceased. b) A perusal of Ex.A7 reveals that the decease C was working with AL Agencies as a Dispatch Assistant in their i;r down and was s paid a consolidated amount of Rs.3,800/- per month c) The contention of the respondent counsel is ftr; t when there is a salary proof showing that Rs.3,800/- per month I ,as paid to the deceased, nothing more can be assessed to be the income of the deceased. lt is further contended by her that the ri,,ceased was a pillion rider and the risk of the piilion rider is nor covered under Ex.B.l . Therefore, their company is not liable to pay any 5 ETD,] MACMA No.647 2021 compen sation. d) The contention of the claimant counsel is that in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Company Limitedl , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a deceased-labourer, Rs.4,5001 per month can be taken as the income. But in the present case, since there is a document under Ex.A7 proving that the salary of the deceased is Rs.3,800/- per month, the same is to be taken as his salary. e) A perusal of Ex.B1/Policy discloses that it is issued to the lorry bearing No.ADT-2702 and it is valid from '16.09.'1999 to 15.09.2000 The deceased herein is a pillion rider on Hero Honda motorbike bearing No.AP-2BL-9761, however, he is a third party to the policy covered under Ex.B1. Therefore his risk is covered by the policy under Ex.B1 f) The age of the deceased as revealed from Ex.AS/Post Mortem Examination Report is '28'years. \ '(l0ll)l.lS(lC2,i6 6 i rD,l ,/ACMA No 64l 2021 S) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsure,r ce Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi E Others2,lOU of the inc cme needs to be added towards future prospects. As the decear; rd is aged 28 years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 3B0i +1,520 would give Rs.5,3201- per month, which comes to Rs.ri 320/- x 12 = Rs.63,8401 per annum. h) The number of claimants herein are three and rerefore, 1/3'd deduction need to be made to their income torv lrds personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.42,560/- | ls.63,B 4Ol (-) Rs.21 280/-) i) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to 'he age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in Sa.la Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation', the deceased being,r yed '28'years, the appropriate multiplier is'17'. Therefore, the loss ,f dependency is assessed as Rs.7,23,520/- (Rs.42,560 x '17). j) tn the hght ot Pranay Sethls case, Rs. 15000,. towards toss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses ,l rd Rs 40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awardec and the said amdrinlE should be enhanced by 10% every three ye;r s. A.t?. 2017 SCC 5157 ' 2oo9 ((,) scc I 2l -/ 7 ETD,J MACMA No.647 2021 k) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and othersa, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay 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 claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.1,45,2001- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. l) ln all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amou nts. - 1 2 3 4 Compensation under the head of loss of Rs.7,23,5201- Compensation towards loss of consortium to the Rs.1,45,2001 titioner Compensation towards loss of estate Compensation towards funeral eipenses Total I Rs.18,1501 Rs.18,150/- Rs.9,05,020/- m) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.9,05,0201 while the Tribunal has arSarded Rs.2,80,000/-. ffrus Cs opined that the petitioners are enti) ed for enhancement of compensation '(rot8) r8 scc rio !--\ -*1 8 I tL),l lvlACNlA No.64/ 20,11 Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly

14. POTNT NO.2: a) ln view of the findings arrived at Point No.1, ir s held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modifiec with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs 9,05,0201 from that of Rs . I,B0 0001 i e., awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rat,l of 9% on the quantum of compensation and the contention of I re respondent counsel is that it is too high c) ln Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghute Naga Ra<t and Anothef ; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted r terest @ 7 S% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensatio r n d ) ln Bandavath Mangla and Another Vers;r 's Bandavath Suresh and Otherso and National lnsurance Con,pany l_imited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and OthersT; also ir erest @ 7 .Syo per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of ; rmpensation. i 2odSCC ontinc rs 606 n 1023 SCC Onlioc fS 109.r l0ll SCC Onlinc IS 7() - 9 ETD,] MACMA No.647 2021 e) ln United lnsurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam LingaiahE; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interes t @ 9%. per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest lo 7.So/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. 0 A Division Bench of this High Court in National lnsurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathf ; has granted 7.5 7o per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. S) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7 .5o/o on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. h) Hence, the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate ( { of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.5% Point No.2 is answered accordingly I '15 POrNT NO.3: ln the result, the appeal is disposed off, modifying the Order and Decree dated 23.11 2004 in O.P.No.528 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, by enhancing the _____ *:rtl+ sC('ontinc I's 9t) ":rtl.t St--C Orrtinc TS 2050 10 LI D,] \,44( IIA No 6a / 2021 compensation from Rs.2,80,0001 to Rs 9,05,020/ The rate of interest is reduced from g% 1o 7.5o/o per annum f r rm the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest i r the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The claimants shall pay the c :ficit Court fee. The lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two r onths from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after dedu; ing the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appi> ant claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishirrr any security Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in ftr ; appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL i I EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// tecrroru oFFrcER To, 1 2 1

4. GE The charrman t\rrotor Vehicre-Accident craims Tribunar- um-, Additionar District Judg_e, Ranga Reddy District une cC to SRI T V|SWARUPA.CHARy Advocate [OF r C] one CC ro SRt. P. SATYA UnrulUf_n novo""j" tb-p _ :l Two CD Copies d (. I 1k!:1" ) o :,J ),;1.- ";:.:^/ .l \1':- ?\' ,i,/ frr: rip4-l ' ' , HIGH COURT DATED:06/08/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.647 ot 2021 DISPOSING OFF THE MACMA NO COSTS b I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 647 OF 2021 Between:

1. Smt. Abida Begum, Wo. late Syed Abdul Hameed, aged about 43 years, Occ- Household,

2. Afreen Unnisa, D/o. late Syed Abdul Hameed, aged about 21 years, Occ- Student, Both R/o.EWS-27, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally Ranga Reddy. AND CLAIMANGS/APPELLANTS

1. Mohd. Showkat Ali and 2 others, S/o. Bassa Saheb, aged - Major, Occ - Business, R/o. HST Company, H.No.15-'1-179, Feelkhana, Hyderabad

2. The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd, rep.by its Divisional Manager, Khairathabad Divisional Office-lV, Block-A, Kautilya, Amrutha Estates, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082 .... Respondents/ Respondents

3. Smt.Zaibunnisa Begum, Wo.late Syed Abdul Rahman, agedrabout 66 years, Occ- Household, R/o.EWS-27, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.3 not necessary party) "'RespondenuPetitioner No'3 .... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section '173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 2311112004, passed in O.P No. 528 of 2000, on the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 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 argument of SRl. T. VISHWARUPA CHARY, \ Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Responde 'lt No.1 & 3 and SRI P.SATYA MANJULA, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.ll This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 'I . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appez be and is hereby disposed off, by enhancing the compensation frr m Rs.2,80,000i- to Rs.9,05,020/-.

2. That the interest be and is hereby reduced from 9% tc the date of claim petition till realization and the interest if any, is forfeited. ' .Sok per annum from rr the period of delay

3. That the claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee

4. That the lnsurance Company be and is hereby dir rcted to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a leriod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgmer after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

5. That the appellant-claimant be and is hereby entitled tr withdraw the amount deposited by respondents, without furnishing any securi y.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal ] SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL REGISTRAR =PUTY d TSECTION OFFICER \ \ \, lllrue Copyll To

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal r um-ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Two CD Copies. GEiPSL o. HIGH COURT DATED:06/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.647 oi 2021 DISPOSING OFF THE MACMA NO COSTS i