Original Petition No. 215 of 2003 · The High Court · 2025

Judgment

'l'his MACMA is liled under Section 173 of M.V. ACT against the Order dated 04.11.2004 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.215 of 2003 by the learned Family Court Judge, at Secunderabad, (for short "the learned Tria-l Court"), the claim petitioncrs in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to and they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the parents and younger sister of the deceased, Iiled a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19BB claiming compensation of Rs.6,OO,OOO/- for the'death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 13.07.2003. The contention of the petitioners is that on 13.07 .2OO3, at about 1 1.00 pm, u,hen the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. AP-9-C-4767 from Erragadda towards Kukatpally and when he reached Godrej X roads, an RTC hired bus bearing No.Ap-2S_V_ 38 13 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and ./ ) ' 'r- -l dashed the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Based on the complaint, the Police, Kukatpally P.S. registered a case in Crime No.54B ol 2OO3 under Section 3O4 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos. I remained ex- pa-rte. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company Limited and TSRTC have filed their counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that deceased had no valid driving licence and further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the iearned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: "i) Whether the accident hos taken place due to rash and negligent diuing of the RTC bus beoring No.AP-28-V-381 3 bg its driuer. ii) What is the just amount that can compensation and against uhom. be awarded as iii) To what relief ' 7/ J

6. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed b1, both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and gralted compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- along w,ith intercst (gi, 9ok per arlnum.

7. Being unsatislied and aggrieved by the compensation amount au,arded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering Exs.A7 and A8 filed by the petitioners ald in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- and assessing the compensation basing on the said income and assessed the compensation basing on the said income and awarded an amount ol Rs.2,0B,OO0/-. It is further contended that the learned trial Court did not consider the compensation under the conventional heads.

8. lt is furthr:r contended that at the time of the accident, the deceased was agcd about 27 years and was an employee of AIRTEL and also used to do Milk business by supplying milk to the residents and usecl to earn a sum of Rs.5,0OO/- per month from Airtel oflice and Rs.3,OOO I - per month from Milk business. 4 .i

9. Learned counsei for the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

10. None appeared for respondent Nos.1. 1 1 . Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to tuhat ertent? Point No. 1 12. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the learned trial Court did not chose to consider Exs.A7 and A8 while assessing the income of the deceased. This Court also does not see any error committed by the learned trial Court in not considering the Exs.A7 and A8 for the reason that the petitioners did not chose to prove Exs.A7 and AB by examining authors of the said document or any officials of the concerned ,pepartment. 7 5 In the absence of the evidence put forth by the petitioners proving the said trxs.A7 and AB, I do not see any ground to interfere rvith the lindings of the learned Tribunal in respect of the non considerir-rg Dxs.A7 and A8. However, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Rs.2,OOO/- per month which appear to be meager.

13. The petitioners claim that the deceased employee of AIRTEL and also used to do Milk business by supplying milk to the residents and used to ei{n a sum of Rs.5,OOO/- per month from AIRTEL office and Rs.3,OOO/ per month from Milk business, however there is no other documentary prove the same to show that the deceased ,',r,as earning Rs.5,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioners / claimants. But looking at the records available, the averments and submissions made by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is evident that was aged about 27 1.ears who u'as hale and healthy and would earn more than the monthly income which the learned Tribunal has granted. ln Latha Wadhua us. State of Bihart, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even when there is no proof of income and t zoorlay scc r*. " 6 earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed by the Courts considering the ground realities, hence the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notional incomc of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month looked to be meager.

14. Hence considering the ground realities and deceased was aged about 27 ycars who was hale and health at the time of accident, hence lollowing the 1aw laid down in the judgment passed in Latha Wadhwa's case (cited. supra), the deceased income can be notionally taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Compang Limited. Vs, Pranag Sethi and others2 and cor-rsidering the age of the deceased as 27 1,ears, additional 4Ooh ol the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.5,600/- (Rs.a,000/- + Rs.l ,600l-\. The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.67,2OO/- (Rs.5,600 /- X 12) ald, out of which, 507o has to be deducted towards the personal expenses as the 2 2017 ACJ 2700 7' 7 deceased was bachelor. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.33,600/- (Rs.67,200/- (-) Rs.33,600/-).

15. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarlc Verma u. Delhi Transport Corporation3, and considering the age ol the deceased as 27 r-ea,rs, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '27'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to I?s.5,7t,2oOl- (i]s,600/ x I7)

16. The appellants/ claimants are further entitled to Rs. 18,15O/- (Rs. l5,OO0i + look + 1O%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- +

1.Ooh + 1O%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranag Sethi's Judgrnent (cited supra).

17. Appellant Nos. I and 2 being the parents of the deceased, the appellalt Nos, 1 & 2 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,BO0/- (Rs.a8,aO0/ x2) under the head of 'loss of filal consortium', as per Magma General Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Ncrnu Ram alis Chuhru Rama. t 2oo9 RCJ 1298 (sc) o zort ltsy scc r;o 8

18. Appellant No.3 being the sister of the deceased, the appellant No.3 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of '1oss of sibiing consortium'as per Magma's Judgrnent (citcd supra)

19. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: ) ) ual Income (of the dcccascd) s.4,00O/-X12 = Rs.48,OO0/- Total Annual Income : Annual lncome + Future Prospects (Annual lncome X 4O%) = Rs.4S,OOO/- + Rs. 19,2O0l- = Rs.67,2OOl- Annua-l Dependency = Total Annual lncome - 712 deduction towards personal expcnses of the deceased Rs.67.2OOl - (-) Rs.33.6Ou/ - Rs.33,600/- Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.33,6OO/ x 17 Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of Parental Consortium r Sibling consorLium Rs. 18,15O/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.96,80O + Rs.48,40O L ,-lI.t, Rs.5,71,200/ RS 1,81 ,500t- Rs.7,57,70O/-

20. Thus, the appellants/ claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs,7,52,7OO/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.2,0B,O0O/- by the learned Tribunal. -' 9

21. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned 'lribunal has rightly ar'varded the rate of interest at 9 oh per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is ol the opinion that the petitioners/ claimants are entitled to interest @ 9 % on the enhanced amount

22. By considering the observation of Honble Apex Court in Nagappa Vs.Gur-udagal Singhs, the compensation can be awarded more than the claimed amount". Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants / claiman ts are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,52,7OOl- as against the awarded amount of Rs.2,08,000 / by the learned Tribunal.

23. Accordinglv, the M.A.C.M.A is allorn,ed, enhancing the compensation lrorr Rs.2,08,000/- to Rs,7,52,7OOl- with interest at the rate @,9 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date ol petition till the date ol realization. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a ' zoo: 1zy scc zz+ 10 i copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shali be apportioned arnong the appellants/claimants in the sarne manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount n,ithin three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shal1 be no order as to costs.

24. Miscellaneous petitions, il any are pending, shall stand closcd. SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Family Court Judge, at Secunderabad (with records, if any) 2 One CC td SRI T RAHUL Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. P RAJESH BABU Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.340s of 2005 SEi\\ o o 2 B rAN ?0?6 * -Dqs Z 6) -), * ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS + D.+ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3405 OF 2OO5 Between:

1. G- Pochaiah, S/o, Narsaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Nil,

2.. Smt. G. Chandramma, Wo. Pochaiah Household,

3. Kum G. Santosh Kumari, D/o. G. Pochaiah Student, aged about 20 years, Occ: Student R/o. H.No. 12-1-141,Chinna Thokatta, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad. ..,APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND '1. Mr. G. Madhu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged Major, Occ. Owner of Bus bearing No.AP-28-V3813 R/o. MIG 1522, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, R.R District

2. The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager, DO-lll, 3rd Floor, Alkarim Trade Centre, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 20.06.2025 passed in M.V.O P. No .215 ot 2003 on the file of the court of the Family Court Judge, at Secunderabad. 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 RAHUL, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and SRl. P RAJESH BABU, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: I '1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.2.08,0001 to Rs.7,52,700/- with interest at the rate @ 9 o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That the respondent No.2 be and is hereby directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal.

5. That the petitioners be and are hereby directed to pay lhe Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal lffrue Copyll SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6. SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Family Court Judge, at Secunderabad (with records, if any) 2 Two CD Copies GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.3405 of 2005 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ \"ra