The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NAT{DIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.176 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred to Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.697 of 2012, dated L6'|O'2O17' wherein claimaits/ petitioners had frled the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death Sri Lakpathi, (herein after referred to as the deceasedJ who died in accident occurred on 07.O2.2O12.

2. The brief facts o[ the case are that appellants/claimants earlier lrled M.V.O.P.No.697 ol 2Ol2 under Section 166(1)(c) of the M'V'Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner o[ the lorry driver. It is contended that on 07.O2.2O12, the deceased was proceeding on his two wheeler Bajaj CT 100 Motor Cycl'e bearing No'AP- 23-L-a522 and when he reached at the outskirts of Konayapalli Village' the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP- 15-X-2475 had parked the lorry in the middle of the road without taking any precautions and without 2 switching on .he parking Iights or indic proceeding on lnotor cycre, due to ro.u" . deceased went r:o -"^ :^,-' l:- the back side of the par Iorr5r, as a resu.rt, the deceased feII down Srievous injuries a., over the body and registered a case in crime No.35 of ,orro"o against tfte respondent No. r,/driver of offe said lorry. The appellants/claimants Rs.8,OO,00O/_ as compensation for the dr various heads. !.^.c. r"-10.,76 or*od while' the deceased was LU rocus of opposite comrng vehicles, the lorry and hit the s'tationed the ground and s'stained on the spot. Th,-- porice under Secdon 304-4 of Ipc 'nding vehicle and sei:red the claimed an amount of tne death of the deceased under

3. The contenti,)r was that as on thr::;:':::;:,t;"T.ilants years and was earn. vemurawada tempr-.; "ff:,;::J::; ff:::::." : rtce (pelalu) and fried Be ngal to the said accident' the petitioners rost t.heir gram hutnalu). Due ,. r"^ ^-,t"""" dependency. berore the rribunar,

4. Before the learnr and responder. *.., *L,Il::"'.*"o'ndent ;:- ::ff No'l-owner or the rorr5, " ffi ::':ff;:,;.J',:" ":,":: : averments made in the claim petition, includirtg ";,:- "s7 I I 3 !!aJ I.A-c.IJ!lo.lE ot2qro the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocatiron afld income of the deceased and submitted that driver of the offending lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-2475 as well as the deceased who was rider Bajaj CT-1O0 motor cycle bearing No.AP-23-L-8522 both were not holding valiri driving license at the time of accident and the said vehicles were not road worthy to ply and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following .issues whi,ch reads as under: i) Whether the ACCIDENT HAD occured. due to rash attd negligent driuing of the offending uehicle i.e., larry beaing No.AP-15-X-2475 drtuen by its driuer/ R.1? ii) Whether the petittoners are entitled for compensation, If so, uhtt amount and from whom? iti) To uhat relieJ?

6. After perusing the ora-l and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensati,on of RS.6,7O,OOO/- along with interest @ 7''/o per annum. ..---.+F 4 !!EJ l.^-c.f.Lllo.176 ol2('lO

7. Being aggri eved and unsatisfred by the compensation amount awarded by the .learned Tribunal, the present appeat is frled by the claimants/petitiorrers on the ground that at the time of the accide;et, the deceased was agr:d 35 years and was doing business in selling the puffed rice and rlried Bengal gram, thereby earning Rs.g,OOO,/_ per month and also ,Coing agriculture, but the learned Tribunal d:.d not consider the above averments and hxed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. which is very meager and the learned Tribunal ha.s not awarded just and Jiair compensation amount under other heads.

8. Learned cotrnsel for the appelrants/craimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, the injuries sustained ty the deceased and the death of the deceased. During the course of enquiry, PWI & PW2 were examined and Exhibits A. I to A.7 were merked. Learned counsel frrther contended that pwl is the wife of the deceased who explained the whole incident, but she is not eye_witness. p\\r2_Sri MaIyaIa Malliah, who is eyewitness to accident narrated the said accident and deposed that the accident occurred only due to neglijlence of the driver of the offending lorry . 9 It is further oontended that the learned Tribunal having acc,:pted the fact that decea.sed died due to rash and neglgj:nt driving of Larry, 5 !!BJ I-ll.c.f,Ilo.176 of,lrx, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased,s income at Rs.5,O00/- per month and also not awarded just compensation under the various head as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Natlonal Insr.trance Compang Ltmtted. Vs. pranag Sethl and otherst.

10. Leamed counsel for the respondent No.3 has supported the Awarded and submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

11. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.l & 2. L2. Heard Sri Mahboob Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Retiance Genera.l Insurance company Limited. Perused the material on record.

13. Admittedly, the respondents have not hled cross_appeal against the Award passed by the learned rribunar. As such, there is no dispute 1 m17 ACJ 27@ 6 TPJ !!a.tg.li.^.xo.l?6 orE6 regarding riabirity of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point arouse before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Wlethe r the petttioners are compensatiory if so, to tohat ertent? entitled fo, the enhanced. Point No. t:

74. Admittedll,, the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 07.O2.2O12 The petitioners claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs.g,oo o / - per month, however, no income certificate has been produced and a_lso there is no other docu mentary proof such as relevant account books or bank entries in ltroof of deceased earning of Rs.g,00O/_ per month. But looking at the records available a,d the averments made by both the learned counse.i before this court' it is evident that the deceased was doing business in selring the puffed rice and dried Bengal gram which is neither disput.ed nor rebutted Hence, consider the decision of the Honble Supreme court in the case of Latha vradhuta us. state of Biharz wherein the t,onble Apex Court held that even when there is no prool of incorr.e and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated by the Court a,d can be assessed considering the ground realities. 2 2001(8) SCC 197 l I I I I I t I l I I I 7 !!BJ I.r.C.x.Axo. t76 of mrn

15. The learned Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.S,OOO/- appears to be reasonable, as the deceased was un-skilled labourer and the suune was admitted by the petitioners, hence considering tl.e ground realities and facts of the case, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal in fixing the montJrly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. However, the Tribunal did not add income under future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased in terms judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insttrance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethl rrnd other* and also not awarded just compensation under various conventional heads.

16. In view of the sarne, this Court is inclined to reassess the compensation by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,0O0/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Natlonal Insurance Cornpong Llmited Vs. Pranag Sethl and otherst and considering the age of the deceased as 35 years as per PME report, an additional 4O%o of 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.7,000/- (Rs.5,O00/- + 3 2017 ACJ 27@ 4 20',t7 ACJ 27@ I I : I I ,i t l I L v I I i 8 !!BJ XIC.X-Li6,176 otal,2o Rs.2,000/-). TtLe a-rrnua-l income of t}le deceased would ,]ome to Rs.84,00O/- (Rs;.12,600/- X 12) and, out of whic,^, t/4 htLs to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as there are five dependants in number. Then the actual annual income wotLld come to Rs.63,00O/- (Rs.84,O00/_ (_) Rs.21,OOO/-) for assess;ng the compensatlon 17 As per the column No.4 of Table prescribed hxed in the ju.dgment of the Honble Apex Court in Scrla Venna a. Delhl Trunsport Corporations, and considering the age of the deceased as 35 years, the appropriate mult.iplier applicable for the deceased,s age is ,16,. Thus, the total loss of dependency to the petitioners would come to Rs. 10,08,000 / (63,OOO / - x 16) (Annual Income x relevant Multiptier).

18. The appellants/claimants are further entitlecl to Rs. iii,1S0/_ Rs. 15,0O0/- + 10%o + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs. It,150/_ (Rs. 15,000/- + l0%o + IOo/ol towards funeral expenses, as per lrrcrrrrr1 Setht's Judgmen.t (cited supra). 19 Further, cor-Lsidering the appellant No.1 being the wife o[ deceased, appellant No.I is entitled to a sum of Rs.4g,40O/_ under the head of 5 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 9 !!BJ r.ac.r.A.IlG176 0radlo 'Ioss of spousal consortium' as per Prtnag Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

20. Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 being children of the deceased, the appellant No. 2 & 3 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs'96'8OO/- (Rs.48,400x2)undertheheadof'lossofparentalconsortium',asper Magma General Insurance Comtrtang Limlted Vs' Nanu Ram alls Chuhru Ram6

21. Appellant Nos.4 & 5 being the parents of the deceased, the appellant Nos.4 & 5 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,80O/-(Rs.48,400x2)undertheheadof'lossoffrlialconsortium' as per Magm.a.'s Judgment (cited supra)

22. In Scrlc Verntats case (cited above), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of Just compensation' observed as under: "Post compensation is adeEtate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstonces of the case, to make good tle loss suffered as a result of the urong, os for as money con do v, bg apptging, ttle well settled pinciples relo'ting to award of ompensatton. It is rlot intended to be a bonanza, lorgesse or sour@ of profit.'

23. On overall re-a4rpreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above cited 6 2018 (18) scc 130 \ -7 I 10 uaJ !.A.C.X /Lro. 176 ot 2O2O decisions' I anr of the opinion that the craimarts are entitled for enhancement o I compensation as modilied and recalculated zrs above and given in the table below for easy reference 24 ConsiderirLg the above assessment made by this Court, aprpellants would be entitle,l to as follows: i) ii) iii) iv) iu) [A,nnual Income (of the deceased) Rs.S,OOO/- X l2 = Rs.60,OOO/_ Tota.l Annua_l Income = Annual Income + Future , Prospects (Annual Income X 4oo/ol = I Rs.6O,000/ + Rs.24,OO0/- = Annual Depenrlency = Total Annual lncome _ l/4 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.84,OO0/_ Rs.84,0O0/ (-) Rs.2 t,0OO/- Rs.63,0OO/- Total Dependenc-y = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplicr : Rs.63,00O/- x 16 Clarmants' entitlement towards conventional heads = , Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal Loss of .Estate consortium + krss of hla-l consortium + paren[al Consortium = Rs r8, l5O/ + Its.18,15O/_ + RS.48,4OO + Rs.g6,8OO + 96,800 Total I i l Rs.1O.08,OO0/- Rs.2,78,3O0/ Rs. 1 2,86,300/

25. B-v considering the observation of Hon,ble Apex Court in Nugappa vs.Gurudagal singhz, the compensation can be awarded mor.e tharr the claimed arrlount'. Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants /claimants ' 2oo3 (2) scc 274 I ) 11 !!EJ l-r-C.x.!f,o. 176 ol 2O:lO are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.12'86,3OO/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.6,7o,ooo/- by the Iearned Tribunal.

26. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest i.e., at 7 o/o per annum, which needs no interference. Hence, tl.is Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ 7 % on the enhanced amount.

27. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part. The ciaimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 12'86'30O/-, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 6,70,000/- to Rs. 12,86,30,0 I - (Rupees I l Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Three Hundred rupees only) u,ith interest at the rate @ 7 o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of r€alization. The respondents are directeci to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the arnount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same rnanner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. However, tJre petitioners are directed to pay the Deficit \ 12 !!BJ &Lg!lr.io. r?6 or2O2o court Fee on *re enhanced amount within two months from ttLe date of receipt of a cop'r of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

28. Miscellant:ous petitions, if any are pending, shall stald closed. OSMAN ALI BAIG S ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, District Judge, Karimnagar_

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims TribVnal -cum- lAdcl 2. one CC to SRI MAlqqqq t_russ{!!, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SRt A RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY, Advo-cate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copie,s GE/gh \ ,. I : l i l I I t, : I i l HIGH COURT DATED:1210612025 t?1 t'. -,1r 1.".,.J '..t..' JUDGMENT MACMA.No.176 <tf 2O2O d. --,..,, '-+ -.: -.!... ;) .i.q ,) I rlti 2 Ui5 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \t g la I I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134131 THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS LN '176 0F 2020 Between:

1. Gugulothu Suguna Household, @ Sujatha Wo late Lakpathi, Aged 30 years, Occ'

2. Gugulothu Sindhu, D/o. late Lakpathi, Aged 9 years, Occ: Student, 3. Gugulothu Rakesh, S/o. Late Lakpathi, Aged 7 years, Oer: Student,

4. G.Samini, Wo. Jalapathi, Aged 55 years' Occ: Household,

5. G. Jalapathi, S/o. Chandru, Aged 57 years, Occ: Agriculture' AooellantsNo'2&3areminors,representedbytheirnaturalmotherandnext i;ffiI.; A'fip"r,nt-No.r Gugulottiu Suguna @ sqana, Wo late Lakpathi' Aged 30 years, Occ. Household) All are R/o of Jalapathi Thanda H/o Sanr.rgula village of chandurthi rnandal of Karimnagar District- ...APPELLANTS' PETIT{ONERS AND '1. Abdul Rub S/o. Aziz, Aged 52 years, Occ. Driver o{ lqry bearing.NoA'P' 1 5 X- 2475 Rto H. No.6-3-285, Khanpura Durgamrnadgadda Localty ot Kaflmrragar' 2. Sved Yousufddin, S/o Mohenuddin' Age: Major, Occ: Owner-of. Lorry bearing - r.ri,.np. ts i-iafi R/o H.No.6-1- 1' KarimnalarLocalityof Karimnagar' 3. Reliance General lnsurance company Limited, Branch office, 3rd Ftoor ,Kyasa Tower, Ambedkar, Court Chowrasta *rt'..Tf;LT"ONDENTS/RESpONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle ADt, aggrieved by the DecreeandJudgmentpassedinM'V.o.PNo'697ot2o12,dated1611012017'on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal {um- I Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal r)oming on for hearing and upon perusing the grot nds of appeal, the judgmerrt and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upol hearing the arguments of SRI. MAHBOOB HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 6, 2 and SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY appeared for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal is hereby partly irllowed allowed and the claimants are hereby entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.12,86,300/-, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 6,70,000/- to Rs. 12,86,300/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Three Hundred rupees only) 'ivith interest at the rate @ 7 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

2. That the respondents are 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 two months from the date of receipt of a cop! of this judgment.

3. That the crrmpensation amount shall be apportioned aniorrg the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the ieamed Tribunal.

4. That the petitioners are hereby directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced am,lunt within two months from the date of receipt of a copl/ of this judgment.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal llfrue Copyll SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG IqTANT REGIIiTRAR A I 3i"ro* or.rcen - To

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- I Adc l. District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Two CD Copies. GE HIGH COURT DATED:12l0612025 DECREE MACMA.No.176 <tt 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t\ Lqt'