The High Court · 2025

For thc sake ofconvcnience, the parties are licr( inafter relerrecl as arral,cd befbre the Tnbunal j. The brief licts of the case are that on 0!) ) i 2016 while the deceasecl was riding a motor cycle aiong with a pillion ridel rnd procecding to Kuravi village lrom Maripecla on Warangal Klammam .i ghrvay road and whcn they rerched in h.out ol'Hero Show Room, Maripeda J iungaloi,v, around 2 lvltn,J MACtiA No.5O2 of 2O2O

4.35 PM, a lorry bearing No.TS 02 UA 0999 driven by its driver- respondent No. I proceeding fiotn Warangal side to Klratuttlaln, camc iu a raslt atld r-rcgligcnt ntauncr ivith high spccd and daslrcd tl-rc tuotorcycle ol the dcceascd tionr backside, as a rcsult, the deccased arrd pillion rider lcll on the road and sustaincd fatal injuries and the deceased dicd on tllc spot. [t was turther contcndcd by thc pctitiorrers that as ou thc date ol acciderrt, the deceascd was halc and trealthy and was aged about 20 years and assisting his father in running chickcn shop and was ea[ring Rs. 15,000i - 1re| rnonth. Due to the death ol the dcccascd, thc petitionels being parents artd brothcr havc lost tlreir sourcc of depcndcncy and love and alfection.

1. A casc was registeled by thc Poticc, Maripeda in crimc No 96 of 20 16. lbr the ofl'ence under section 104-A IPC against the dttver ol the lorry. ln vicw of thc same, the respondcnt Nos. I to 3 rvcre jointly and scverally liablc to pay the compensation and claimcd an arnount of Rs 10,,00,000/- as conrpettsation. 5- 1hc rcsponderlt Nos. t and 2, the drivcr and owtrcr of thc crirnc vehiclc. did not contest the case. The respondcnt No.3-The National Insurance Cornpany Limited filed counter denying all the averrnents rlade in thc claim petitio[r and also dcnicd the age, incorttc, avocatioll and health \-- \ ) 3 An/R,J tvIAcMA No.sO2 0f 2020 concliti()ns 01'tl)c (lccelse(l at the tirne of the acciclent antl r so thc marrrrer- in r.vhich thc accitlenl occun-ccl and thc neqligcncc on tlic part .' 'tllc drivcr of thc lony tlrough aclnrittrni.r tllat the saitl lor-rv was insuled r, .lr thern. It rvas fufihc'r contcntled that thc claim ol'the petirioners was hr l ly crcessivc and arbitraly 6 lt was lirrlhcr contendcd by rcspondent No.3 l:rt the respondcnt No. I did not urli)rnr to tlre policc nor tbnvardcd the copr rl' tlre FII{ to the Motor Accidents ( lainrs Tribunal withirr tirre as per' lLu, and that the lesponrlcnt No.-i ('omparry is not liable to pay compensa. lr and praycd to disr-niss the petition Basing on thc abovc plcadings, the lcarned Tr bunal liarned the follou'irrg issucs lirr consirlcration i) ri) \Vhctlrct the tlcatli 01'tho dccease(l was causcd it vchiclc accident on accouut ol rash and ncgligcri the (lrivcr 01' l()n'y bearrnu No.l S 02 LJA 0999? tl're rnotor -lriving by \\/hcthel thc pctitioners alc entitlcd tor contpens:rl , n, il'so, ttt \\'llJl cxlrll :rntl liorn rvlttrrrr'.' iii) To rvhat rcliel'l 4 ,ttvR,., MACMA l,to- sO2 oI 2O2O

8. During thc coursc of trial, the pctitioners exanritied PWs. I and 2 aud nrarkcd Exs.A I to A(r. No oral or docuntcrltarv evidcttcc was adduced on bcha I l' o l' the rcsponcients 9 Alicr going into thc uct'its of the case and alicr cortsiclering thc oral arrrl docuurcntary evrdcncc placcd by both the parties atld thc submissions of botlr thc partres, thc lcarncd Tribunal cattle to the conclusiorl that thc accidcnt occurled duc to thc rash and llegligerlt tlriving of lorry bearing No. l'S 02 L.lr\ 0999 bv its dlir cr and awarded arl arltount ol' Rs.7,2t1,000i- as conlpcrlsation lry taking thc iucoure o[- the dcccased at Rs.200t- pcr day.

10. tscing unsatisfied with thc courpensation aurouut awardcd by thc Tribunal, the prcsent appeal is prelerred by thc appellants-petitioners on the followirrg among other gtounds that the learnccl -fribunal failed to consider the judgment of thc tlon'ble Supreme Court iu National Ittsttr:rtlcc (lortrpatrl' Linritctl r,. Prarray Sethi [(2017) l6 SCC 6801 and also did not consider the evidencc of PW. I that the deceased was eamittg Rs. 15,000i - per rnonth as the deccascd was traiutaiuitrg thc chicken center at thc tinre ol his death, rvhich is running in the nanre and style of 'Ajay Chicken Ccnter'. The learned Tribunal failed to considcr the consoftium and ought to have awarded Rs. l'00,000i- e'J undcr tlrc said hcad, but had awalded only Rs.50,000/- undcl tl.re head of loss 5 ]U\R,J |YLACMA No,so2 of 2O2O of lovc; and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expcnses rvhich i tneaget, as such praycd this CoLrfl to enhauce the cotnpensatiou I I . t lcard Sri K. Sai Krishna, iealned cotlnsel r : ,r-e senting Sri K Venurnadhar', learnecl corrnsel on record tbr the appeL urts and Sri V Sarnbasiva Rao, lealned counscl lbr the resportdcnt No.3- [ tough respondent No.I selved lvith notice. uonc appcarcd on his behalf Noticc sent on respontlent No.2 returned as uuclaitned. t\s such, the reslto' dcnt Nos. I and 2 set e\ porle before this Court also

12. l)eruscd thc rccot'cl

13. Norv, thc point which arose lor consideration b lore this Courl in the plesent appcal is that Whether thc appellants made out an1 gt'ounds ttt intert'ere lvith the order and decree 1xL: sed by the learned J libunal'/ POINT:

14. A perusal ol thc rccorcl discloses that the app: lants have placed before this Courl the proceedings issued under the Minimur r Wages Act in the year 2016. Under the hcad of unskilled labour, the wag,l prescribecl in the year 2016 rvas R-q.7,7!)2-90 ps. It is contcnded by the leanr ,cl counsel tbr the appellants that the learnerl TrihunaI without considering tL: occupation and 6 N]VIi,J MACMA No so2 of 2O2O avocation of thc deceased that lie rvas uraintaining thc chicken ccntcr under thc nanrc and style of 'A jay Chicken Ccnter' atrd was eaming Rs. 15,000/- pet month, rrotionalll. tixed the income trf tltc deccased at I{s.6,000i- per Itronth by taking tlre cach day wagc at Rs.200i-. But tn vierv of thc above nlcntioned crrcular, this Courl is ol'thc opinion that Rs.7,792-90 ps. can bc tlken into consideration as rnonthlv rncouc of the deccascd fot' assessirrg thc compensatiorr. [)cluscd the othcr alrounts lvhich arc awardecl by thc lcamed Iribunal i.e. Rs.10,000/- uuclcr thc hcad of lurreral cxpenscs and Rs.50,000/- urrdel the licad of Ioss ol- love atrtl afl'cctiort ancl Rs. 10,000/- totvards tlansportation. lhis Court is of thc opinion rhat the payment of cotnpcnsation under the lrcad of love and affbction was being dispensed with and discontinued b1, the -iuclgment ol Rajcsh & Ors. r'. Rajbir Singh & Ors.r, and in viciv of thc said .iudgmcnt, thc lcamed Tribunal ought to have atval'cled consofiiuln instcad of compcnsation under the convcntional hcads. As such, this Court venturcs to re-asscss and rnodify tho cotnpcnsatiorr which was awarded by the lean-rcd -l-ribunal as below.

15. Thc incornc of the deceased is taking at Rs.7,792-90 ps., in view of the .fudgrncnt of tht: Hon'ble Supreme Court in National lrtsttrattce ' lzol:y e s{'c: sa '7 I\liIR,J MACMA No.so2 of 2O2O Corrrpanl'Linritctl r'. l'r'anav Scthi2. As the deccased bt rs aqcd about 20 years at the tirne ol'thc acciclent. 40% oi'the incoruc has t , lre added lo the income ol the deceasecl ton arcls lirture prospectus. ,\ddir . the sarnc to the said incorne i.e. Rs l,l l7l-, the nronthlv income ol tl-re il ceased rvould lre Rs. 10.910/-. As thc deccased was unmarriccj at thc tirne ,r ' ris rlcath, 50'% of thc incornc shall bc deductcd torvarcls his;rersonal lrving c' renses in view ol the _judgn-rent ol the Hon'ble Suprcrrie ('ourt irr Sarlu Vcrrna r. l)clhi Transport ('orPorltion't. Alier rlctluctirr! -5 0'4, liorrr lls. ll ()10,'-. it coulcl bc Iis.5,455r'- per tnoullt atttl tlrc annrral incortre clf tlrc decclr.:il n'oulrl becourc Rs.65.160/-. .\s tlre lec ol thc tlccca:ed at lhc tinrc L L' tlie accident is considered irs 20 r,eurs. tlre rnultiplier applicable is 'lti' ti, rlre ugc gloup o1' [5-20 years as lrcr colrrnrn IV ol llre Schcclulc plescrib'I by the IIon'ble Supretne Court in Sarla \rcrnra's citsc (-l supra). Ilcncr., lr nrultiplyrng the annual inconrc ol'thc decc-asccl u'itlr tlie nrultiplier ll,i, 1[rc- i i ntl)cnsation under the heacl of loss o1'dcpentlcncy r,r,oLrlcl conre to Rs. I l,7E,l' )' (tts.(,5.7(10/- x l8) and as pcr thc.juclgnrent o1'the I Ion'blc Suprenrc (loul rr I,ranay scthi's case (2 supla) the pctitioncrs ure cutitleci to lts. 18.l-50i- crr h tou,arcls loss of estate and lirneral chargrs. l\s pL'r the.jLrderncnt ol- thr. lon'ble Sulrrernc Coult in Magrna (icrrcral l,rr,,r'u,,.IC npan).[,irnitctl ,. \anu llirm alias 2 lzory rr scc oso r lzoooy o scc rz r 8 N]vA,J MACMA No. 5o2 of 2O2o (lhuhru tLaurl, tlrc pctitroncls alc eutitlc(l to Its.48,400/- cach torvrtrds consorliunr bcing thc par-cnts arrcl lrrothcr o1'thc clccclsecl l(r. IIcncc, in all the a ppellants-pelit ioners are cntitlcd to I{s. 13,59,780/-, as detailed belou, L Loss ol'dcpcndency Its.l 1,78,280-00

2. [-oss o f estatc

3. I;uncral Charges

4. Loss o['consoftium (parcnts and blothcr) -fotal Ils. l ll,l 50-00 Rs. 18,150-00 Its. 1,45,200-00 Its. 1 3,59,780-00

17. Lr viciv of the reasscssment of'the entire rnaterial evidence and the oonrlrutation. thc appellants arc entitlcd for [ts. 13,59,1801- being the enhanccd courpensatiou. Ilencc, Ibr the said [easons, this point is answclcd accordingly in lavour ol the appellants-petit ioncrs

18. In thc t'esult, the appcal is allorvcd in part and accordingly, the award and decree dated 31.07 .2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No.46l of 2016 try the Chaimran, Motor Accidents Claims l'ribunal cum I-Additional District Judge, o (zott) rr scc r.ro 9 ,V/vR,J MACMA No so2 of 2O2O Warangal, is modifled cnhancing thc compcnsation to Rs. I . .59,780,'- ( ltupccs 'l'hirtcen lal<hs llliv ninc tlrousurrl scr,crr hrrnrlretl ancl , riqhtl, onlr,) fiorn Rs.7,28,000/-Rupee s Seven [akhs ancl trvcnty eiuht th,r rsancl onlv) rvith interest at the rate of'7.50,i, per ant)unl fr-onr the datc of'pct t on till realization. The compensation rs payable by thc responclcnts.jointly ar I severallv. 'l'he t'espondent No.3 Insuraucc Complry is dirccted ttt tlcl-ros t thc above itnrount rvith interest and costs r'ithiu a pcrrod ol'trvo (2) rnonrl . tl'ollr lhe clate of receipt ol a copy ol this orcler, rlicr declLrctrng lhc rrnoLr t, if any, alreaciy dcposited. Atter deposit of the s id anrount, thc appctl I rls-pctitioners are entitlecl to withdraw the santc as per their shar-es. No ordcr ir ro costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, il'any, shall stanci cl rsed. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL I) :PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Judoe. Waranoal.

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum l-,\ lditional District 2 One-CC to SRl. K VENUMADHAV Advocate [OPUC] 3. SRI V SAMBASIVA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL ,- HIGH COURT DATED:06/08/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.502 of 2020 rEs T4 Y on. 3 0 rAil 2m6 () ,j.) j.) I z ) s ALLOWNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Iv \* I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD +[ 3443 ] WEDNESDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 502 OF 2020 Between: 1 2 Bejjenki Srinivas, S/o. Satyam, Age.43 Years, Occ.Business, R/o. H No. 121, 9eerole Village_, Kuravi li/andal. Warangal Drstrict. presently resrding at AC Reddy Nagar, Shiva Nagar, Warangar City and Diskiit. Bejjenki Vijaya, Wo. Srinivas, Age.39 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/0. H.No. 121, Seerole Village, Kuravi lt/andal, Warangal District, presently residing at AC Reddy Nagar, Shiva Nagar. Warangat City and Distriat. Bejjenki Ajay, S/o. Srinivas, Age 23 Years, Occ.Student, R/o, H.No. 121, Seerole .Village_, Kuravi Mandal, Warangal District, presently residing at AC Reddy Nagar, Shiva Nagar, Warangal Ciiy and Distriit AND ... PETTTTONERS/APPELLANTS Dussa Venkateshwara Rao, S/b. Dharma Rao, Age. Major, Occ. Driver of the Crime Vehicle, Fl/o. Kotipally. H/o. Putrela Village, Vissannapet Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh State Konasani Siri Bhushan, S/o. China Bhushaiah, Aqe.Maior, Occ.Owner of the Crime Vehicle, Ryo. Flat.No. 201, Alkapuri Cotony Karimnagar District, Telangana District.

3. The National lnsurance Company Limited, rep. Branch Office at H.No. 16-1-422iA and B, Seco S.V.P.Main Road, Warangal City and Diskict its Branch Manager, Floor, S V.S. Legend, ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the decree dated 311712019 passed in MVOP.No.461 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunal cum t-Additional District Judge, Warangal- :+.|::'*Ytr This appeal comrng on for hearing and upon perusing the g- unds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material p I )ers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI K. SAI KRISHNA, learner ;ounsel representing Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate for the Appellant and none appr ared for Respondent No.2 and SRI V. SAMBASIVA RAO, Advocate appeared for Rt,: pondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follorvs:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil lvliscellaneous Appe: be and rs hereby Allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhancec from Rs 13,59.7g0i- (Rupees Thrrteen lakhs fifty nine thousand seven hur( red and erghty onty) from Rs.7,28,OO0/-Rupees Seven lakhs and twenty ergl thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of : :tition till realization 3 That the compensation be and is hereby payable by l" ) respondents loinfly and severally.

4. That the respondent No.3 - lnsurance Company be an: is hereby directed to deposit the above amount with interest and costs wrtir I a penod of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ord,: after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited and that after depor; of the said amount, the appellants-petitioners are entitled to withdraw t ( same as per their s ha res.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/. MOHO. ISMAIL l):PUTY REGISTRAR lfirue Copyll ,Jl--' To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cu r l-Additional District Judge, Warangal. 2. Two CD Copies. SECTION OFFICER GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:06/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.502 of 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,,,