Karnam Padma v. 1. K. Naveen Kumar

Judgment

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrie'r rd by the Order and Decree dated 19 04.202'l in M.V.O.P.No.2671i of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims I'r bunal-cum-XXV Addrtional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderab,r 1 (for short "the Tribuna l" )

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties here i r are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tri: rnal is that on

22.052014 at about 2 30 p.m, the deceased was c oing as a pillion rider on a motor bike bearing No.AP-28-BS-9260 along with one Vivek Bharathi, while P. Sai Kumar was ridin: belonging to one Naveen Kumar/responden t the said bike No.1 from

Ramanthapur towards Sri Ramana X Roads, Amb: pet Hyderabad and that the rider of the motor bike has driven i in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed in a zigzag fashi: r and that when they reached Agra Sweets Shop, Vinayak Naga,r Amberpet, an ambulance bearing No.AP-22-T-6818 which was 1r oceeding in the same direction, dashed the motor bike of the decea; :d, due to which 2 ETD,J MACMA No 509 2021 the deceased and others fell down and the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- by filing a petition under Section 163-,A of the tVlV Act

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte

5. Respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that initially the crime was registered, and charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver of the ambulance bearing No.AP-22-T-68'1 B for not holding valid driving license and as the vehicle was plying on the road without fitness certificate and permit but the petitioners failed to implead the owner of the ambulance bearing No.AP-22-T- 68lB and insurer of the ambulance. Respondent No.2 contended that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the motor bike and that they are not liable to pay compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- "1 2) Whether the deceased-K.Hemanth Kumar @ Hemanth died on 22.05.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver ot motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-85-9260? Whether the petttioners are entitled to compensation. if so, how much and from whom? I I I I I t I I I l ! 1' i i I ! ! f I t I 5 : : I I E j#s7-+FiFy -rttt-r (' 3 E D,) llA:i\,lA 1,1o.509 2021 3) Ta what relief?'

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examino i P\A/1 and got marked Exs.Al to A5 On behalf of the resporrtl rnts RW1 was exanrined and Exs.B1 to 84 were marked B. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribun;r has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,4 1,5001. Aggrieved by the raid award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants 9 Heard the submissions of Sri P. Chandra l,,4ouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay .umar. learned counsel for respondent No.2 10 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued t lat the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW1 and the oc :uments under Exs Al to A5 and has failed to award more conr rensation. He contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any : I tounts towards future prospects and has failed to consider the ,,ther heads of compensation as per the guidelines laid down in Nati tnal lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Othersl . He further argued that they have stated before the Tribunal that the dr: ;eased used to ,| ArR 2017 SCC 51 57 4 ETD,] MACMA No.509 2021 earn Rs.3,3001 per month, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation by considering the said guidelines.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has argued that the petition was filed under Section 163-4 and thus, the quantum as projected in ll Schedule has to be taken into consideration but not otherwise. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order and decree of the Tribunal

12. ln view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2 3 Whether the claimant 6 entitled to ennancemenl of compensation? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any inteierence ? To what relief ?

13. Point No.1: a) The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the Tribunal has failed to add 40% towards future prospects as per the principle laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sefhi & Others. He further argued that the amounts awarded under conventional heads also is very less and thus, failed to apply the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cited decision and has prayed to enhance the compensation : j I t ! I I I I I i I i i t j s€ry 5 ETD,] M/|CI\lA No 509 2021 b) But the record reveals that the petition is fil: j urrder Section '163-4. Once the compensation is claimed under 1a l-A, it has to be f awarded only as per the ll Schedule Since the ac: dent pertains to the year 2014. the then ll Schedule is applicabkr to the case on hand. As per ll Schedule for age group behv:en 15-20, the multiplier is ''16' and when the income is Rs.36,0C( /- per year, the compensation is calculated as Rs 6,84,000/-. The c eduction as per the ll Schedule is 1 /3'd, in consideration of the exf { nses which the deceased would have incurrdd towards maintainin(l himself had he been alive, therefore, deducting 'll3d out of . -re amount of Rs 6 84,0001, comes to Rs.4,56,0001 (Rs.6,84,000-x 1i3). Funerat Expenses of Rs 2,0001 and Rs 2,5001 towards loss of Estate have to be awarded Since, the petitioner is the mother I the deceased, no compensation is awarded towards loss of consc- trm as per the Schedule ll. Thus, the petitioners are entifled to Rs.1 60 500/_ c) lt is noticed that the Tribunal went wrong irr calculating the amount, thus. it is held that the petitioners r re entitled to Rs.4,60,5001, while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,.l ,5001 d) Though the appellant counsel contends tlri t even if the application is filed under 163-4, the Court has r award future prospects. lt is settled law that once the claim is ma: _. under 163_4, 6 ETD,] MACMA No.509 2021 the compensation has to be awarded as per the ll Schedule. The counsel has filed a decision of a coordinate bench of this High Court in Bandari Lavanya & 3 Others Vs. Md. Samiuddin & Another's2, wherein the claim petition was filed under 163-,A and the Tribunal has granted compensation by taking the income of the deceased as Rs 4,0001 per month but a bench of this High Court has taken the monthly income of the deceased who was a daily labourer as Rs 4,5001 and went ahead in awarding compensation by adding future prospects and following the other guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others. e) ln Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company Allianz General lnsruance Company Limited, Nizamabad Vs. M. Sarala3, this High Court has held that since the claim petition is filed under Section 163-4 of lvlotor Vehicles Act, no future prospects can be granted. ln this case, the Court has referred to the decision of a Division Bench of Sikkim High Court in the case of "The Branch Manager, Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited Vs- Dilu Rani and Othersa, wherein it was held that, "lt needs no reiteration that the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out as evident from the r 202-5 Supreme (Ontine) (TEL) l8a6 t \{e.cMa.No. t3z+ of 20t6 'I,IACMA.No.to of 20t8 i : ! I I I ! r I E t t I I i I I,! t I I tID,] MACMA No.509 20 21 decisions cited supra that compensation to be romputed under Section '163 of the ]t/l V Act is on the structurec formula as it is based on no fault liability. Once a person invokes rre provisions of Section 1634, the question of inclusion of pecunizr y compensatron for non{angibles and future prospects does not aris;r Under Section 163-A future prospects or any other additional non recuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim Pettti,) I under Section 1634 of the M.V. Act is to be strictly computed ,t r the structured formula provided in the Secorfd Schedule to the Act f) ln New India Assurance Company Liu ited Vs. Smf. lJmmannagari Akkamma & Otherss, the petitior rvas filed under Sectron 163-4. but the Tribunal has granted comper sation by taking the rncome of the deceased at Rs.54,000/- per anr rm. lt was held by a Bench of this High Court that if the applicat < n is filed under Section 163-4 of the lvlotor Vehicles Act, the Tribun rl has no option except to determrne the compensation taking th,: aid of Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act. Even if the I r bunal comes to a conclusion that the deceased may earn more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, the Tribunal has to restrict the annual gro; ; income of the 0"""1:ul to Rs 40,000/- onty. The High Cou( hzu discussed the decisions of the Apex Court in Oriental lnsurz nce Company ' i\lAC:Mn.r.,-o.706 0r.lo l0 8 ETD,J MACMA No.509 2021 r, Limited Vs. Hansrajbhai Vs. Kodalai and Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs. lJnited lndia lnsurance Company Limited BarodaT, and has allowed the appeal filed by the lnsurance Company and reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,1 9,0001 to Rs.4,09,505/-. S) ln Sgabana Begum & Others Vs. Burra Rajeshwar Goud and Otherss, a Bench of this High Court has held that as per the provisions of Section 163-,4 of the Act, the maximum income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.40,000/- and has applied the Second Schedule while granting the compensation. h) ln Bajaj Allianz General Vs. M. Sarala Nizamabad Districf , a Bench of this High Court has dealt with a petition under Section 163-4 and it was held that as the petition is frled under Section 163- A of [Vlotor Vehicles Act, the income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.40,0001 per annum and that no future prospects can be granted. Byapplying the decision of the Sikkim High Court in case of The Branch Manager, Shriram General lnsurance Company 6 AIR 2OO1 SUPREME COURT 1832 (2004) 5 SCC 38s * MncMA.No.3t5 ol20 t4 e MacMA.No t314 of 2016 i I t I t I I i I i I I I I I I I I I i i i I i I t f L I E I i I x r t i ! 1 ! 3 & I 9 ETD,] MACMA No.509 2021 LimitedVs. Dilu Rai and Other1o, to the said caser. this High Court has reduced the compensation granted by th,> Tribunal from Rs.9,5'1 ,4911- lo Rs.3,6'l ,330/- i) ln Raj Rani & Ors Vs. Oriental lnsurance Ctnpany Limited & Orsl1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the v ew that for the purposes of computation of total amount of con J ensation under Section 163-4 of Motor Vehicles Act, the future prc spects may not be of much relevance, but in. a case where the clil rr petition has been filed in terms of Section "166 of the Act, the si me would be a relevant factor. j) Thus, in view of the decisions cited above, i: ,s held that the claimants are entitled to compensation under a str rctured formula basis as per ll Schedule once the claim petition is fil :d under 163-4 and that they are not entitled to future prospect; or any other component apart from what is mentioned in ll Schedr le. k) Though the counsel has relied upon a decir; tn of this High Court in Bandari Lavanya & 3 Others Vs. Mct. Samiuddin & Anotherl2, in the said decision, the above cited cat;, ' Iaws were not 'o MAC]MA.No. I 0 012018 dated 04 04.2022 " AtR Onlirre 2000 SL l i I . (looq ) ' 2025 Sup|crne (urJric) ( fl l ) l8 ltl 10 ETD,J MACMA No.509 2021 discussed, therefore. this Court is not inclined to follow the said decision l) Thus, in light of the above cited case laws, it is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,60,5001 Point No.1 is answered accordingly

14. Point No.2:- ln vieu/ of the finding anived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,60,500/- from that of Rs.4,41,500/- that is awarded by the Tribunal Point No.2 is answered accordingly 15 POINT NO.4: ln the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 19.04.202'l in ltl.V.o.P.No.2675 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, fi/otor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,41,500/- to 4,60,500/- and the enhanced a(rynt of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest ; B ! t ---.-ry,.:--.._.7 .,f To, 11 ETD,] MACMA No.509 2021 for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The r: ;pondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with : ;crued interest within a period of two months from the date of rece:t >t of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any alre ady deposited On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to 'witi lraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. lr/iscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in tlr ; appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- I/ JAWAHAR REDDY ASTi STANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The Motor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Xl( / Addl. chief Judge City Civil Court, HYderabad.

2. One CC to Sri P CHANDRA MOULI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [Ot) JC]' 4. Two CD Copies TTS/GR \. . ):1. t'l',i 'pli --l .l $l t/ : - .t./ ..;, TA -/2. \ s:\.) )'l i2o[[?lii ?,, ,,y ':. --/ HIGH COURT DATED: 0610812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.509 of 2021 MACMA IS ALLOWED U I \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA PRESENT MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 509 OF 2021 Between: Karnam Padma, Wo. Late Karnam Jagadish, Aged about.40 years, Occ: House hold, R/o H. No.3-4-1l9/A, Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 0'1 3 ...PE.TITIONER AND

1. K. Naveen Kumar, S/o. K, Yadagiri, Aged: Maior, Occ: Owner of motor cycle bearing no. AP 28 BS 9260 R/o H.No.4-37-15212, Rama Krishna Nagar Jagadirgutta, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

2. lclcl Lombard General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Manager (Legal) 3'd Floor, Osman Plaza Near Nagarjuna Circle, Punjagutta X Roads, Hyderabad 082. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in MVOP No.2675 of 2014 dated 1910412021 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-XXV ndOt. Cnlet Judge: City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ORDER: 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. P. Chandra Mouli, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. Kondadi Alay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent and of the Respondent No.1 not appeared either in person or by Advocate. That Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed; 2. The enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,41,5001 to 4,60,500/-- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization,

3. The However, the interest for the period of delay if any is forfeited; -:. ---7

4. The respondents is directed to deposit the compe rsation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from th: date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if ani, tlready deposited; 5. The on such deposit, the appellant is entifled to wittrr raw the said amount without furnishing any security;

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower courl r hall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/- It/ JAWAHAR REDDY ASSiI JTANT REGISTRAR ZJ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal_Cum_X} \ Addl 2. Two CD Copies City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Chief Judge TTS/GR s) HIGH COURT DATED: 06/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.SO9 of 2O21 MACMA IS ALLOWED tA