Vlotor Accident claims Tribunal -cum v. Addl. District and sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar. Between

This app,:al is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order ancl Decree dat.rd 21.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.l2l of 2015 passed by the Chairnran. Motor Accidcnt Claims Tribunal-cunr-V Additional District &, Scssions .Iudge , Ranga Reddy District (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For r'or.rr'-:nience and clarity, ttre parties herein are relerrcd to as thev u'cre ar ralcd before the Tribunal

3. The case ol the claimants before the Tribunal was that on

11.01.2015 at about 22:20 bours when the deceased 13.Prem Singh rvas proccr:rlirtg on his Scooter bearing No-AP-29-BR 2443 lrorn Shantinag:rr lo I'ris rcsidence at Boduppal, the crime vehicle-Tata Mini Tipper benring No.AP-3S-U 0 176 driven in a rash and ncgligcnt rna n rcr irL a high speed, hit the deceased. as a resull o[ rvhich he sustirined grievous injurics and died. It. is their case that the deceased rvas aged about 43 years, working in GHMC, earning monthly saliLl, of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, they sought a compensation ot Rs.20,0O,OO0/-. 4 The respondent No.1 rernained ex-parte 2 MACMA N 0.529 2a21 '-..-..t'

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter den1,i1_1g the avermcnts with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased 't

6. The respondent No.3 also filed counler clenying the manner in which the accident has occurred and further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the [ollowing issues for consideration:_

3. Whether the pteaded accident LLrqs occurr(1l ort 11.01.2015 at about 22:2O lrcurs near SlLanthrn.tgar Ll,.ts Stop. Botluppal to Uppal Raed due.to-rash and negLige,nt Cnr.,ing of diue) of TA'|'A Mtni npper NI.AI, 35 U-01 767 ' Whether the accident uehtcle is couered bg lnsurance? Whether the petitioners to what omount. from ultich rcsportdents., -ore entitlecl for <:on4tensation., if so, To tuhat retief ? B. 'l'o prove their case, the petitioners go1: examined pW1 fo 4 and Exs.A 1 to A 16 were marked. On bel-ralf of the respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to 83 u,crc markecl.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awardcd a compensation of Rs.5,5O,0O0/_. Aggrieved by the sard order and decree, the present appeal is preferrecl by the claimants seeking enhancemen L. :t .lr;,1 3 ETD,] MACMA N0,529 2021 I O. Heard submissions Sri A.S.Nara1'ana, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, l:arncd counsel for the respondents I 1. The learnccl coLrnsel for the appellants has submitted that the ordcr ancl clecrce passed by the Tribunal is bontrary to larv and that Lhe'lribunal has tailed to appreciate the principles laid down bl' thc Altcx Court in determining [he compensation and has arrived at a mcagre compensation. He further argued that the dcceascd w.rs .Ln Dmplol'ee of GHMC and that inspite of the r:r,idencc available on rccord, Lhc Tribunal failed to consrder the same. Ht: lurther submitted that the Tribunal also has not taken luture prospocls into considera[ion and further has awarded mcagre amounls under various heads, He therefbre, prayed to cnl'rancc the compr'n sat iotl.

12. Le:rrnec counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted thzrt the Tribunal has given a reasoned order and that Lhe pe titioncr-s larled to prove the Sa1ary of the deceased and thereforc, hc prayed to uphold the orders of the Tribunal.

13. Basecl on [he above contentions, this Court frames the follor.r,ing potn ts [or dctermination 1 vhether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of ct)ntpenselion. If so, to what extent? I 4 MACMA No.529 202 E 2 Whetlrcr the order and decree of the Tnbunal need ang interkrence?

3. 74. Point No. 1: To what reLief? a) they got examined pW3 The case of the petitioncrs is that the deceased uscd to rv-ork used to carn Rs. 10,160/ pcr as an Employce in GHMC and month. ln support of their case, / Satish Kumar who is the Supe rvisor under Srinivasa En terprises in the GIIMC Parking yard at r(avadigr-rda and that thc deceasccr u. prcm Singh was working as Drivcr in the Transport Section at Kavadiguda and that he was drawing a net salary ot. Rs. 10,160/_ per month. The Salary Certificate under trx.A6 is issucd by their Proprietor of Srinivasa Enterprises. in his cross examination, it is elicitcd that the cleceased is not an Employee ol, GHMC and that trx.A12 shows that the deceased worked for 29 days and receivcd Rs 8,46o/ for thaL period. A perusar of Ex.A12 revcars Lhat rr is the exLract of the Register maintained by Srinivasa Enterprises disclosing the sararies paid for the month of December 20 1,1, wherein Ex.A12 reveals the name of the deceased at Serial No.51 and showing his Savings Account Number and also the salary pai<l to him i.e., Rs.8,468/_ in the month of December. Thus, the contention of the counsel and the suggestion made to thc witness- PW3 is proved lo be ialse. t - .--' ETD,I NlACMA No.529,2021 b) Further. I'W3 is authorised to depose on behalf of Srinivasa Entcrprises trn,lcr Ex.Al I The Salary Certihcate issued under Ex.A6 disctosc:s that lhe dcceersed-B Prem Singh r'r'as rvorking as a Driver in Tran:;porl Section at GHMC Kavadiguda Parking Yard and was earr lng a gross salary of Rs 10;'160 / - and after deductions his pay is disclosed as l?s 8,763/-' it appears in the slatemenl o[ .']rinivasa Enterprises Thus' the pelitioner could provc that the deceased used to work as driver under Srinivasa Enterprises ir-r the Parking Yard at Kavadiguda and used to earn Rs. i0,160i - llrl gross salan'' Therelore, the same is taken in[o consideralion, ivhile computing thc compensaLion' c) The age of lhe deceased rvas shown as '43' years in -lra.nsler Certrlicate and as per Ex A4/Post Mortem trx.A9/School Examinatiorl F eport it is '40' years Thus it is held that he belongs to the age group between 40-43 years As per the dicta laid down tn National Insuro;rtce Compang Limited Vs' Pranag Sethi & Othersl , 25"/o ol Li-rc incomc neecls lo be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 43 years' adding 25%o towards 10,160+2,540 would give Rs.12,7O0l- per future ProsPeits 1.c., mon[h, u hic:L. comes Lo Rs.12,7OOl- x 12 Rs.1,52,400/- Per ArR 2017 SCC 5157 I 6 MACMA No.5 29 _20 ci) F urther, a deduction of r / 4th is to be made to his income as there were five dependents, therefore, the income after deduction towards personal expenses would come up to Rs. 1,14,3O0 / _ (Rs. 1,s2,400/- (-) Rs.38, 1it0/_). e) Thc multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationz. The deccased being aged betu,eerr 40-43 years, Lhc appropriate mulriplier to be applied is ,14,. Therefore, thc loss of dependency is calculatccl as Rs. 16,00,2oo I _ (1,1a,300 x 14). 0 tn the light of pranag Setfti,s case, Rs. lSOOO/_ towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,0o0/- towards funerar expenses. ancr Rs.4O,000/- tou,ards loss of consortium have to be awarded arrd the said amounts should be enhanced by l()okevery three vears. g) In Mugmq General fnsurance Compang Limited. u. Nanu Ram (@ Chuhnt Ro'm and otherss, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles raid down in pranag sethi,s casc and has further herd that rrot only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are aiso entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in tLfu present case, the claimants r,r,ould get Rs.4g,4OO/_ I , 2uoo (6) scc t2 I '(2or&t8scctlo t 9ja- .+-'$ai7:r!!E== tr' 1 ETD,] ]\1ACMA No.529 2021 torvards loss o I consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this hearl q'ould be Rs.2,42,000/- instead of Rs 40'O0O/-' Further an al.n(lunt of Rs' 18,150/- tou.ards funeral expenses and Rs.i8,150,/- torvards Loss olEslate have to be awarded' h) In all. tltc claimanls arr rntitlrd lo the lollowing compensation amounts: 1 4 Compal sa tion undcr lhe hcad oi loss oI ocpq4,:g- C\rmper,sation Lowards Ioss oI consorLium Compcr rsalion torvards loss o f estate Com perrsaLiort tou,ards lurleral cxpcnses Total Rs.16,OO,2OOl- Rs.2,42,OOO I ' Rs. 18, l50/ - Rs.18,l50/ - Rs.l8,78,5OO/- 'lherefore , thc compensalion Lo which lhe petitioners are i) entitled i-s calc:ulated as Rs.18,78,5O0/ while the Tribunal has au,arded Rs.5,|;O,UO0/-. Thcreforc, it is opined that the petilioners are entitlecl for ctrhar-rcement ol compcnsation' Hence, I)oint No. 1 is ansrt'ered accordingly' 15 POINT NO.2: In vieq' c,f the finding arrivcd at Point No 1, it is held that the orderanddccreeo[theTribunalneedLobemodifiedwithregardto the quantultr of compe nsation. 'lhis Courl has enhanced the compensatiotr to Rs. 18,78,500/- from that of Rs 5,50,000/- i e ' auarded br' h ' Tribunal. It is further obser-ved that the rate of interesl granted by the t Tribunal is 99/o per annum, while this Court has been awarding 8 MACMA NO,529 2

7.57o uniformly in all the cases. Thercfore, the same ratc of interest is awarded in this case also. '. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. .

16. POINT NO. 3: In the rcsult, M_A.C.M.A filecl by the claimants is partly allowed modifying the order and Decree dated 27.1o.2or9 in M.V.O.P.No. l2l of 2015 passed by thc Chainn.rn, MoLor Accident Claims Tribunal,curn-V Additional District & Sessions .Iudgc, Ranga Redd5, District, enherncing the compcnsatron from Rs.5,50,000/- to 18,78,5O0/ ancl the cnhanced amount of compcnsa[ion shall carrl. irrtcrcst (tr,7.Svo pcr aLtltum from thc date ol clzrim pctitron tirl rczr/izaLron. Flowevcr, thc interest for the periocl of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrucd intcrcst within a period oI two morrths from tl-re dalr: of reccipt o[ a copy ol this judgment alter deducting thc amount i[ any alread5r cleposited. On such di:posil, the appellants are cntitred to u,ithdravr. the saicr amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted bj, the Tribunal. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tri.Oqrg! -C $;ti";. l;;de, Rangareodv District' at L B'Nasa r. To, I i t I I, Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER V. Addl. District and ,.-']g'.1a / 2 One CC to Sri. A S Narayana, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies; RAS w : HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.S29 of 2O21 ' t'.'rt- L' , ':l t." '..- ,) 4..I ?? stP ?sl5 ' . .. -- i':. -jr.;' '-: * -.-.. I i I I t ! t I i I I t I r I i I I I PARTLY ALLOWED to *84 W* 13441 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 529 0F 2021 Between: 2 3 1 Banoth Gayathri, Wo. Late B.prem Singh, Aged about 33 years, Occ, Household, Att are R/o. H.No.8-5gt2t2i1 ,bwirakanagar, fVeir SiiOiOi Temple, Boduppal,Rangareddy District, Telangana State.- Banoth Arun Singh, W/o.Late_ 8.. prem Singh, Aged about 12 years, Occ, Student, All are Rl/o. H.No.B-Sg!2t?l1,Dwara[anag"ar, t,tear SaiUaba T;*pl;: Boduppal, Rangareddy District, Telangana State. " Banoth Anvita, D/o. Late^ B_ .prem _Singh, Aged about .10 years, Occ, Student,All are R/o. H.No.B-S9t2t2l 1, DwaEkana"gar, t tear SaiUiOi itrpl;; Boduppal, Rangareddy District, Telangana State. Banoth Bhadramma, Wo.B.^Ranga, Aged about 53 years, Occ, Housewife, AII are Ri/o. H.No.B-Sgt2t2h,Dwarikanalar, Near Saib'abi i;ptb, B-",ir#;l: Rangareddy District, Telangana State. Banoth Ranga, S/o. Late B. Chandraya Naik, Aged about 55 years, Occ, Nil, (Petrtroners 2 and 3 are mino^rs.., py_their mofher as a natuie guardian firsi petitioner) All are R/o. H.No.B-S9tZ.l2h-,Dwarakanagar, f.lear SaiUiUi T#;i;, Boduppal, Rangareddy District, Telangana State. " ^re-p: - 4 5 ...APPELLANTS AND 1 2 3 99i"yy .Sfryqq_e._o.u{, S/o. S. Sankaria h Goud, Age, Major, Occ, B usiness, ---' Ri/o. H.No.2-1 27 154138, Eltamma Tempte, Vijay5puri CbtonV, tippaf , Rangareddy District. Bharatj Axa, General lnsurance Company Ltd, 1-g-206, Flat No.202, 2nd Floor, Masetty Plaza, P.G. Road, Seiund'erabad. poticv No. FCV/S22527 681 52l0StC1 Sl 57 vatid from 06tOSl201'4 to O5t05t2O1 S S Suresh \gOorow, S/o. Shingade Nagorow, Age, Major, Occ, Driver, R/o. BhapurNagar, Ramanthap-ur, Uppal, RangaiedAy bistrict.' ...RESPONDENTS Appeal Under section 173 of Motor vehicles Act against the order and Decree made in M.V.o.P.No. o.p. No.121 of 2o1s dared 2111ot2019 on the file of the court of Motor Accident claims Tribunal -cum V. Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar. ORDER :This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of . appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the lvlVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sri. A S Narayana, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for the Respondent and of the Respondent No 2. This 1 2 ? 4 6 6 Court doth Order and Decree as follows: That the IVIAC)[\i4A be and hereby is partly allowed modifying the order and decree dated :21 .10.2019 in tvl.V.O.P.No.121 of 2O15 passed by the chairman, N/otor Acciderrt Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Enchancing the compensation from Rs.5,50,000/- to 18,78,5001 and the enchanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @7.5o/o per annum from the dare of claim petition till realization. That, However, the interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited. That the Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued i,rterest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ludgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. That on such Jeposit, the appetlants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. The save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and That there be ro order as to costs in the appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL IDEPUTY REGISTRAR I _=_ \ t_- .:-- - SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum V. Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

2. Two CD Coples w HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 DECREE MACMA.No.S29 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWED r c{ca &,