The High Court · 2025
Case Details
[tor convcnienc:e and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as thcr- \\'ere arrzryed betorc the 'lribunal.
3. 'ltrc'crrse r>f the peLitioncrs belorr: the'l'rifrr.rnzrl r,l,as that on
16. L I .'2014 the deceased \r,as going Lo'uvarcls Thilaknagar, C'iodavarikhzrni on a nlotor bike bearing No.TS-02-'fR-8012 and on the u,a5, ert abotrt 4:15 p.m., u,hen he reached near (iodavarikhani 5-A incline' cross roads, one [tTC l3us bearing N:.AP-ll-Z-4898 bcing drirrcn bv its driver in a rash and negligent mrrrrner, at a high sper:d, dasLred the motor bike in oppositc dircctic.lt, iis a result the deceascd fell down and sustaincd blecding injurics and dicd on the spot. 'fhe claimants sought a compensation of Rs.5,1,00,000/-.
5. 'l'he respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 'fhe respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the avermcr-rts of the petition with regard to the oc:currence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contenclecl Lhat the bus driver was not rash a.nd negligent in I i I i ; :1 ! g , I l : I t i i I : I I I t: F ETD,J MACMA No.536 2021 causing the accident, llut the accicicnt occurred due to the soie negligence of the deceasecl 6- l]ased on Lhe abovc plc.cii.gs, trial court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1- 2 .1. rl/lrctrrcr ilt.e acci.d-ertl <tccrtrrd chrc to ,o"h. ,rn l negrigent d,riuing of tlrc uehicre by respottderrt r\,. 1 as ailegecr by ilte petitiorrcrs? Wltetlrcr tlLe trtelitiorters rue entirled to compertsation as pragedJ'or ctrtd if so, at tulru.t rat.e atul l'ro:n tultom? 'l'o uiltut relb.f,, 7- To prove their case, the pctiti.ners sot cxami'ecl pws I to 3 and got marke<l Exs.A1 to A7. o'r behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined, but no docurncnt.s \\,cre markcd.
8. Basecl on the evidence on recorcl, the 'lribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.28,89,888/-. Aggrieved b.y the said au,ard, the present appeal is preferred b1, the RTC.
9. Heard the submissions of Sri N. chandra shekar, learned standing counscl for R'lc. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligcnce of the deceased as he has driven it in a rash and negligent manner and colluded against the bus, and that the tribunal has failed to consider the said fact. He further argued that the tribunal has ar,r,arderl huge compensation I I t I i I t ! I t I t I I I t I I i I t I i ? { i I I i i I I I ! rlI s I ! t I i I i ; 1 I I 1 I I I l I l t i' I i : 3 ETD,J tIACMA No.536 2021 by assessing thc income of the deceased, without th::rc being any proclf liled l;i, the claimants. Ile has further argtt,:d tirat the tribr-rnari has i,nvar-cled huge amottnts under various I'Lc-ads and has grantr:rl high iin.xrunt o[ c()mpe r]sation. Thcr-efore, prir-1e d to recluce thc samc ancl furthcr prayed to I'ix conlributorv ncgiige ncc on part oI Lht' rlec:cerscri. I l. Irr r,'icr,.' ol' the above submissions, thc points tl-rart eirise for detcrrninzrtion in this Appeal are as tollor.vs:- \,t/irctlrcr tltere was any contrilttrto4l rrcgligetrce on pafl oJ-tlrc ,:l<'ce.ctsed in lhe occurretrce oJ'tlrc a<:ciclertt.) l|ilrctlrcr the corrtpetrsatron grtLrfied by tlrc lrib:rnal is .lrzsl ruuT reasonable? Wlrc,-lher the Order atrcl. Decree of the Tibrtrrr,.l ru:ed urtrl tnterference ? To u'lrut relief ? ) ').)
12. Point No.1: er) 'I'hc < trntcntion o[ the appellzlnl. counscl is that t]rcrc rvas c:ontributorl. negligence on part of the deceased irr the occurrence ol the zrc:cident b) A pcr-rLsal of the FIR/Ex.A1 and charge sl'ri:et Lrnder Ex.A3 reveals t.hat it is liled against the driver of thc ItlC trus and the rccitals of the cherrge sheet further reveals that, u'hile the deceased u,as soir-rg on his motor bike bearing No.TS-02-TI?-8012 at about C>:15 hours, LI-re driver of the bus bearing No.AI)-l l-2-4898 has \y' €t clrivcn it irr a rastr and negligent manncr, dasheci lo the motor bike 4 ETD,J MACMA No.536_2021 of the deceased in opposire direction resurting in breeding injuries and the deceased died on the spot. Further, pw2 was examined as an eye r,vrtness. c) Pw2 is Ko.daparthi Sanjeev Kumar, his evidence reveals that he was standi.g at the ('loclavarikhani S-incline cross road and was talking to one Mallesh a'd at that time, he saw a person proceeding towards Godavarikhani on his motor bike bearing No.TS-02-TR-8012 was hir by RTC Bus bearing No.Ap_ tr_z_4}gg as the driver of the RTC bus has clrive. ir in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, considering thc evidencc of pw2 coupled rn ith Ex.Al and A2, it is held that thc accident occurred clue to the rash and negligence of the bus driver and that th<:re was no negligence of the deceased. Point No.1 is answered accordingly
13. Point No.2:- a) The claimants assertecr that pwl is thc wife of the deceased and that she asserted that tl-re husband used to vvork in Singareni colleries Limited and that hc \^ras carning an amourt of Rs.13,789 l- per month towards his salary as Badhili Filler. They filed Ex'A7 /pay slip of the deceasecl pertai.ing to August,2or4. A 5 ETD,J MACMA No.536 2021 perusal of tl-rr: said Ex.A7 reveals that the gross s,alary of the dcceascd r,vas I?s. 13,789 l- per month. b) Irurthcr P\\r3 ri'irs eramined in sr-tpport ol Llr,'ir-cASC. Ht: is thc Managcr n Singarer-ri Collerics Company Limitccl (SCCL). His cr,'idcnce .rlso i-t:r'r'als thc said fact that thc deceasecl uscd to rvork as tladhili i-iller in SCCL and that Ex.A7 is issr-rr,-d by their compan.\,. Thus, the income of the deceased is pr-ovcd to be Rs. 13,789 I - pcr rnonth. c) t\s pe r tlic tlictzt laid down tn National Insurance Compa.ng Lirnited Vs. .Pranay Sethi & Othersl, 5oo/o ol the incorne needs to br: adcied t<>s'ards future prospects. As the dece:rscd is agecl 28 \rcar..j, irclclii-rg 5()'7o torvards future prospects i.e., 13,789+6,894 r,r,<'rulci give l?s.2O,6831- per month, which comes to Rs.20,6831- x l2 =, Its.2,-+8,20ii - pcr ar-rl-rum d) 'lht-' nunrbcr of claimants herein are threc and thereforc, Ll3,a derluction r-rccd to be made to his income towards pcrsonal expcrnscs :rrrd this r,r,ould come upto Rs. 1,65,468 I - (Rs.'2,1r3,2O2 I (-) Rs.82,73.1 ,t-) / 1 AtR 20'17 SCC 5157 6 ETD,J MACMA No.536 2021 e) The post Mortem Exami.ation Rcport filcci under Ex.A4 reveals tl-re age of the cleceased as ,24, ]rears. The murtiplier should be chose. with regard to the agc of the dcceasr:cr as per column No'4 of the table gi'en in sarra verma vs. Derhi Transport corporation2, the deceased bei,g aged ,2g,years, the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Therefore, the ross of depende.c' is assessecl as Rs.28, L2,95,6/ - (Rs. 1,65,468 x 17). l) tn the light of pranag sethi's caso, Rs. r5000/ tor,r,arcls loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- tor,r,ards funerar expenses and Rs.4o,000/- torvards ross of consor-tium have to bc arvarded and the said amounts should be enhanced b.v 10%r even, Lhree ),cars. g) In Magma Generar Insurance compang Limited. a. Nanu Rarn @)) chuhttt Ram qnd. others3, thc Apcx cour.t has elaborately discussed the principles laid dou,r-r ir-r pranag sethf,s casc arci has lurther held that not onry thc sprusc but the parents and children of the deccased are arso entitrecl to lclss or c.nsor-tiurn. Ther.efore, i. the present case, the claima,ts ancl rvourd gct Rs.4g,4oo/_ each, hence, the compensation amount under this head v'ould be Rs' 1 ,45,2oo / - instead of Rs.4o ,ooo / -. Further an amount of Rs'18,150/- towards funerar expenses a,d Rs.1g,1so/- tou,ards Loss of Estate have to be avi,arded. 1 1009 (6) SCC I 2 I '(20r8) t8sctc tj0 l ,' i I I I ! !i I I t I t I I I l I I r T t I t I 'l t- i I { * ! i I ! : I I i : i i i i : i ,, ; i :, .. F 'l i e E x l, 1 I, i' I 7 ETD,] M/rCMA No.536_202i ir) [n all, thc pctitioners arc entitled to tlre follou,ing cotn ltcnsa t r or-i il fttottrrts: - i' I I I I 1, Coml>ensaiion under the heacl of loss - 2, Crtrnltr:nsat.ion tou'ards loss ill1p,il!.-,qci_ _ ol' Rs.128,L2,956/-: L,45,2OO/ -
4. i I i I I i i I i i c()nsol'tiunt l-o the C.>rnpt:nsalion to'uvar<ls loss of estate t.roner C)o nr 1-lt:ir sation torvard s ftr nertrl expense s Total Rs.18,15O/- l .=:?gi::lt- i) 'l'hcrefbr-c'. the comtr>ensation to il'hich the i)('litioners are ('rlLitlecl is r:zrk'rtiirted ils l?s.29,94,4561- u,hile t}'rc 'l'ribunarl has inr-rr.rdcrl R.s.28,8(-),88,3/ -. 'fl-rcrcfore, it is opined that ,l-rc pctitioners i-Lre entitlcd ftrr r:nhanccment o[ colnpensation. Hence. point No.2 is answered accordingly.
14. POINT NO.3: \ \ Irr vierr'of the finrlirrgs arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, it is held that tht: orcjcr anci clecrec of the Tribunal need to ltr: rnocli{'ied r,r,ith rt:qarcl Ltt tlrt' cluarnLLun ()l'cornpensation. This Court Lras cnhanced ttre ccrmpe ns;at.ir-rrr Lo Rs. 29,94,456/- from that of Fls. 28,89,8881- thatt is au'ar{.lcd bv thc'fribunal. Pornt ru,r.,1 i* arnstcred accordingly.
15. POIN'I NO.4: ln the rcsult, thc appeal is partly allowed modifying the order ancl Dccrcc date;d 05.03.2021 in M.V.o.P.lrlo.s90 of 20Lr passccl l;1' thc clrarirman, MoLor Vchicle Accident C 1iLims Tribunal- 8 ETD,J MACMA No 536 2021 i-. cum-lll Additior-ral District Judge, Karimnagar, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2g,B9,SgB/_ to 29,94,4rt61 _ err.rd the enhanced amount of compensation shail carrw intcrest (ti. 7.s%t per annum ll-om the date of claim petition till realization. Hon,cvcr, Lhe i.terest for the period of delay if a.v, is torfeited. .r.he rcspondenls are directcd to deposit the compensation amount with accruecr i,terest r,r'ithin a period of two months flrom the datc of recc:ipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if an.r, alr.eady clcpositecl' C)n such deposit, the clairnants are entitled Lo u.itirclrar,r, the said an-lount without furnishi.g an)' sccurity. No cosls. Miscella,eous petitio,s, pe.di.g if anv, in this appear, shail sternd closed. SD/ - T.SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR I /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
2. One CC to Sri N. Chandra Sekhar (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE 2) Advocate IoPUCI
3. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL 8} i l T E t T I I I I I T t 5t t 4i E g i t i t t ", I I : l a I i t HIGH COURT DATED:20/0AZA25 JUDGMENT+DECREE ,t MACMA.No.536 of 2021 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS { \ 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA PRESENT MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC US APPEAL NO: 536 OF 2021 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (Now TSRTC) Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, represented by its [/anaging Director. AppellanURespondent No. 2 AND 1 2 Banda Latha, Wo. Late Sathish, aged 25 years, Occ- House-hold, Banda Aravind, S/o. Late Sathish, ( aged 08 years, (Minor) Occ- Student through his next Friend/guardian his natural mother, i.e., Petitioner No.1 Banda Latha.
3. Banda Kanka Laxmi, Wo. Rajaiah, aged 57 years, Occ- House-hold, All are R/o. Qtr.No.T2-1052, Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal Revenue of Karimnagar District, Presently residing at Saidabad village of Jammikunta [t/andal Revenue of Karimnagar District. ... Respondents/Petitioners
4. Takur Ashok Singh, S/o. Durga Singh, aged 56 years, Occ- Driver of APSRTC(Now TSRTC) Bus bearing No. AP-11-2-4898 of Manthani Depot, Staff No.318859, R/o. Shanigaram Village of Koheda Mandal Revenue of Karimnagar District. ...RespondenURespondent No. 1 (R4- is formal party and not a necessary party) Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved with the Judgment and Decree, dated 0510312021 in M.V.O.P.No.590 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Chandra Shekar, Advocate for the appellant and none appeared for the Respondents. The Court doth Order and Decree as follows:
1. That this Court while partly allowing the appeal modified the Order and Decree of the Lower court, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.28,89,888/- to Rs.29,94,4561-. I I I I I I i i : : I
2. That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realizatiorr.
3. That Howerrer, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 4. That the respondents are directed to deposit the cr>nrpensation amount with accrred interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amclunt if any already deposited.
5. That on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount lvithout furnishing any security.
6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court is confirmed in all other respects; and
7. That there shall be no order as to costs. SD / - T.SRII\IIVASA REDDY ASSI:,I]ANT REGISTRAR \ I \ //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- lll Additional District Judge, g- Karimnagar. 2. Two CD Cr:pies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2414812025 DECREE MACMA.No.536 oI 2021 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS \
[tor convcnienc:e and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as thcr- \\'ere arrzryed betorc the 'lribunal.
3. 'ltrc'crrse r>f the peLitioncrs belorr: the'l'rifrr.rnzrl r,l,as that on
16. L I .'2014 the deceased \r,as going Lo'uvarcls Thilaknagar, C'iodavarikhzrni on a nlotor bike bearing No.TS-02-'fR-8012 and on the u,a5, ert abotrt 4:15 p.m., u,hen he reached near (iodavarikhani 5-A incline' cross roads, one [tTC l3us bearing N:.AP-ll-Z-4898 bcing drirrcn bv its driver in a rash and negligent mrrrrner, at a high sper:d, dasLred the motor bike in oppositc dircctic.lt, iis a result the deceascd fell down and sustaincd blecding injurics and dicd on the spot. 'fhe claimants sought a compensation of Rs.5,1,00,000/-.
5. 'l'he respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 'fhe respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the avermcr-rts of the petition with regard to the oc:currence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contenclecl Lhat the bus driver was not rash a.nd negligent in I i I i ; :1 ! g , I l : I t i i I : I I I t: F ETD,J MACMA No.536 2021 causing the accident, llut the accicicnt occurred due to the soie negligence of the deceasecl 6- l]ased on Lhe abovc plc.cii.gs, trial court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1- 2 .1. rl/lrctrrcr ilt.e acci.d-ertl <tccrtrrd chrc to ,o"h. ,rn l negrigent d,riuing of tlrc uehicre by respottderrt r\,. 1 as ailegecr by ilte petitiorrcrs? Wltetlrcr tlLe trtelitiorters rue entirled to compertsation as pragedJ'or ctrtd if so, at tulru.t rat.e atul l'ro:n tultom? 'l'o uiltut relb.f,, 7- To prove their case, the pctiti.ners sot cxami'ecl pws I to 3 and got marke<l Exs.A1 to A7. o'r behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined, but no docurncnt.s \\,cre markcd.
8. Basecl on the evidence on recorcl, the 'lribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.28,89,888/-. Aggrieved b.y the said au,ard, the present appeal is preferred b1, the RTC.
9. Heard the submissions of Sri N. chandra shekar, learned standing counscl for R'lc. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligcnce of the deceased as he has driven it in a rash and negligent manner and colluded against the bus, and that the tribunal has failed to consider the said fact. He further argued that the tribunal has ar,r,arderl huge compensation I I t I i I t ! I t I t I I I t I I i I t I i ? { i I I i i I I I ! rlI s I ! t I i I i ; 1 I I 1 I I I l I l t i' I i : 3 ETD,J tIACMA No.536 2021 by assessing thc income of the deceased, without th::rc being any proclf liled l;i, the claimants. Ile has further argtt,:d tirat the tribr-rnari has i,nvar-cled huge amottnts under various I'Lc-ads and has grantr:rl high iin.xrunt o[ c()mpe r]sation. Thcr-efore, prir-1e d to recluce thc samc ancl furthcr prayed to I'ix conlributorv ncgiige ncc on part oI Lht' rlec:cerscri. I l. Irr r,'icr,.' ol' the above submissions, thc points tl-rart eirise for detcrrninzrtion in this Appeal are as tollor.vs:- \,t/irctlrcr tltere was any contrilttrto4l rrcgligetrce on pafl oJ-tlrc ,:l<'ce.ctsed in lhe occurretrce oJ'tlrc a<:ciclertt.) l|ilrctlrcr the corrtpetrsatron grtLrfied by tlrc lrib:rnal is .lrzsl ruuT reasonable? Wlrc,-lher the Order atrcl. Decree of the Tibrtrrr,.l ru:ed urtrl tnterference ? To u'lrut relief ? ) ').)
12. Point No.1: er) 'I'hc < trntcntion o[ the appellzlnl. counscl is that t]rcrc rvas c:ontributorl. negligence on part of the deceased irr the occurrence ol the zrc:cident b) A pcr-rLsal of the FIR/Ex.A1 and charge sl'ri:et Lrnder Ex.A3 reveals t.hat it is liled against the driver of thc ItlC trus and the rccitals of the cherrge sheet further reveals that, u'hile the deceased u,as soir-rg on his motor bike bearing No.TS-02-TI?-8012 at about C>:15 hours, LI-re driver of the bus bearing No.AI)-l l-2-4898 has \y' €t clrivcn it irr a rastr and negligent manncr, dasheci lo the motor bike 4 ETD,J MACMA No.536_2021 of the deceased in opposire direction resurting in breeding injuries and the deceased died on the spot. Further, pw2 was examined as an eye r,vrtness. c) Pw2 is Ko.daparthi Sanjeev Kumar, his evidence reveals that he was standi.g at the ('loclavarikhani S-incline cross road and was talking to one Mallesh a'd at that time, he saw a person proceeding towards Godavarikhani on his motor bike bearing No.TS-02-TR-8012 was hir by RTC Bus bearing No.Ap_ tr_z_4}gg as the driver of the RTC bus has clrive. ir in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, considering thc evidencc of pw2 coupled rn ith Ex.Al and A2, it is held that thc accident occurred clue to the rash and negligence of the bus driver and that th<:re was no negligence of the deceased. Point No.1 is answered accordingly
13. Point No.2:- a) The claimants assertecr that pwl is thc wife of the deceased and that she asserted that tl-re husband used to vvork in Singareni colleries Limited and that hc \^ras carning an amourt of Rs.13,789 l- per month towards his salary as Badhili Filler. They filed Ex'A7 /pay slip of the deceasecl pertai.ing to August,2or4. A 5 ETD,J MACMA No.536 2021 perusal of tl-rr: said Ex.A7 reveals that the gross s,alary of the dcceascd r,vas I?s. 13,789 l- per month. b) Irurthcr P\\r3 ri'irs eramined in sr-tpport ol Llr,'ir-cASC. Ht: is thc Managcr n Singarer-ri Collerics Company Limitccl (SCCL). His cr,'idcnce .rlso i-t:r'r'als thc said fact that thc deceasecl uscd to rvork as tladhili i-iller in SCCL and that Ex.A7 is issr-rr,-d by their compan.\,. Thus, the income of the deceased is pr-ovcd to be Rs. 13,789 I - pcr rnonth. c) t\s pe r tlic tlictzt laid down tn National Insurance Compa.ng Lirnited Vs. .Pranay Sethi & Othersl, 5oo/o ol the incorne needs to br: adcied t<>s'ards future prospects. As the dece:rscd is agecl 28 \rcar..j, irclclii-rg 5()'7o torvards future prospects i.e., 13,789+6,894 r,r,<'rulci give l?s.2O,6831- per month, which comes to Rs.20,6831- x l2 =, Its.2,-+8,20ii - pcr ar-rl-rum d) 'lht-' nunrbcr of claimants herein are threc and thereforc, Ll3,a derluction r-rccd to be made to his income towards pcrsonal expcrnscs :rrrd this r,r,ould come upto Rs. 1,65,468 I - (Rs.'2,1r3,2O2 I (-) Rs.82,73.1 ,t-) / 1 AtR 20'17 SCC 5157 6 ETD,J MACMA No.536 2021 e) The post Mortem Exami.ation Rcport filcci under Ex.A4 reveals tl-re age of the cleceased as ,24, ]rears. The murtiplier should be chose. with regard to the agc of the dcceasr:cr as per column No'4 of the table gi'en in sarra verma vs. Derhi Transport corporation2, the deceased bei,g aged ,2g,years, the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Therefore, the ross of depende.c' is assessecl as Rs.28, L2,95,6/ - (Rs. 1,65,468 x 17). l) tn the light of pranag sethi's caso, Rs. r5000/ tor,r,arcls loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- tor,r,ards funerar expenses and Rs.4o,000/- torvards ross of consor-tium have to bc arvarded and the said amounts should be enhanced b.v 10%r even, Lhree ),cars. g) In Magma Generar Insurance compang Limited. a. Nanu Rarn @)) chuhttt Ram qnd. others3, thc Apcx cour.t has elaborately discussed the principles laid dou,r-r ir-r pranag sethf,s casc arci has lurther held that not onry thc sprusc but the parents and children of the deccased are arso entitrecl to lclss or c.nsor-tiurn. Ther.efore, i. the present case, the claima,ts ancl rvourd gct Rs.4g,4oo/_ each, hence, the compensation amount under this head v'ould be Rs' 1 ,45,2oo / - instead of Rs.4o ,ooo / -. Further an amount of Rs'18,150/- towards funerar expenses a,d Rs.1g,1so/- tou,ards Loss of Estate have to be avi,arded. 1 1009 (6) SCC I 2 I '(20r8) t8sctc tj0 l ,' i I I I ! !i I I t I t I I I l I I r T t I t I 'l t- i I { * ! i I ! : I I i : i i i i : i ,, ; i :, .. F 'l i e E x l, 1 I, i' I 7 ETD,] M/rCMA No.536_202i ir) [n all, thc pctitioners arc entitled to tlre follou,ing cotn ltcnsa t r or-i il fttottrrts: - i' I I I I 1, Coml>ensaiion under the heacl of loss - 2, Crtrnltr:nsat.ion tou'ards loss ill1p,il!.-,qci_ _ ol' Rs.128,L2,956/-: L,45,2OO/ -
4. i I i I I i i I i i c()nsol'tiunt l-o the C.>rnpt:nsalion to'uvar<ls loss of estate t.roner C)o nr 1-lt:ir sation torvard s ftr nertrl expense s Total Rs.18,15O/- l .=:?gi::lt- i) 'l'hcrefbr-c'. the comtr>ensation to il'hich the i)('litioners are ('rlLitlecl is r:zrk'rtiirted ils l?s.29,94,4561- u,hile t}'rc 'l'ribunarl has inr-rr.rdcrl R.s.28,8(-),88,3/ -. 'fl-rcrcfore, it is opined that ,l-rc pctitioners i-Lre entitlcd ftrr r:nhanccment o[ colnpensation. Hence. point No.2 is answered accordingly.
14. POINT NO.3: \ \ Irr vierr'of the finrlirrgs arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, it is held that tht: orcjcr anci clecrec of the Tribunal need to ltr: rnocli{'ied r,r,ith rt:qarcl Ltt tlrt' cluarnLLun ()l'cornpensation. This Court Lras cnhanced ttre ccrmpe ns;at.ir-rrr Lo Rs. 29,94,456/- from that of Fls. 28,89,8881- thatt is au'ar{.lcd bv thc'fribunal. Pornt ru,r.,1 i* arnstcred accordingly.
15. POIN'I NO.4: ln the rcsult, thc appeal is partly allowed modifying the order ancl Dccrcc date;d 05.03.2021 in M.V.o.P.lrlo.s90 of 20Lr passccl l;1' thc clrarirman, MoLor Vchicle Accident C 1iLims Tribunal- 8 ETD,J MACMA No 536 2021 i-. cum-lll Additior-ral District Judge, Karimnagar, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2g,B9,SgB/_ to 29,94,4rt61 _ err.rd the enhanced amount of compensation shail carrw intcrest (ti. 7.s%t per annum ll-om the date of claim petition till realization. Hon,cvcr, Lhe i.terest for the period of delay if a.v, is torfeited. .r.he rcspondenls are directcd to deposit the compensation amount with accruecr i,terest r,r'ithin a period of two months flrom the datc of recc:ipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if an.r, alr.eady clcpositecl' C)n such deposit, the clairnants are entitled Lo u.itirclrar,r, the said an-lount without furnishi.g an)' sccurity. No cosls. Miscella,eous petitio,s, pe.di.g if anv, in this appear, shail sternd closed. SD/ - T.SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR I /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
2. One CC to Sri N. Chandra Sekhar (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE 2) Advocate IoPUCI
3. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL 8} i l T E t T I I I I I T t 5t t 4i E g i t i t t ", I I : l a I i t HIGH COURT DATED:20/0AZA25 JUDGMENT+DECREE ,t MACMA.No.536 of 2021 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS { \ 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA PRESENT MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC US APPEAL NO: 536 OF 2021 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (Now TSRTC) Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, represented by its [/anaging Director. AppellanURespondent No. 2 AND 1 2 Banda Latha, Wo. Late Sathish, aged 25 years, Occ- House-hold, Banda Aravind, S/o. Late Sathish, ( aged 08 years, (Minor) Occ- Student through his next Friend/guardian his natural mother, i.e., Petitioner No.1 Banda Latha.
3. Banda Kanka Laxmi, Wo. Rajaiah, aged 57 years, Occ- House-hold, All are R/o. Qtr.No.T2-1052, Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal Revenue of Karimnagar District, Presently residing at Saidabad village of Jammikunta [t/andal Revenue of Karimnagar District. ... Respondents/Petitioners
4. Takur Ashok Singh, S/o. Durga Singh, aged 56 years, Occ- Driver of APSRTC(Now TSRTC) Bus bearing No. AP-11-2-4898 of Manthani Depot, Staff No.318859, R/o. Shanigaram Village of Koheda Mandal Revenue of Karimnagar District. ...RespondenURespondent No. 1 (R4- is formal party and not a necessary party) Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved with the Judgment and Decree, dated 0510312021 in M.V.O.P.No.590 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Chandra Shekar, Advocate for the appellant and none appeared for the Respondents. The Court doth Order and Decree as follows:
1. That this Court while partly allowing the appeal modified the Order and Decree of the Lower court, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.28,89,888/- to Rs.29,94,4561-. I I I I I I i i : : I
2. That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realizatiorr.
3. That Howerrer, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 4. That the respondents are directed to deposit the cr>nrpensation amount with accrred interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amclunt if any already deposited.
5. That on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount lvithout furnishing any security.
6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court is confirmed in all other respects; and
7. That there shall be no order as to costs. SD / - T.SRII\IIVASA REDDY ASSI:,I]ANT REGISTRAR \ I \ //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- lll Additional District Judge, g- Karimnagar. 2. Two CD Cr:pies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2414812025 DECREE MACMA.No.536 oI 2021 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS \