Miscellaneous Appeal No. 539 of 2021 · The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TTRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.G.M.A.NOs.539 & 352 OF 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals arise out of the Order and D'ecree dated

17.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.273 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll! Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar (for short "the Tribunal").

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on

08.02.2016, while the deceased was riding Yamaha FZ bike bearing No.AP23-AA-0147 from Malakpet towards Panjagutta and when he reached at Kanaka Durga Temple, Erramanzil, a concrete lorry bearing No.AP-28-TD-4170 while taking U-turn has hit the bike of the deceased, due to which he fell down, sustained injuries and died. The petitioners sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. tt, The respondent No.2 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 t:t D.J MAC i\44 Nos. 5 39- j\2 ...2.0 )1 2 the deceased was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owrrer and insurer of the bike

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal l^ras framed the following issues for consideration:- "1 2

3. Whether the pleaded accident that took place on 0B 02 2016 at about 00:10 hours near Kanakadurga temple f-rramanzil. Hyderabad due to rash and negligent driving of the clriver of lorry bearing No.AP-28TD-4170 resulting death of decett:;ed by nante Banothu Mohan Rao? Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensatiort lf so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents? To what relief ?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced B. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.23,54,800/-. Aggrieved by the said award MACMA.No.3S2 of 2021 is filed by the lnsurancer Company and IVIACMA.No.539 of 202.1is filed by the claimants. , / ETD,J MACMA Nos.539 352 2O2l 3

9. l{eard the submissions of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the lnsurance Company Sri A.S. Narayana, learned counsel for the claimants.

10. Learned counsel for the lnsurance Company has submitted that the deceased was a bachelor, but the tribunal has failed to consider the same and has deducted only 113'd, while it has to deduct 50o/o. He further argued that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/-, though the earnings of the deceased was not proved before the tribunal. He further argued that the tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% and prayed the Court to reduce the same

11. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that they have filed Ex.P1 1/Salary Certificate showing that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,228l- towards gross salary, hence the same may be taken into consideration after deducting the professionat tax. He further argued that the tribunal has assessed the income to be very low as Rs.12,000i- per month inspite of the proof filed under Ex.P11. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the f{lowing points for determination: \ 4 t1.D,J MACI\4A Nos.539_352_202 1 "! 1 Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasctnable

2. whether the order and Decree granted by the Tribunat neeci any inbrterence?

3. To what relief

13. Point No.1: a) The contention of the craim,ants is that the deceased was earning Rs.15,228l- per month and that they have proved the same vide Ex.P1'1 b) A perusal of Ex.P11 reveals that it is a pay slip issued by Axis securities in the name of the deceased-tMohan Rao Banothu showing his designation as Business Executive and that he was paid a gross salary of Rs.15,22a1- and the date of joining is shown as

13.06.2014, the said pay srip under Ex.p11 pertains to December 2015 and the date of accident is 0g.02.2016. Thus, ,:hrough Ex.p11 the petitioners could place it on record that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.1S,22Bt- by working as a Busrness Executive in Axis securities. The profession tax is Rs.150/-, thus deducting the same as per the dicta laid down in sar/a verma v. Llethi rransport corporationl, the income of the deceased while assessing the compensation has to be taken as total ineome minus tax and it does | :ooc) 16) sedi: r 5 ETD,J MACMA Nos.539_352_202 1 not fall under taxable range for the year 2015. Therefore, (1 5,228 - 150/-) comes up to Rs.15078/-. c) As per the dicta laid down in lVafional lnsuranc.e Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Othersz, 4oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 28 years, adding 40olo towards future prospects i.e., 15078+6031 would give Rs.21,109/-- per month, which comes to Rs.21,109/- x 12 = Rs.2,53,31 0/- per annum. d) The petitioners herein are the parents of the deceased. Since the deceased is bachelor at the time of the alleged accident as revealed from the evidence of PW1 and the lnquest Report under Ex.A2, 50o/o deduction need to be made to the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.1 ,26,655/- (2,53,310 x 50/100). e) The 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. Dethi Transport Corporation3. The deceased being aged 28 ' ntR 2017 scc 51s7 ,,\, ,,,i scc , r / ITD,J MACMA Nos.539._352-202 1 6 years, the appropriate multiplier to be,applied is'17'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.21 ,53,318/- (1 ,26,655 x 17). 0 ln the light of Pranay Sefhi's case, Rs.150001 towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000i- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10o/o ever! three years. g) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and otherso, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sefhi's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,4001 each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,800/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. h) ln all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation amounts. \ pensation under the head of loss Rs.2'1,53,130/- o (zorst rE scc rio I 7 ETD,J MACMA Nos.539 352 2O2l

2. 3 4 loss of Compensation towards consortium Compensation towards loss of estate Compensation towards funeral SCS Total Rs.96,800/- Rs.'18,150/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.22,86,238/- i) Thus, this Court arrives at a compensation of Rs.22,85,606/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,54,800/- erroneously by making a deduction of 1lg,'0. instead of 50o/o as the tribunat failed to ' .i.. . observe that the deceased was,a bachelor. Hence, it is held that the compensation arrived by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- a) in view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the compensation from Rs.23,54,800 to Rs.22,85,606/- The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 9% on the antum of compensation. The contention of the counsel for b) lnsurance Company is that it is too high / B IJ] D,J MA(.Mfi Nos.539--352_ 202 I c) ln Jadav saroja Bai versus Ghute Naga Rao and Anothef ; a coordinate Bench of this High court has granted interest @ z.s% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. d) ln Bandavath Mangra and Another versus Bandavath suresh and others6 and Nationat lnsurance company Limited versus- M- venkateswarulu and othersT; also interest @ 7.s% per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation. e) ln united lnsurance company Limited versus. Bofiam Lingaiahs,'vrhen the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ g% per annum, the High court has modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 0 A Division Bench of this High court in rvafional lnsurance company Limited versus Jagadish prajapathie; has granted 7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization / \ \ t zozz scc onlinc I S 606 o zoz: Scc Onlirrc I'S 109-5 '2023 scc ontinc I's u70 t ZoZ+ SCC Onlirrc l'S 9l-5 'zoz+ scc ontinc ts 20_50 9 ETD,J MACMA Nos.539_-352-2021 S) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistenfly granting interest @Z.Syo on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. h) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.5%. Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. P INT N ln the resutt MACMA.No.539 of 2021 filed by the claimants is dismissed, while MACIIA No.352 of 2021 filed by the lnsurance Company is allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated

17.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.273 ot 2016 passed by the Chairman, [Vlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar, by reducing the compensation from 23.54,8001- to 22,86,2381- and reducing the rate of interest from 9o/o to 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. .However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are entifled to 10 MA(-MA Nos.539: 352 2021 . withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as airotted by the Tribunar. Nc,costs. Misceilaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appear, shari stand closed. SD/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ,\ OFFICER To, T"^dgy Judge, Ranga 1' The chairrnan Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District at LB Nagar. (with records,if any) 2. One CC to SriA S N-arayrnr, dJrocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SriA Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC:] 4. Two CD Copies W ABK/psl n +.' ,) i ai) w HIGH COURT DATED: 0710812025 COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.Nos.S39 & 352 OF 2021 Tl'li-s 1 g l'iiU 2fl5 ( o() ":1 .' .., ;, MACMA No.539 ot 2O21 is DISM|SSED WHTLE MACMA No. 352 of 2021 is ALLOWED \t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL Nos: 539 & 35 oF 2021 MOTOR AC CIDENT CIVIL MISCEL EO US APPEAL No.539 of 2021 Between:

1. Banothu Laxmi, Wo. Hussain, Aged about. 45years, Occ. Household, 2. Banothu Hussain, S/o. Pichu, Aged about. 54 years, Occ. Nil, Both are R/o.H.No.19-12, Bhagathsingh Nagar, Saroornagar, Rangareddy District. ...Appellants/Claimants AND

1. R.K Constructions, Rep. b Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. District. v R. Kowsik Narendran, S/o. Not known, Age Major, 2-2-56, Dabeerpuram, Medchal, Rangareddy

2. Magma HDI General lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep by its Branch lvlalager' - Naiin's Fresidium, 3rd Floor, NM Road, New No.17l19, OLD 103, D Block' 34 Nelson, Manickam Road, Chennai, Tamilnadu State-600029.

3. P. Appanna, S/o. Suryanarayana, Age. Major, Occ. Driver, R/o. Tekkali, Srikakulam, 4P.532427 . ...RespondentslResPondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in O.P.No.273 of 2016 dated 17-06-2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at LB Nagar. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 352 OF 2021 Between: Maoma HDI General lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep.by its Branch Manag,er, Naiins Fresidium, 3rd floor, NM Road, New No.17l19,-Old 103, D Block, 3A, Nelson, Manickam Road, Chennal-600029,Tamilnadu State. ...AppellanUResPondent No.2 AND

1. Banothu Laxmi, w/o Hussain, aged 48 years, Occ. Household

2. Banothu Hussain, S/o Pichu, aged 49 years. Respondents 1 and 2 R/o H.No.'19-13, Bhagathsingh Nagar, Saroornagar, RR' Diskict, Telangana State. ...Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Petitioners

3. R.K. Constructions, Rep.by R.Kowsik Narendran s/o not known, Aqed Maior, Occ. Buqlness, Ryo H.No.2-2-S6, Dabeerpura, Medchat, Ranga Refdy District, Telangana state 501 40i .

4. P.Appanna, S/o Suryanarayana, Aged. Major, Occ. Driver R/o Tekkali,Snikakulam-532427, AP ...Respondent No.3 & 4/Respondent No.3 & 4 Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 273 of 2016 dated 17-06-2020 on the fite of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the rnaterial papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A Rama Krishna Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 ln MACMA No.539 of 2021 and for the Appellant in MACMA No. 352 ol 2021and of Sri A S Narayana, Counsel for the Claimants in MACMA No.539 of 2021 and for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in MACMA No. 352 of 2021. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA No.539 of 2021 filed by the Claimants is dismissed

2. That the MACMA No.352 of 2021 flled by the Insurance Company is allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated '17.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.l,ilo.273 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional' District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, LB Nagar, by reducing the comperrsation from 23,t- to 22,86,238| and reducing the rate of interest54,800ate of interest from 9ok to 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. However, the interest for the period of delay, if ar.ry, is forfeited.

4. That the lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

5. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHAN STANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at LB Nagar.

2. Two CD Copies W ABK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 0710812025 DECREE MACMA.Nos.539 & 352 OF 2021 MACMA No.539 of 2O21 is DISM|SSED WHILE MACMA No. 352 ol 202'l is ALLOWED 1 \D