The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA [)EVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.537 0F 2o2t JUDGMENT: This appcal is hled by the claimants aggrier, ecl bv the order and decree dated 18.11.2O2O in O.P.No.273 of 2018 passed by the Motor Acci,lents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Distnct Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar (for short "the T-ibunal").

2. For convcnience and clarity, the parties herei:t are referred to as they u,ere arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The ,:ase of the claimants beforc the Tribrut zrl is that on

22.02.2018 at zrbout 03.OO P.M., the deceased and his father were proceeding to Nampally in Nalgonda District fronL Hyderabad in order to piry open 10th class exam fee on their spler-rdor bike bearing No. AP 09 AM-9360; that when they reachcd near Pipes Company, ,{gapally Village, respondent No.3, being the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-24-W-4196 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike o[ the deceascd in opposite direction, due to which, the deceased died on th,: spot and his father sustained multiple fractures and was shif tect to Nizam,s Institute of Medical Sciences. It is their case that the deceased used to work as a Bike Team Technician in Skyway Networks prior to the acciclent and earning Rs. 11,OO0/- per mon _h and he was als\ earning Rs.9,OOO/- per month by working as Fart time driver 2 ETD,I MACMA No.537 2021 and in total earning Rs.2O,OOO/- per month. Thcy claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,0OO/ -.

4. Respondent Nos.1 & 3 hled a counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the deceased and further contended that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the lorry driver but due to the negligence of the deceased. It is further stated that the father of the deceased being a pillion rider on the bike tried to arrange helmet on his son (deceased) while the bike was moving and due to the same, there was obstruction to the vision of his son and as he was driving the bike at a high speed, he himself came and dashed the lorry.

5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and further contended that the deceased who was riding the bike at the time of accident was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident, that the driver of the lorry - respondent No.3 was also not holding valid driving license and thus insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether accident occurred on 22.02.2018 at 145 P.M near pipes company at Agapally village, Manchal Mandal, R.R.District due to rash and negligent driving of torry bearing No.AP-24W-4196 by the respondent No.3 herein? 3 ETO,J \4ACMA No.537 2021 2) \\'hether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respo:-rdent? 3) To what relieP

7. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 wer,: exarnined and Exs.A. 1 to A.8 were marked on behalf of the 1>etitioners. No witnesses were examined for the respondents trut Ex.B.l was marked. B. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 15,35,8O0/ -. Aggrieved by the said a',r'ard, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seekinll enhancement.

9. Heard the submission of Sri A.S.Narayana, carned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-lnsuralce Company.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submittecl that the Tribunal has failed in applying the principles and guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court and granted meager artount towards compensation and also contended that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be very low and also that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hor-r'ble Apex Court that for loss of consortium, loss of estate and amounts towards funeral expenses were to be revised ever5 three years @ 10%o and thus they prayed to enhance the compensation by setting aside the order and decree ofthe Tribunal. 4 ETD,.J MACMA No.537 2021

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation and that there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination : 1 2 a Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? To what relieP IJ POINT NO.1: a) It is asserted by the appellants that the deceased used to earn Rs.2O,OOO/- per month by working as a Bike Team Technician in S\,way Networks and also by working as a part time driver. Appellants have filed Exs.A.6 to A.8 in support of their contention with regard to the income of the deceased. Ex.A.6 is the salary certificate of the deceased issued by Skyway Networks. In Ex.A.6 dated 20.03.2O18, it is mentioned that deceased used to work as Bike Technician in Sk],way Networks company from O1.O7.2O17 to 31. iO.2O17 arrd that he is paid a salary of Rs.11,000/-. Ex.A.7 is the driving license of the deceased and it is valid from ll.I2.2OI4 to 1O.12.2034. Ex.A.S is the salary certificate issued by Jesus Grace Church Ministries wherein it is mentioned that the deceased used to draw monthly salary of .,/ *w..:r'f i I I I 5 EID,] MACMA No.537 2021 Rs.9,00O/-. P.W.3 is Rev.Dr. M.S. Dayanand wh,r issued Ex.A.8. P.W.4-G.Naresh Babu is the team leader in Skl.way Networks who deposed vrith regard to Ex.A.6. In his cross-er.amination it is elicited thzrt he has not filed any document to sL orv that he has paid salary to the deceased but he stated that hd p rid him in cash. Thus, the petitioners tried to place it on record that the deceased used to work in Skyway Network and also in Jesus (irace Church Ministries :end used to earn Rs.20,OOO/- per monttL. Too technical approach cannot be adopted in such cases. On a reasonable hypothesis, this Court finds that it is just and reasonirble to assess the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. IO,OOO/ per month. b) As pr:r the dicta laid down in National fnsur ance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Othersl, 40ok of the rncome needs to be added tcu,ards future prospects. Ex.A.4 / p. M. li report shows that the dt:ceased is aged 23 years. Therefore, -r1, adding 4O% towards future prospects would give Rs. 14,000/ (Rs. 1O,OOO/-+ 4O%= Rs.14,000/-) per month, which comes to Rs. 4,000/ _ x 12 = Rs. 1,68,O00/ - per annum. c) The deceased is a bachelor and hence 5001, ol the deduction need to be made to his income towards personal exl)cnses and this would come up to Rs.84,0OO/- (Rs. 1,68,000/- (-) Rs 8a,OO0/-). 1 AIR 2017 SCC s157 .\ 6 ETD,J MACMA No.537 2021 d) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A.4 reveals the age of the deceased as 23 years. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Venna a. Delhi Ttansport Corporation2. The deceased being aged 23 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes up to Rs. 15,12,OOO/- (Rs.8a,000/- X 18 : Rs. 15, 12,000/-). e) In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.40,00O/ - towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,0OO/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It was further held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by 1O7o for every three years. In the light of the same, Rs.18,15O/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,15O/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. 0 In Magma General Insurance Comgtang Llmited a. Nanu Ram @ Chuhra Ram and other€, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Sethi's case and has further held that 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,a00/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,aOOl- X 2 = Rs.96,800/-). Therefore, the 'z zooe 1o; sqq.rz t 'lzora) rs{cc t:o 1 ETD,J MACMA No.537 2021 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.15,35,8OO/- to thatof Rs.16,45,1OO/-. Point \o.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2: ln vjeu, of the hnding arrived at point No. i, i is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to bc modifiecl and accordingly cornpensation granted by the Tribunal to tht: extent of Rs. 15,35,8O0/ - is enhanced to Rs. 16,45, 10O/-. i5. POINT NO.S: In tire result, the MACMA filed by the petirioners is partly allowed, rnodifying the order and decree dated I 8. I I .2O2O in O.P.No.27il of 2O 18 passed by the Motor Ar.cirlents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Rcddy District, at L.B.Nagar, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15,35,800/- to Rs.16,45,1O0 I ar.d the enhanced amount of conrpcnszrtion shalt carry interest ki. 7 .5 Vo per annum from the date 0f claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of dclay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent Nos.l to 3 are directecj 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 appellants are entitled to withdraw the said irmount without I ETD,] MACMA No.s37 2021 6 furnishing any securit5z, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. To, SD/.A.SREENIVASA REODY ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ' il;s;;;;;y oiiirict' at L B Nasar'(with records' if anv) l.TheMotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-Cum-llAdditionalDistrictJudge, 2. One CC to Sri A. S. Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N.S Bhaskara Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies VH/PSL /ta't4),- ".- .:::.::- i.]:j-_, l: . r ! -.1 ,: ipr .,::. ..',,.i, 1tt? lffi il ')' ' _^. sL-\ l,L) 1 ', - ;.t '"i..F rt,.., ,' i'i,, ., ,^il'.',,.-. ; ' -:l:i.': -. HIGH COURT DATED: 1110412025 JUDGMENT+DEGREE MACMA.No.S37 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \r! Cv IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry F|VE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 537 OF 2021 Between:

1. Smt. Palleti Chandrakala, Wo. P. Chandraiah, Aged about.43 years, Occ.Service,

2. Palleti Chandraiah, S/o. Late P. Sailu, Aged about.5l years, Occ. Service, 3. P. Swathi, D/o. P. Chandraiah Aged aboul.24 years, Occ.Student, 4. P. Swetha, D/o. P. Chandraiah Aged about.19 years, Occ.Household, All are R/o.H.No.11-2'1-357, N.T.R Nagar, LB Nagar, Saroornagar, R.R District. ...APPELLANTS/CLAI MANTS AND

1. Bheem Singh Rathod, S/o. Rathod Kalu Singh, Aged. It/lajor, Occ. Business, R/o. Omlanaik Tanda, Tateepally. Village, Peddemul Mandal, Rangareddy District.T.S 501141 .

2. The Bajaj Alliance General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep by its Manager, lV Floor, North East plaza, Beside BMW Showroom, Yarramanzil X Road, Hyderabad 3. Tabrez MD, S/o. Shaik Mehbub, Aged about.38 years, Occ. Lorry Driver, Rio. H. N0.2-1 -1 /295, NTR Colony, Tandur, Vikarabad District, T.S-50 1'l 4 1 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section '173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree dated 18.11.2020 passed in M.V. O.P. NO.273 o'f 2O18 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar. 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A-S. Narayana, Advocate for the appellant -..4.:.. .t, .: and of Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, Counsel for the Responlent No.2. and none appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the appeal filed by the petitioners be and hereby is partly allowed, modifying the order and decree dated 18.1'1.2020 in O P.No. 273 of 2018 passed by the lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Curn-ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, enhancing .he compensation from Rs. 15,35,8001 to Rs. 16,45,100/- and the enhanced amount of compensation,shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o p.a from thr: date of claim petition till realization;

2. That the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two mcnths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited;

3. That on such deposit, the appellants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal- SD/ $REENIVASA REDDY IqTANT REGISTRAR \ Secrroru oFFrcER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional Drstrict Judge, Rangareddy Diskict, at L.B.Nagar.

2. Two CD Copies VIJ/PSI, ry' HIGH COURT DATED: 1110412025 DECREE MACMA.No.537 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I 11/ $