The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.J.SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: None appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.363 ()F. 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated o5.o3.202o in M.v.o.p.No.300o of 2014 passed by the Motor vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") .

2. For convenience and clarit5r, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on

13.o8.2o14 at about 8:0o p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on Motor bike bearing No.AP-23-AK-6081 driven by one chakali Kumar in a rash and negligent manner and when they reached outskirts of Koyagundu Thanda, the rider applied sudden break, due to which the deceased fell down from the motor bike and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy and from there to Gandhi Hospital for better treatment, where she succumbed to injuries on I4.O8.2018. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.8,OO,OOO l-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. ) 2 ETD,J MACMA No.363_2021 5' The respondent No.2 has fited co,nter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occu.rrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the crime vehicle is not insured with them and that the rider of the crime vehicle was not holding vatid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their comparr]r is not liable to pay compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial court has framed the following issues for trial:- t.

3. Whether the accident took place due ta tle rash and. :g]rS:t driuing of the driuer of Hero Honda Splend.or PlQ.Mgtor Cgcle bearing No.Ap-23-AL_AOU cau^strq death of Chakali Bhommnmma? Whetler the petitioner is entitled.for @flq)ensation. If so, to what amount and from whomi To tuhat relieJ? 7 ' To prove their case , the petitioner got examined pws I and 2 and got marked Exs.A.l to.46. on behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced, but Ex.Bl was marked with consent.

8. Based the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded Rs'6,94,ooo/- of compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

9. Heard Sri l(asireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counser for the appellant and Sri N. J Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3 ETD,J MACMA No.363 2021

10. The appellant counsel has argued that the Tribunal has not considered to add the future prospects of the deceased and has awarded lesser compensation and also that the Tribunal failed to award reasonable amounts under conventional heads. He therefore prayed to enhance the compensation. 1 1. The respondents counsel, on the other hand has submitted that no future prospects need to be considered in this case and that the deceased was a daily wage labourer as per the averments of the petition and that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,200/- per month. He further argued that the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation and that there is no need to interfere with the said award and decree and hence prayed to uphold the same.

12. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Wtether the claimant is entitled. to enhancem.ent of compensation?

2. Wlether tlrc Order and Decree of tte Tribunat need. ang interferenre ?

3. To what relief ?

13. Point No.1: a) PWl is the husband of the deceased. He asserted that his '*'ife used to work as daily wage labourer and used to earn "\ Rs.3OO/- per day. No proof can be expected in this regard. 4 ETD,J MACMA No.363 2021 c) In Ranrz,cltandrappa Vs. Manage4 Rogal Sundaram Alliance rnsurance compang Limited,t, the Apex court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,Soo /- per month can be safely taken as the income. In the present case, the deceased is a daily wage labourer and used to earn Rs.300/- per day as per the contention of the claim petitioners. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas,s case, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,s0o/- per month. d) As per'the dicta laid down in Nortiono,l rnsuro,nce compang Limited vs. Pranag sethi & othersz, 4oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 3g yea-rs, adding 4oo/o towards future prospects i.e., 4500+1g00 would give Rs.6,3OO/- per month, which comes to Rs.6,3OO/_ x L2 = Rs.75,6OO/- per annum. e) since there is only one claimant who is the husband of the deceased 1/3.0 needs to be deducted. Thus after deduction of l/3ra the annual income comes to Rs.50,4ool- i.e., (Rs.75,6oo-2s,2oo). e) The Post Mortem Examination Report. filed under Ex.A4 reveals the age of the deceased as .3g, years. The multiplier should tlzot t; t2 scc 2j6 2 Rtn 2017 scc s1s7 5 ETD,J MACMA No.363_2021 be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs. Dethi Transport Corporation3, the deceased being aged '38'years, the appropriate multiplier is '15'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.7,56,OOOl- (Rs.50,400 x 15). In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.15O00/- towards loss 0 of estate and Rs.15,O0O/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,O0O/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by LOo/o every three years. g) In Magma General Insurattce Compang Lhnited. a. Nanu Rtlm @ Chuhnt Ram and othersa, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Setfti'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 claimant would get Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation arnount under this head would be Rs.48,4OOl- instead of Rs.40,O0O/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. h) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts: - t zoog (o) scc r2 r '1zort; t8 scc r3o ! / 6 ETD,J MACMA No.363_2021 1

4. Compensation trnder the head ofloss ofdependency Compensation loss of consortium io Ure Rs.7,56,OOO/- Rs.48,4gtg7- Compensation towards loss of estate Compensation er(penses Rs.18,15O/- Rs.18,15O/- Rs.E,4O,7OOI- i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.g,4o,7ool- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,94,ooo/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. L4. .2: 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.g,4o,7oo/- from that of Rs.6,94,OOO l- that is awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated o5.o3.2o2o in M.v.o.p.No.3ooo of 2oL4 passed by the Motor vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad, enhancing tlte compensation from Rs.6,94,0oo/- to g,4o,Too/- and the - enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ T.svo pcr \ annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the L 7 ETD.J MACMA No.353 2021 interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The appettant shall pay the deficit Court fee. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from tlre date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. i ,ITRUE COPY" \ To, SD'. N.SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad'

1. The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional chief z. one CC to SriJ;sai[p;l ir.iov Kasi ReddY,-^gygcate [oPUCl 5. on; CC io Sri rllJ.Stinit Kumar, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies KHATVB W HIGH GOURT ATED:25/0612025 j i I I I NT+DECREE MACMA.No.363 ot 2021 I'HE o oc R I i jjiil ijij * PARTLV ALLOWNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 'f) u r0 t31441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENW FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 363 OF 2021 Between: Chakali Bethaiah, S/o.Chakali Malkaiah Aged. 50 Years, Occ. Labour, Residents of H.No.2-54, Kothapet, Uthloor, Shankarampet (A) Mandal, Medak District, Presently Resident of H.No.4-3-125lA, Hanuman Tekdi, Kothi, Hyderabad. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. Ch. Rajkumar, S/o Ch. Bethaya Aged Major, Occ. Business Resident of H.No 11718OU1, Medak District - 502032.

2. National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Babu khan Estate, Plot No.611, 6th Floor, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...RespondentslRespondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.3000 of 2014 dated 05/03/2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 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 appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri N.J.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and none appeared for respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed. 2. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced form Rs.6,94,000/- to Rs.8,40,700/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.SYo per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

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

4. That the appellant shall pay the deficit Court fee. The respondents are 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.

6. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD'. N.SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER Xl Additional Chief /,TRUE COPY/' To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies KHA{VB M / HIGH COURT DATED:2510612025 DECREE MACMA.No.363 ot 2O21 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WTTHOUT COSTS 'ly[ I0