The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSIT{G RAO ilATDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.N o.525 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: The appellants/claimants hled the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam, (hereinafter referred to TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2OI7, dated 26.12.2019.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appetlants/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2Ol7 under Secljon 166'of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased i.e., mother of the appellants/claimants, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligenl manner of the JCB driver while demoiishing the compound wall. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that, on 25.12.2015 at about

04.00 p.m., the deceased was standing near the ,:ompound wall, however, the driver of the JCB without taking proper care demolished the compound wall resulting which the compound wall fell on the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. The Police registered a case, vide Crime No.29l /2015, under Section 3Oa(A) of IPC agajnst the driver and owrler of the JCB. The t 2 appellants/claimants claimed Rs. 10,00,00O /- for ttre above death of the deceased under various heads, as compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 (or.mer of JCB) and respondent No.2 (Driver of the JCB) remained exparte. Respondent No.3 frled a counter-af{idavit denying all the allegations made in the petition.

4. After going into the entire material placed on record and the evidences placed by both the parites, the Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.4,9O,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per arrnum.

5. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is frled assailing the same on the ground that deceased was working as coolie and earning Rs.9,00O/- per month, but the Tribuna_l without considering the deceased occupation has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,OOO/- per month which is meager and the same is contrary to law, evidence on record. The Tribunal has not awarded interest from 13.03.2019 to 26.12.2019 on the compensation awarded is without any reason and the Tribunal I 3 ought to have awarded interest since the date of petition to its realization arrd further argued that the Tribunal ought not have computed the paS,.rnent of amount of Rs. 1,O0,O00/- which is paid by the owner of the neighbor house.

6. Learned counsel for the appeilants/claimants further contended that the Tribunal has examined the pW2 who is eye_ witness to the accident and come to conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part ol' driver of. the JCB and also due to account of lack of forewarning. However, while grarrting compensation to the appellalts/claimants, the Tribunal has failed to follow the guidelines of the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as settled legal position. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rellance General Insurance Comp. L,td vs Shcshi S/rtolrrln-a. & Orsr regarding payment of amounts as ex-gratia.

7. l,earned counsel for the appellants/claimants would further submit that without any basis, the Tribunal hxed the deceased,s t Nn 2ot6 sc 4<6 I I 4 total income as Rs.S,OOO/- per month' on the ground that the appellants/claimants have not produced the Income Certifrcate of the deceased and further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under different heads; and therefore' theamountawardedbytheTribunalisverymeagerand unjustifrable.

8. l,earned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submits thatafterconsideringtheevidenceavailableonrecord'theTribunal has awarded just comPensatlon' which needs no interference' g. The frnding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner m which the accident took place has become frnal, as tf.e respondents did not choose to challenge the same'

10. The only point arises in this appe'al is only with regard to the monttrly income of the deceased and the entitlement of enhanced compensation, as the respondent have not raised any objection with regard to age, avocation of the deceased or the place of the accident 1 1. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident and the aeceaJed was aged about 45 years as per postmortem report I i 5 (Ex.A4). PW2, u,ho is the eye-witness to the accident has narrated the incident before the Tribuna,l. The evidence of eye witness coupled with findings of final investigation clearly establishes rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the JCB. Since, deceased was self-employed and working as toolie, the claimants co,ld not produced the Income certificate to substantiate h,3r claim. In this regard, it is imperative to look into the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhua us. .State of Bihata held that even u.hen there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed regarding the ground realities.

12. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, and for considenng the quantum of compensation, it is necessar5r to ascertain the actual income of the ,leceased. The appellants/claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs.9,OOO/- per month by doing coolie, but the Tribunal frxed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/_, which is very meager and in the absence of any proof of income, considering the deceased age as 45 years and deceased avocation as coolie. It is not 'z 2ooi (B) spc 197 ) ) i I I ,i, 6 in dispute that deceased was working as coolie. Hence considering the ground realities and that the women of age of 45 years who is hale ald health would obviously would earn Rs.25O/- per day and tJre monthly income would be Rs.7,500/-. Hence, the deceased income can be notionally taken as Rs.7,500/-. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National hlsuranrce Cornpang Linlted Vs. Pranag Sethi and others3 ald considering the age of the deceased as 45 years, additional 25%o of the'income would be added towards future prospect to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,375/- (Rs.7,50O/- + Rs. 1,875/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,12,50O/- (Rs.9,375/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are two in number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.75,0OO/- (Rs. 1,12,500/- (-) Rs.37,50O/-). As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Venna o. Delhi T'ransport Corporation+, and the age of the deceased being 45 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the r 2017 AcJ ztn o zowt61298 (sc) I 7 deceased's age is ,14,. Thus, the tota-l loss of dependency would come to Rs. i0,50,0O0 / _ (ZS,OOO / _ x Ml. 13 The appelrants/craimants are further entitred to Rs.1g, r50/_ (Rs.15,000/- + rook + 1o%) towards ross of estate and Rs. 1g,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + lOVo + lOr/ol towards funeral expenses. as per Pranag Sethi (supra).

14. Further, considering the fact that appellants/claimants being son and daughter of the deceased is entitled ro a sum of Rs.48,400/- each i.e., to a sum of Rs.96,8OO / - (2 x .+B,aO0) towards loss of parental consortium, as per Pra.ncrg Sethi (supra).

15. As righrly held by the Tribunal, that Rs. 1,00,O00/ was received by the appellants/claimants from the owner of the compound wall (house owner) and not paid by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore. there is no obligation on the parr of respondent No.3 to reimburse such amount to the owner of thr: house, hence Rs.1,0o,000/- w,l be deducted from the compensation amount and the judgment which is relied upon by the appellants in lVctional Insuance Co.Ltd. u. Blnd.ender and otherF is of not much help to s zozo 121 1-o r< lscy ) I 8 the appellants as the facts being totally different with that of the present case on hand, I d.o not see any error committed by the Tribunal in deducting. the said amount as the said amount are received consequent to the said accident which led to fatality of the deceased.

16.InSarlaVerrno'scc.se(citedaboue)'theHon'bleApex Court, while elaborating the concept of Just compensation' observed as under: "Post compensation is adeqtate compensation rtthich is foir and equitable on tlrc facts and circumstances of the case' to make good the loss suffered as a result of the utrong' as far as moneg can do so, bg applging, the uell settled principles relating to autard of comlsensation. It is not intended to be a bonant-z'a' largesse or source of profit.'

17. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings' material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions. I am of the definite opinion that the claimalts are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modifred d recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference 9

18. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) ,Annual Income (of the deceased) ii) .7,5oOl Xt2 = Rs.9O,OOO/- Total Annua1 Income : Annua-l Income + Future I Prospects (Annual Income X 257o) = Rs.90,OOO/- + Rs.22,5OO/- Rs. i,12,50O/- iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of tJ:e deceased iu) v) i l Rs.1,12,50o/- ( ) Rs.37,500/- Rs.75,OOO/- Total. Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.75,0OO/- x 14 Rs10,56000/- Claimartts' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + + Pa.rental Consortium = Rs. 18,15O/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.96,8Oo/ Total: vi) ,Already arnount received by appellant Total Rs.1J3,100/- Rs.11,83,100 (-) 1,00,003/- Rs.10,83,0971r

19. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entifled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1O,83,O97 l' as against the awa:'ded amount of Rs.4,9O,000/- by the Tribunal.

20. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7 .5 o/o per annlrm and the 10 sarne needs no interference by this Court. Except coming to the aspect of disallowing of the interest for the period of 13.03'2019 to

26.12.2019, as seen from the Award there is no reason cited why the said interest part for the said period was disa-llowed' In the absence of any reason, the same has to be restored back' Hence, t.l"is Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for interest for the said period.

21. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the er-rhanced compensation of Rs. 1O,83 ,O97 I - as against the awarded amount of Rs.4,9O,00O I - by the Tribunal.

22. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1O,83,O97 l-- Accordingly, the M'A'C'M'A is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs'4,9O,00O/- to Rs' 1O,83,O9?/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Ninty Seven rupees only) with interest at the rate of 7 'Soh p'a' on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from I / ( To 11 receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaleous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR l'\ ,l\- \.peclotl oFFlcER *

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cunr- District Judge, at Khammam. (With Records if anY)

2. One CC to SRI M V VENU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mrs l MAAMU VANI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.525 ot 2020 1 a I 6 5 o o 21 lt\fifl z$n \{ (. !. |. * / // ALLOWED IN THE HIGH COURT FOR-THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY-, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry iIVi' ' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACC IDENT CIVIL MISCELLA NEO US APPEAL NO:5250 F 2020 Between: ' 8,ilt;,i#:' sai Krishna, s/o. late Dhan Raj, Aged 25 years, occ: pvt ' f:ii'a$:frli#ffiff" wo'Moureswara Rao, D/o rate Dhan Raj, ased 23 5-2-64' Santhi nasar area, Mission Hospitar road. Khammam 3,i|rTl"oil,|,3i AND ...APPELLANTS/CLAIM PETITIONERS

1. thalla Koteswara Rao. bearinsNorsoisins,,?u{?15:il!t{frTfr!l?,i"i;",","-,3siB,,o:,r., camp, Burhanpuram, Khammam -citv ano bilAi.". 'lflh$?,fl#ilffi ,35,,.1ff :ffi fi?ilY]?;:_?,:d,._?:i1t3e]s.&i ' ilir?f,l:[:,1['#,liiff f"",il]ft"ilo.r,li,i:r.,:lJi: ',.,.rlH[*"B n:"iJ,T6". ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appear fired under Section 173 0f Motor vehicres Act., against the Judgment and decree' made in M'V o.p.No. 343 0F 2017 dared. 26.12.201gon the fire of the chairman' Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- District Judge, at Khammam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and the materiar papers in the MVop and upon hearing the arguments of sRl. M v VENU, Advocate for the apperant and of Mrs. l. MAAMU VANI, Counset for the Respondent No.3. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,90,000/- to Rs.10,83,0971 (Rupees Ten lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Ninty Seven Rupees only) with interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization;

2. fhat the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount alreadl/ deposited, if any within two months from receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

3. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/ claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal;

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lowe court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ;$,r*ri,"i* 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, at Khammam. 2. fwo CD Copres To ,,/ '1 HIGH COURT DATED:07 tO2tZO2S DECREE MACMA.No.S2S of 2020 ALLOWED 4 ,lzk' l