The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggriev€( by the Order and Decree dated 26.02.2011 in tr/.V.O.P.No.2183 O 2O11 passed by the Chairman, the tVlotor Accident Claims Tr irunal-cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) CitT Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal")

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribr r al is that on

13.07 201'1 at about 3:30 p.m., while the deceased vrrs proceeding to his house on a motor bike and when he reached opt osite to JNTU bus stop, in the mean time one Lorry bearing No.AP-1' U-5105 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner at a hi, rh speed and dashed the motor bike, as a result the deceased fell c own and died on the spot. The petitioners sought a compensation of {s g,00,0001.

4. The respondent No.'l remained ex-parte. E \_ The respondent No.2 filed counter denying thr: averments of the petition wrth regard to the occurrence of the ::cident, age, 2 ETD,I MACMA N0.659 2021 avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the driver of the lorry did not have valid driving license as on the date of accident and that their company is not liable to pay any com pensation

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- "1 2 Whether pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, C Ravi, due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (Lorry bearing registration No AP-1 1-U-5105) by its driver? Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to 4'6. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced. 8 Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.8,84,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation / 3 ETD,] l.lACMA No.559 2021 L Heard the submissions of Sri T. Vishwarupa )hary, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.S Bhaskaril Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 '10. Learned counsel for the appellant's has sui,r titted that the tribunal has failed to consider the Salary Certificirl : filed by the claimants and has assessed the income of the decea sed to be very low as Rs.6,0001 per month. He further submitted th I the deceased used to work as a Supervisor in M/s Chekuru Constr.r ;tions and that he relied upon Ex.A6 which proves the salary of thrr therefore. prayed to consider the same and deceased and enhance the compensation lt is his further contention that even in he absence of any proof, the Apex Court has held that Rs.'15,000/- r; rn be taken as a notional income in case of a vegetable vendor in / laheshwari & Others Vs. Ramachandran & Othersl .

11. The learned counsel for the respondents on tte other hand has contended that there is 2,675 days of delay in lil ng the appeal and that the interest for the said delay may be forfei ed. He further argued that Ex.A6 was not proved before the tribunal and that there is no document filed by the claimant to prove that the leceased was working with the construction company. He further arg ued that there l02trLawsuir (SC) I joa, 4 ETD,] MACMA No.659 2021 is discrepancy in the statements of witnesses. pW2, who is the brother of the deceased has stated in his complaint that his deceased brother used to do Sand Business, whire pw1 states that he used to work in construction company. Therefore. the claimants have not approached the Court with clean hands and hence, Ex.A6 was rightly discarded by the tribunal. He therefore, prayed to confirm the award of the tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the claimants are compensation? entitled to enhancement of

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunat need any inteierence?

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:- a) The contention of the appellants is that the tribunal has failed to consider the salary certificate fired by the craimants before the tribunal. Ex.A6 is the Original Salary Certificate issued by pW3 b) PW3/C.Hanumanthu Naidu is the Managing partner in M/s Chekuru. Constructions and he deposed that the deceased used to 5 ETD,] MACMA No.659 2021 work as a Supervisor in their Company and used to l aw a salary of Rs.14,5001 per month. c) The contention of the respondent counse I is that it is mentioned in the complaint given by PW2 that the drl :eased used to do Sand Business and thus, his contention is that : x.A6 is a false certiflcate. A perusal of the complaint reveals the aid fact, PW2 admitted the same during his evidence. d) The Post Mortem Examination Report revealr; the age of the deceased as '35' years. Thus, the deceased was t ged '35' years and was running a family of four members 1.e., wif r, children and mother. Therefore, he must have been into some a\( cation of doing Sand Business or working in a Construction Com6 i ny to maintain his family. e) The appellant counsel has further relied uc >n Raiwati @ Rajjio and others Vs. United lndia lnsurance Cor pany Ltd and Othersz;wherein it was held that the salary certifice :e and pay slip of the deceased are conclusive proof of the income I the deceased. ln the said case, the claimants have filed the tr ay slip of the deceased. ( r) ALr 47 (sc) Y2r \ \ 5 ETD,J MACMA No 659 2021 f) The claimant counsel has further relied upon Maheshwari & Others Vs. Ramachandran & Others3; wherein the deceased was running a Vegetable Shop and he was also selling beverages and was aged '44' years, met with an accident in the year 20.1 5 and died. The tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.B,000l while the High Court has enhanced the noilonal income to be Rs..10,0001, and the Apex Court has assessed the income to be Rs.15,000/_ per month. But the facts of the above cited decisions differ from those in the present case. S) ln the said case, the accident occurred in the year 2015, while in the present case, the accident occurred in2011 and in the above citied decision, the deceased used to sell vegetables and beverages, while in the present case, there is a discrepancy as to the avocation of the deceased, in the crime record it is stated as Sand Business, while the petitioner has stated that he used to work in a construction Company. PW3 is examined but he has not filed any record to show that he engaged the services of the deceased, but for filing the salary certificate issued on his Letter head. The deceased was an able bodied person, aged '35' years and maintaining a family of four members. Thus, in these circumstance, it is opined that considering the t'ge of the deceased and the fact that he was maintaining a ) ' 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1506 7 ETD,J MACMA No.6s9 2021 family of four members, this Court holds that asser; ing the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,0001 would be just and r asonable h) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsu' nce Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sefhi & Othersa,40% of the ir come needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceerl ed is aged '35' years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., B,l )0+3,200 would give Rs.11,2OOl- per month, which comes to Rs 1,2OOL x 12 = Rs.1,34,400/- per annum. i) The number of claimants herein are four anc therefore, 1/4th deduction need to be made to his income tr> vards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,00,8001 ( ts.1 ,34,400/- (-) Rs.33,600/-) j) The multiplier should be chosen with regard t r the age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in { arla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporationu, the deceased beinly aged '35' years, the appropriate multiplier is '16'. Therefore, the losl of dependency is assessed as Rs.15,12,800/- (Rs.'1 ,00,800 x 16). 4 t AtR 2017 SCC 5157 20Uq (o) sCC l2 t I ) I I i I I I I ! ! i t l i t l I I i i i I I ! I I I I E ETD,] MACMA No.659 2021 k) ln the light of Pranay Sethis case, Rs 15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by look every three years l) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others', the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi'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.'1 ,93,600/- 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. m) ln all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts:- \ 1 Compensation under the head of loss of dependency 2 Compensation towards loss of consortium to the petitioner 3 Compensation towards loss of Rs.16,'12,800/- Rs.1,93,600/- Rs.18,150/- estate o 1:ors; ta scc t:o 9 ETD,J IACMA No 659 2021 4 Compensation towards funeral 1 Rs.18,150/- ENSCS I 1 1 1 s.18,42,7OO1- n) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.18,42,700/- while tlrr Tribunal has awarded Rs 8,84,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14 POTNT NO.2: a) lt is held that the order and decree of the Trilt rnal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensit on. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,42,70- - from that of RsB,84,000l that is awarded by the Tribunal b) Further it is observed that the tribunal has aw: r-ded interest @ 6%. However, this Court has been consistently avr rrding in all the cases the rate of interest @ 7.5% and the same is; awarded in this case also. \ \ t I t t I 10 ETD,] MACMA NO.659 2021 c) ln Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Anothe/; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. d) ln Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath Suresh and Otherss .and Nationat lnsurance Company Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Otherss; also interest @ 7 S% per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation. e) A Division Bench of this High Court in National lnsurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish prajapathilo; has granted 7.5 7o per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. 0' Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @7.Syo on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. S) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is increased to that of 7.5%. 1 Point No.2 is answered accordingly. ' 2o2Z SCC Onlinc TS 606 8 2023 SCC Online TS t095 e 2023 SCC Online TS t l70 'o 2024 scc ontine fs 2050 17 ETD,J MACMA No.659 2021

15. POTNT NO.3: ln the result. the appeal is partly allowed, moc fying the Order and Decree dated 26.02 2011 in M.V.O.P No.2183 )f 2011 passed by the Chairman, the Motor Accident Claims I 'ibu nal-cum-Xll I Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) C i y Civil Court, Hyderabad, by increasing the rate of interest from i% to 7.5ok per annum from the date of claim petition till r compensation is enhanced from Rs.8,84,000/- lalization The o 18,42,7001-. However, the interest for the period of delay if any s forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensat )n amount with accrued interest within a period of two months lr rm the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting t^ l amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claiman I are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any se( r Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in t" s appeal, shall stand closed. 1 I lLue aFr't I \ sD/- MoHD.tsMAtL \ '. : :PUTY REGISIR*R -'-'7 .. SECTION OFFICER / To, t,n B,'

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Ad na )hief Judge (Fast Track Court) City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate [OF JC] 3. One CC to SRl. N.S. BHASKARA RAO, Advocate IOPLI( )] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL i HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.659 of 2021 EI \ s14 oY c O t 2 J All 7175 .:g \tr^* * z e PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSi 'S 1 \ L ,b IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD l3aa,n1 FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 659 OF 2021 Between: 1. Smt. C. Madhavi, Wo. late C. Ravi, aged about 40 years, Occ- Household,

2. C. Pavan Kumar @ Pavan Kalyan, S/o. late C. Ravi, aged about 20 years, Occ Student,

3. C. Bhavani, Dio.late C. Ravi, aged about 19 years, Occ . Student,

4. Smt. Rangamma, Wo. Mallikarjun, Aged 64 years, Occ: Household All R/o. H.No.14-1-211 /536, Parvathnagar, Allapur, Hyderabad. .... CLAIMANTS/APPELLANT(S) AND

1. Anil Kumar Bachipally, S/o. Yadav Rao, aged.l\/ajor, Occ. . Business, R/o. D.No.5-2-558, Abdulla Osmangunj, Hyderabad

3. National lnsurance Co. Ltd., rep.by its Branch Manager, (Claims Hub), 5-8-468, 1St Floor, jubilee Buildings, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 26.02.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2183 o1r201 1 on the file of the court of the Chairman, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) City Civil Court, 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 case and upon hearing the argument of SRI T. VISHWARUPA CHARY, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondents No.1, and SRI N.S.BHASKARA RAO, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal t r allowed. and is hereby partly

2. That the rate of interest be and is hereby increased annum from the date of claim petition till realization. -om 6% to 7 5o/o per 3 4 That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced ,.om Rs.B,B4.OO0A to 18,42,7001- and the interest for the period of delay if any is forfeited That the respondents are hereby directed to depc r it the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two m: rths from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the I mount if any already deposited. That on such deposit by the respondents, the claimants; rre hereby entifled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securij) . t) That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL :PUTY REGISTRAR T} SECTION OFFICER ior i I Chief Judge (Fast lftrue Copyll To

1. The lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Track Court) City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL ry/ HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.659 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COIJ TS L \, b