The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieve r by the Order and Decree dated 15.04.2021 in tVl.V.O.P No.100 of 2)18 passed by the Chairman, [Vlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cunr Vlll Additional District Judge, ttilahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal' .

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribrr ral is that on

06.02.2018 at about 12:30 p.m., the deceased who wr ; working as a lorry driver, went on his work, has unloaded empty bot les of his lorry at Chitoor and when returning to Hyderabad, in h s Eicher Lorry bearing No.TS-07-UC-9801, and while going to Paturr- H-Wada bus stop on Chitoor-Kadapa road, another lorry bearin.l No.TN-52-H- 2175 werc going from Pileru towards Chitoor, bein,; driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came to the rig ht side of the road, and hit the lorry of the deceased in opposite dir:;tion, causing him multiple bleeding injuries, due to which the dece ased died on the spot. They sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,00( t-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 remained ex-parte i ETD,] MACMA No.562 2021

5. The respondent No.4 filed counter denying the averments of 2 the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the driver of the lorrv did not possess valid driving license and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration :- 1 2 3 Whether the accident occurred on 06.02.2018 at 1430 hours. cpposite to Paturu H.Wada bus stop, on road, paunthalapattu Mandal. Chittor District was due to rash and negligent driving ot the lorry bearing NC.TN-52-H-21t5 driver and whether it is resulted n causing death of the deceased-Late E.Venkat Reddy? Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? lf so, to what amount, and from whorn? To what relief?

7. To prove her case, the petitioners got examined pWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,60,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant had preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. I I ./ 3 ETD,J MACMA No.562 2021 L Heard the submissions of Sri Venkatesh r )upta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T. Sanjay K. Singh, I rarned counsel for respondent No.4.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has subrritted that the deceased used to earn Rs.25,000/- towards salary ani in addition he used to get batta whenever he went out on drivirr and that the tribunal has taken very low amount of Rs.9,0001 as lt s earnings per month and thus, has arrived at a meager amount of :ompensation. The Supreme Court has held in 2011 that in car; r of a driver, Rs.'1 0,000/- can be taken as monthly income. He furt r:r argued that the tribunal has taken wrong multiplier and also has awarded very low amount towards consortium. Therefore, he pray: J to enhance the same by following the principles laid down by the A rex Court.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the ot ter hand has submitted that the deceased is stated to be a lorry c -iver, but the petitioners failed to prove as to the details of avocatic,r whether the deceased was driving a heavy goods vehicle or : small lorry. Therefore, the tribunal has righfly granted the conr rensation by assessing the monthly income as Rs.9,000/-. He furth,: . argued that the accident occurred when the vehicles were goin; in opposite direction and thus, contributory negligence of the decr ased has to be taken into consideration which was not done byt th: tribunal. He ,l I 4 ETO,J MACMA No.562 2021 further argued that the petitioners failed to file any proof of age of the deceased and thus, they cannot dispute the multiplier applied by the tribunal. He further argued that the decision relied upon by the appellant counser pertains to compensation under the workmen,s Compensation Act. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case. He further argued that the tribunal has granted high rate of interest @ g,/o per annum and prayed to reduce the same to 7.5%.

12. ln view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:_ I 2 Whether the claimant compensation? is entitled lo enhancement of Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference ? To what retief ?

3. ',l3. Point No.1:- a) PW1 is the wife of the deceased, she asserted that her husband worked as a driver of lorry bearing No.TS_07_UC_9g01 and was earning Rs.25,000A per month and batta of Rs.150/_ per day. She has filed Ex.A6/driving license of her husband in support of her case. b) A perusal of Ex.A6 revears that it is the driving ricense issued to the deceasedA/enkat Reddy and was varid from 2s.07.2017 ti| \ \ 5 ETO,' MACMA No.562 2021

24.07.2020 for driving transport vehicles. Thus, it is , ,licited that the deceased used to work as a driver on transport lorr l. lt is also an admitted fact that he met with an accident while he ras driving the lorry bearing No TS-07-UC-9801. c) Learned counsel for the appellant has re ed upon the decisions of Jaya Biswal & Others Vs. Branch I lanager, lffco Tokio General lnsurance Company Limited a'td Anotherl , shows that it was filed under Workmen's Comperr: ation and the Apex Cou( has observed that Rs.10,0001 per mc,t th will be the reasonable amount of earnings of the deceased wlr, worked as a driver. d) ln Jeyarani & Another Vs. The Manager Bajaj Allianz General;2 the Apex Court has held that, in case (,1 a mason, no documentary evidence can be expected. Howev: , taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased and lt e year of the accident being 2013, the monthly income of the dec: lsed could be reckoned at Rs.9,000/- and has also added future prr spects. ln the present case, the deceased is a skilled driver. Therefor e, considering the above cited decisions and considering all t re facts and circumstances, it is opined that since the accident occ trred in 2018, ' 2016 l-arv Suir (SC) l05 I Civil Appeal Nos.4llu431l of202l 6 ETD,J MACMA No.562 2021 .a..:. .: an amount of Rs.12,000i- can be taken as income of the deceased on a reasonable hypothesis e) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others3, 1Oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged ,52, years, adding 10% towards future prospects i.e., 12,OOO+.1 ,200 would give Rs.13,2001 per month, which comes to Rs..l 3,200/_ x 12 = Rs.1,58,400/- per annum. f) Since the claimants are three in number, the deduction that has to be made is 1/3'd from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.1 ,05,600/- (Rs. 1,58,400 (-) 52,800/-). S) 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 Vs. Delhi Transport Corporationa, the deceased being aged ,52'years, the appropriate multiplier is '11'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.11,61,600/- (Rs.1,05,600 x 11). AtR 2otz scc slsz 3 \ ' )ooe 1oy scc rz r ETD,J lvlACMA No.562 2O21 h) ln the light o'f Pranay Sethis case, Rs.15001 - towards loss 7 of estate and Rs.15,0001 towards funeral expenses e rd Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarderl and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three ye? s i) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Ltr rited v. Nanu Ram @Chuhru Ram and otherss, the Apex Court las elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents rnd children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortiun Therefore, in the present case, the claimants and would get Rs.18,400/- each, hence, the compensation amount under this h: ld would be Rs.1 ,45,200/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further a r amount of Rs.18,'1 50/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1B,15C/ towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. j) ln all, the petitioners are entitled to the followinl; compensation amou nts:- 1 2 3 4 '1zo rs; rs scc r:o Compensation under the head of loss of Rs.11,61,600/- Compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.1,45,200/- to the etitioner Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/- I I I Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total l ts.1 3,43,100/- I ETD,J MACMA No.552 2021 k) Thus, the compensation to which the petitioners are entifled is calculated as Rs.12,46,300/- while the Tribunal has awariJed 8 Rs 10,60,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entifled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No. 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.12,46,3001 from that of Rs.10,60,000/- that is awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- ln the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is parily allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 15.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,60,000/_ to 12,46,3001 and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7 5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition tirr rearization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of I \ \ 9 ETD,J MACMA No.562 2021 receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting th I amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellanrt are entifled to withdraw the said amount as per their respective sh rres as allotted by the tribunal, without furnishing any security. No cc,r ts. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in ttr ; appeal, shall stand closed SD/. \,I JAWAHAR REDDY ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Secrtoru oFFtcER To, 1 2 a

4. GE The Judg One One Two /ABK chairman. Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-Vr i Additionar District e. l\rla habubnaoa r. CC tO ^SfiI K VENKATESH GUPTA AdVOCAIE tOJ' JCI !p t^o Snr r SANJAv K srNbH Aoiri."-t" fiii"u:'", CD Copies I HIGH COURT DATED: 1 2/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.562 of 2021 a-.- C)() I u Jrrl tflt ':,'"i . .,. PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 ?,b b IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 562 OF 2021 Between: E.Venkatamma. W/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Age village and lMandal, Mahabubnagar. 49 Yrs, Occ. Household, R/o Midjil .... PETITIONERYAPPELLANT AND Elumalai Murugan, S/o. Elumalai, Age.35 Yrs., Occ. Driver of lorry bearrng No.TN-52-H-2 1 75, Rio. H. No. 1 5 1, Meyyur, Arani Taluk, Kulathipatti road, Thiruvanamalai District, Tamrlnadu State. G.Perumal, S/o. Ganapathy, Age. not known but major, Occ. Owner of lorry bearing No. TN-52-H-2175, R/o.H.No.64, Karpagavinayagar koil street, Mailam road, Tindivanam Taluk, Tamilnadu State(present Owner of lorry) Sivagami .M S/o.Murugesan. Age: not known but majoi. Occ. Previous Owner of lorry bearing No. TN-52-H-2175, R/o.H.No.7/'146, Pasapalikadu, Thangayur post, Sankari Taluk, Salem District, Koganapuram, Tamilnadu State_ The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, through its. Divisronal Manager, opp' Modern High school' Mahabubnagar ..RES'.NDENTS 2 3 4 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 1510412021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Ivlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. This appeal comrng on for hearrng 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 SRl. K. VENKATESH GUPTA, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 to 3, and SRl. T. SANJAY K. SINGH, Advocate for Respondent No.4. w.-7 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the Motor Accident Civil Mrscellaneous App: rl be and pa rtly allowed. is hereby 2 That the conrpensation be and is hereby enhanced i tm Rs.10,60,000/- to Rs.'12,46,300/ !) 4 That the enhanced amount of compensation shall cal ) interest @ 7 .S% per annum from the date of craim petition tiil ,"rtLrtioi-, r J that the interest for the period of delay, if any. is forfeited That the respondents be and are hereby direr;. compensation amount wrth accrued interest wrthin a.: ,1._ date of receipt of a copy of tt," JrOorlnt 1.:,1 amount if any atready deposited. ]d to deposit the :riod of two months after deducting the 5 That on such deposit by the respondents. the appellant be and are hereby entitred to withdraw the said amount as per tneir-ffiJ:., e shares as arotted by the tribunal without furnishi.g ,"y ,.;iiiy That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 6 Itf rue Copyll To Judge, Mahabubnaoar 'l . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Trrbunal_cum_Vl I 2. Two CD Copies. GUABK SO/- M. AWAHAR REDDY ASSIS,''ANT REGISTRAR \ \ ;:CTION OFFICER Additional Diskict HIGH COURT DArEO:.1210912025 DECREE MACMA.No.562 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \t \