The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed by the Insurernce Company, aggricvcd by thc Order and Decrcc dated 06.04.202 I in M.V.O.P.No.206 of 2O 18 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judgc, Khammam (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, thc parlies herein arc refcrrcri ro as they werc arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Thc case of thc claim petitioners before tl-re Tribunal $'as rhat on 29.O1.2018 the deceased along rvith one Ilangu l,a,xmanacharl. u'ent to Enkoor Village on some work and werc returninB to Khammam in an auto bearing No.TS-04-UB-5385 driven brv the respondent No.1 at about 23:00 honrs, while the at-lto rvas on thc R & B road near the house of one Gudivalli Rambabu in Gubbagurthi Village, the driver of auto, driven it in a rash and negligent manner' at a high speed dashed against one Tata Ace bearing No.AP 20 TS 7515 coming in the opposite direction, as a rcsult ol rvhich thc auto turned turtle and both the deceased and Laxmana Chary died on the spot. The petitioners sought a compcnsation of Rs 20,O,O,00O/-. -l 2 ETD,] I4ACMA N0.583 2021

5. The responder-rt No.1 remained ex-parle. The respondcnt No.2 filed counter denying t r I averments of thc petition !v1th regard to the occurrence of thc accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. They lurther ontended that there is no negligence on part of the auto driver anrl that there was ncgligencc on part ol the driver of Tata Ace vchickr .n causing thc accident. Thcy further contended lhat the petition ; bad lor non- joinder of the orr,ncr and insurer of Tata Ace vehicle.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal l as frame d the folloiving issucs lor trial: 1) lvletlto lhe ocadent occurred on 29.01-2018 wa-s <tL:. to the rastL ett.l .r.l of the dnuer of Auto beoring No.TS O4 UB !: l5 as pralte(l bll thc 2) \l.hether t|1e petitioners are entitled for claim oJ cotnpens[ tt as prayed? lf so, lo uhat quanxlm, and from whiclt of Lhe respondents? iegLig€ttt pelittorLers? 3) To ul t(it relieP

6.. To prove lheir case, the petitioners got exami Led PW1 and 2 and Exs-Al to A10 were marked. On behalf of :. e respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and 82 were marke(l 7 . Based or-r the evidence on record, the Tribuna has granLed a compensation of Rs.2O,O0,OOO/- with costs and irt )rest @ 9o/o per annum. Aggrier.ed by tl-re said award, the prr: ent appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. ,/ 3 ETD,J MACMA No.583 2021

8. Heard the submissions of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri V. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted [hat the ordcr of the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in quantification of compensation ancl has assessed the income of the deceased to be very high in the abscnce of any proof filed by the petitioners. He furthcr contended that the Tribunal has granted huge amoun[s under various heads and granted exorbitant amount of compensalion. I{e further pral.cd to reduce the rate of interest granted by the Tribun al @ 9o/o to that of 7 .5%o.

10. The respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the deceased died at a very young age of 2T years. He was a Barber and also was running a Dairy Farm. He further argued that though the Tribunal has assessed the income only at Rs. 12,5O0/ , the petitioners have not preferred any appeal and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation by following the principles laid down by the Apex Court, though they have not preferred any Cross Appeal in this case. 1 1. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the folldwing points for determination: I I I I I I 4 ETD,] MACMA No.583 2021 1 2 l Whether tlle contpensatian granted bg lhe Tribunat i: ust ond reasortable? Whether Lhe order arul decree of the triaL Cour- , ted anA iterference ? 'l () tL l'tol teltel-?

12. Point No.1:- a) 'I'he contention of appcllant counsel is that i r the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal ought not to hi. e assessed the income of Lhe deceased to bc Rs.12,500/- and thar rnly an income of Rs.4,500/- ought to have been taken by the Tri r rnal. While the petitioners counsel contended that Lhe deceased uz of 27 1,cars and r.vas earning Rs.30,000/ - p. i a young man ' month. The petrtioners have not Frled any proof of income. b) PWl is the wife of the deceased. She ass :rted that her husband used to earn Rs.30,OOO/- per month as a . iarber and also [hat he u-secl Lo run a Dairy Farm. It is eiicited iom her cross examination that she has not filed any proof. But the petitioners have filed trx.A6 to Ex.A10 which shows that ttL, deceased has studied up to MBA. Ex.A6 is the SSC Marks Merr r, Ex.A7 is the Intermediate Marks Memo, trx.A8 is the Provisi na1 Certihcate showing thal he gol graduated in B.Com and Ex.l I is the Marks Memo of B. Com. Ex. A 10 is the Marks Merno is ;ued by JNTU showing that the deceased has completed MBA. 5 ETD,] MACMA No.583 2021 c) Considcring the submission of both the counsel and the fact that tlre deceased \ /as aged about 27 years, it is opined that the income of the deceased can be assessed as Rs. 10,000/- per monrh on a rea sona hle hypothesis. j) As per the dicta laid down rn Nqtional Insurance Cotnpang Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Othersl,4Oo/o of the income needs to bc added to,,r,ards future prospects. As the deceasecl is aged 27 years, adding 4O7o torvards future prospects i.e., 10,000+4,000 u,ould grve Rs.14,O00/- per month, which comes to Rs.l4,OOO/, x 12 = Rs.1,68,000/- per annum. d) F-urthcr, a deduction of I l4trl is to be made to his incorne as there were four dependents, therefore, the income after deduction toqiards personal expenses would come up to Rs. 1,26,OO0/ (Rs. 1,68,o00/- (-) Rs.a2,o0o/-). e) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceascd, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verrnq. u. Delhi Transport Corporation2. The deceased being aged 27 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ,17,. Therefore, 1 ArR 2017 SCC 5157 ' zooo i61 scc tz t I l t; 5 ETD,J MACMA No.583 2021 the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.21,42.( t 0/- (1,26,000 x 17) f) In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs. 15OO )/ - towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- tor,r,ards funera.l cxpenses and Rs.4O,OOO/- towards loss of consortium have to e awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by IOo/o eve - three years. g) In Magtna General Insurance Compang -t- mlted. u. Nanu Ratn @ Chuhnt Ram and otherd, the Apex Cou - has elaborately discussed the principles iaid do',i'n in Pranag Set\ l's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parr: ts and children of the deceased are also enlitled to loss of cons()rt um. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Il .48,4OO I each towards loss of consortium, hcnce, the comp<: sation amount under this head would be Rs. 1,93,600/- instearl of Rs.40.000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funer J expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awir ded. h) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1 Compensation under the head of loss of depcndency Compensation towards Ioss of consortium 2 Rs.2 L,42,O0O/- Rs t,93,6OO/- 'izor ay ta scc I:o 7 ETO,J MACMA No.583 2021 I 3 Compensation towards loss of estate 4 Compensation towards funeral ex CNSES Total Rs,18,150/- Rs.18,15O/- Rs.23,71,9OO/- i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are cntitLed is calculated as Rs.23,71,900/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2O,OO,OO0/-. It is observed that the Tribunal has not granted future prospects and not awarded the amounts towards loss of consortium and conventional heads as laid down by the principles tn National Insurance Compang Limlted Vs. pranag Sethi & Othersa, Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to enhance the compensation from Rs.20,00,OO0/- to Rs.23,71,gOOl-. However, this is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company and there is no Cross appeal filed by the claimants. j) Now the question that arises for consideration is whether this Court can enhance the compensation in an appeal hled by the Insurance Company. k) In Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and. Ors. Vs. Ahmed.abad Municipal Trq.nsport Seruices, the claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased hled a claim petition before the Tribunal and 4 AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ' (20t]) l6 scc 719 8 ETD,J MACMA No.583 2021 the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,5 1 ,300/ - alor-r : with interest tou,'ards compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment the rcspondents has hled an Appeal before the Higlr Court and the High Court has partly allowed the Appeal of the ; :spondent and reduced the compensation to Rs.2,51,800/-. Beir g aggrieved by thrs Judgment, the legal representatives of the dr:c, ased filed Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court L r s au,arded the compensation morc than that claimed bl, the etitioners and further has held that, it is the statutory dut]' of tl : Tribunzrl and the Appellate Court to award just ancl reasonable : rmpensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigErlc

1.heir hardship and agony. It has further held that without a cl, imants appeal also, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal ar < the Appellate Court to award just and reasonablc compensalion. l) Similarly, in Surekha and Ors. Vs. Santosl and Ors6, |ne claimants case was allorved by the Tribun.t awarding a compensation of Rs.40,17,6021-. Aggrieved by the ;aid order, the Insurance Company has filed an appeal belore t re High Court wherein, the High Court has held that the claiman _r are entitled to Rs.49,15,376l-, but has held that the High Cou;-l )annot enlarge th&,. scope of the appeal and cannot enhance the compensation o1:o:tytrioscc+oz 9 ETD,.] MACMA No,5E3 2021 more than that a"varded by the Tribunal, in an appeal hled by the Insurance Company. However, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company claiming reductton of compensation was dismissed. When the matter reached Apex Court, it has held that in the matters of Motor Accident Ctaims, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the claimants. By holding so, the Apex Court has modrfied the order passed by thc High Court to the effect that the compensation amount piryable ro thc appellants is determined as Rs.49,85,376/- rvith intcrest rhereon as awarded by the High Court. m) ln And.hra Pradesh State F.oo,d. Transport Vs. Dusari Pramilq qnd AnotherT, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,OO,O00/ - and aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred an appeal before this High Court and a Bench of this High Court has held that even in the absence of Cross Appeal or Cross Objection filed by the respondents, it is pertinent to consider the jurisdiction oI this Court to grant just compensation and has enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,O0,0OO/- to Rs.15,82,600/- with an interest of 6oh per annum - Irom'the date ol petition rill realizaLion. \. ' MACMa..No.88 ol20 l4 I i I I a ! : 10 ETD,J MACMA No.583 2021 n) In the light of the above cited decisions. Lt :s held that though it is an appeal filed by the InsurarL< r Company, the compensatron granted b1, the Tribunal i; enhancecl to Rs.23,71,90O/- from that of Rs.20,0O,O0O/_ whi; r is awarded by thc Tribunal Hence, Point No.1 is answered accordingly t3. POrNT NO.2: a) In vier,v of the finding arrived at point No. l. : is hcld that the order and decree of the Tribunal nced to be modifie I u.ith regarcl to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanccd the compcnsation to Rs.23,71,900/- from that of Rs.2 l,0O,OOO/ that is arvarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on t:r : compensation u,hich is disputed by learned counsel for the appelJz ets. c) In Jadaa SaroJa Bai Versus Ghule It ga Rao and. Anothers; a Coordinate Bench of this High Co,-r _t has granted intcrest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhant:, d zrmount of co mpensation. 8 uo:2 sCC Onlinc TS 606 11 ETD,J MACMA No.583 2021 ! I I d) ln Bandaudth Mangla and Another Versus Bo.ndqttqth Suresh dnd Otherse and Na.tlonal Insurance Conpang Linited Versus, M. Venkatesuarulu and Otherslo,' also interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum was granted on the cnhanccd amount of compensation. ln United Insurance Compang Limited Versus. Bollam e) Lingaiahr l; r.r'hen the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per annum, thc High Court has modificd thc rate of interest to 7 .5o/o per annum from thc date of petition till realizalion. 0 A Division Bench ol this Iligh Court in National Insura.nce Cotnpang Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathil2; has grantcd

7.5 o/o per annum on the compensation from the date of pctiLion till realization. g) ' Therefore, in the light of thc above cited decisions, this Court has bcen consistently granting interest @ 7 -5o/o on the compensation lhat is awarded in such cases h) Therefore the same is au,zrrded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted bv the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.5o/o Point No.2 is ansu,e red accordingly. ') 2023 SCC Online TS 1095 "' 202i scc Onlinc TS I t70 2024 scc online rs 915 rr 2024 scc online TS 2o5o 12 ETD,] M,\CMA Nr ;83 2021 N. POINT NO.3: In the rcsult, M.A.C.M.A filed by the Insur: rce Comp:urr,,is p:rrtly allorvccl rnodifying thc Order ancl Decrce (lr - (l 0{) 04..2i)l1 in Ivl.\r.O.P.No.2O(r o[ 2Ol8 passed by Motor r ccic]t:nt Claims 'l'ribunal-cum District.Iudge, I(hammam, by reclr cing the r.z.rLe of intcrcst from 9%o to 7 .5(% per annum from the dat: o[ cl:rim ]lctition trll rcalization. The compcnsation is enhanced fro r Rs.20,0O.000/_ to Rs.23,71 ,9OO I -. The claimar-rts shall pay th(. r eficrI Court fcc. TIic appellanLs are directed to deposit the comJ t itserLion zrll(/unL * ith erccruci r.Lcrcst r.l,ithin a period of Lwo mo,L rs ll,.rn th(. datc oi r-eccirt of :r copl' of this judgment aftcr dcduc t i g trrc ar,.Lrnr if anv alrcad-\. clcltositecl. On such deposit, the cl:..r r tnts are cntitled to rvithclran' thc said amounL without furnishing tny sccuritr,, as pcr thcir respcctive shares as allotted by tht Tnbunal .l.he jucigmcnt copy shall be made available subject t: Lhe paynrci.rt of clelicit Court lec b1. the appellants. No costs. Misccllaneous petitions, pending if any, in t ris iippeal. shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// S: Sd/-A.JAYASREE STANT REGISTR^R =ficrtou oFFlcER / 1 The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribu - Cutr - PrinciPal District Judge. at Khammam

2. One CC to SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate I )PUCI 3. One CC to SRl. V RAJESHWAR RAO Advocate [OF'|'J )l 4. One CC to SRI NAGESHWAR RAO REPAKULA' Adv: ;ate IOPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies Y*' HIGH COURT DATED:13/06/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.583 ot 2021 I l: r-r :,.. rl), -j=----:= :.-1H!: ST.4 r 6 [r,-B ?s7$ 't? { .,, ;l ,''.,/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COS'] S 1 ,-\ coR' \\- _z-1\\ -c6\' )b IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY , THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 583 OF 2021 Between: Cholamandalam M.S. General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Branch /anager, Vilayawada, Through its local branch, Khammam. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 'l . Pillutla Eswari W/o Late Yellaiah, Age: 20 years, Occ: Household. 2. Pillutla Ruthvik, S/O Late Yellaiah, Age: 2 years, Occ: Nil 3. Pillutla Seshadri, S/o Appa Rao, Age: 62 years, Occ: Business, 4. Pillutla Rambai, W/o Seshadri, Age: 57 years, Occ: Household (Respondent No.2 is minor and is being Represented by his mother and natural guardian Pillutla Eswari i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) All aie Residing at H.No.5-1-54, S.P. Office Road, Khammam. RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4/ PETITIONERS

5. Sk. Khasim Saheb, S/o Subhan Saheb. Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Bajaj Auto bearing No. TS 04 UB 5385, R/o H.No.5-2-2461124, Ramakrishna Nagar, Khammam Urban, Khammam ...RESPONDENT NO.5/ RESPONDENT NO.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 0610412021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.206 OF 2018 on the file of the Court of the [\rlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge at Khammam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perrr appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and tf the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. A RA[4 Advocate for the Appellant and V. RAJESHWAR RA(l Respondent No.1 & 2 and SRI NAGESHWAR RAO REP,\ Respondent No.3 & 4 and none appeared for Respondent Nc, ing the grounds of : material papers in \KRISHNA REDDY, appeared for the (ULA appeared for ; This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil ltr'liscellaneus Appeal is hr; eby partly allowed by modifying the Order and Decree dated 06.04.2021 i M.V.O P.No.206 of 2018 passed by l/otor Accident Claims Tribun;r cum-District Judge, Khammam, by reducing the rate of interest from gok to .5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

2. That the compensation is hereby enhanced fror Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs 23,71,900/-.

3. That the claimants is hereby shall pay the deficit Court I e

4. That the appellants are hereby directed to deposit the r cmpensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months frorr the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if I ry already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are hereby entitled o withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their espective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

5. That the judgment copy shall be made available sub { ct to the payment of deficit Court fee by the appellants

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal ll-f rue Copyll Sd/. A. JAYASREE ; STANT REGISTRAR A$ \ . SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, l\,4otor Accidents C laims Tribunal - Curr - Principal District Judge at Khammam

2. Two CD Copies. w HIGH COURT ETDJ DATED:13/0612025 DECREE MACMA.No.583 of 2O21 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COS] S o")'s m,()\" W