The High Court · 2025

Amaze car No. TS 07EC 0387 R/ o. Flat No.203, Srinivasa Residency, Near Spark Hotel, Medipally Road, Uppal, R.R.District ...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS Counse! for the Appellants:SRl. M VIJAY REDDY Counsel for the Regpondents: Kota Subba Rao The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C .M.A.No.579 of2O2O JUDG 'The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal under section 173 of M.V.Act, lggg against the Award and decree passed by the IX Additional chief Judge, city civ, court, Hyderabad (herginafter referred to Tribunal') in M.V.O.p.No.1628 of 2015, dated 08.OS.2O2O, wherein claimants/petitioners had frled the craim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.8,O0,OO0/- on account of death S.Gopikrishna, (herein after referred to as ,the deceased J who died in accident occurred on

04.06.2015. 2 The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier , filed M.V.O.p.No. I 628 of 2015 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 19gg seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged tir have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the car driver. It is contended that on 04.06.20'5, the petitioner No. l(father of deceased) and deceased were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No'AP-29-BJ -4477 from Kunlur Village towards Bandlaguda and when they reached shivapuri colony bus stop, one Honda Amaze car bearing 2 ,.IR'J M. A. C. ld. L No- 5 79 of 2O2O No.TS-07-EC-0387 which was coming from opposite direction being d.riven by its river in a rash and negligent manner and' at high speed' came and dashed the deceasecl motorcycle, as a result deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body' Immediately the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital' Secunderabacl and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The Police registered a case in Crime No'717of 2015 under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of offending Honda Amaze. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.8,o0,0ool-aScompensationforthedeathofthedeceasedunder various heads.

3. The contention of the claimants/appellants before the Tribunal' was that as on the date of accident the deceased' was aged about 17 years at the time of accident and was' studying intermediate' The deceased was hale and healthy and due to the said accident' the petitioners suffered mental agony and pain and lost their entire future andhopesreposed.onthed'eceased'.Thepetitionersclaimed compensation for Rs'8,00,000/- for the said accident' 3 ,!nn., M.A.C.E LIb.579 qlt 2O2o

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No. l_owner of the offending car filed counter affidavit which was adopted by respondent No'2- HDFC Ergo General Insurance company Limited and denied a[ the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that offending vehicle driver was also minor and was tried as a juvenile and acquitted of the charges by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

5. Before learned rribunal, rearned counser for the respondents contended that actually the deceased was driving the vehicle but not petitioner No. I (father of the deceased) at the time of accident and the deceased was not having varid license and insurance of the vehicle and also contended the deceased there was head on collusion between the offending car and the motorcycle, however.the police were managed to book case against the car only in order to help the claim of the petitioners by suppressing as to who drove the motorcycle at the time of accident. It is further contended that the accident concurred was due to rash ad negligent driving of the deceased who was minor and was not eligible to ride a geared motorcycle. Respondent No.2 reiterated the stme avennent before the Tribunal, and submitted that respondent \ 4 AINR'J M.A.C.M. A- No. 579 ol 2O2O No.3- who is son of respondent No.l was holding driving licence as on the date of accident. In fact, the police had charge sheeted against respondent No.3 under Section 181 of M.V.Act. The respondent No'l committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, hence respondent No.l alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition'

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: t) w?etlrcr the pleoded acciclent hnd ocrurred resulting tn dea-th of thedeea""dS.copikrishna,duetotherashandnegltgent driuing of tle driuei of the cime uehicle t.e., car beaing /vo.?s- O7-EC'0387 bg its driuer? ii) W?ether the petitioners ar9 entitled, for compensation and if so, to whatquanalmandwhntisthetiabilitgoftherespondents. iii)To wtmt relieP iit)

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned. Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.SrgOrOOO/- along with interest @9%o per annum' 5 ,VII'R,J M. A. C. M- tL l{o. 5 79 ol 2O2O

8. Being aggrieved and unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the claimants/petitioners on the ground that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 17 years and was a bright student studying Intermediate and was dreaming to become an Engineer and the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of offending car. The learned Tribunal having accepted the contentions of the petitioners that the due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car the said accident occurred and the deceased died and also accepted the fact that deceased was lntermediate student, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to notional income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased,s income at Rs.15,O0O/- per annum as per Second Schedule of Moor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the deceased was non-earning person.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.g,OOO/- per month by considering the ground realities and ought to have added future prospects in the notional income. To substantiate their claim, the I petitionel relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme court in \ 5 I'IIR,J M A. C. M. L l,lo, 579 of 2O2O K;.shan Gopal and, Amother V.Lala and othersl, wherein deceased boy was aged about 10 years and was assisting his father in his agricultural work, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken notional income of the cleceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum and further contended that the learned Tribunal has not taken the relevant muttiplier as per the guiclelines laid down in Sorrta Venna a. Delhi Transport Corporationz and also not awarded just compensation under the various head as per the judgment of Honble Apex Court in National Insuroince compang Limited vs. Pranag setht qnd otherss and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is very meager and prays this Court to enhanced the compensation'

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the Awarded and submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference'

11. None appeared on behalf of respondent No' 1 & 3' I 2013 ACI 2594 22OO9 ACJ 1298 (SC) 32017 ACJ 2700 i I I i ; i ! 7 JiATR,J M. L C. M. & t{o. S Z9 oJ 2O2O L2' Heard sri M.viay Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/petitioners and sri Kota subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- HDFC Ergo General lnsurance company Limited. Perused the material on record. 13' Admittedly, the respondents have not fired cross-appear against the Award passed by the learned Tribunar. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point arouse before this court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioners are compensation, tf so, to what ertent? entitled for the enhanced. Point No.1: 14' Admittedly, the deceased died due injuries sustained by him to the accident occurred on 04.06.2015. The petitioners was r7 years old and was studying Intermediate at the time of accident, hence it is clear that the deceased was minor and non earning member. The evidence of pw 1 who is also eye-witness and rider of the motor cycle, reiterated the whole accident and submits that due to the rash and negrigent driving of the offending car the accident occurred and deceased sustained grievous injuries and thereafter immediately shifted to Gandhi Hospital, i I I I I l 8 ,VNN,J t[. A.C.M. L t{o' 579 oJ 2O2O where the d'eceased Succumbed to injuries, which is Secund,erabad, neither disputed nor rebutted by rearned counser for the respondent'

15.InR'K'Mlrltk&AnrosKlranPal&Or*'theHon'bleSupreme Court has emphasized that even though the child was not earning, the compensation shourd not be nominar but must reflect the ross of lift and the impact on the family and the relevant portion of the order reads as under: oHou)euer, no orrlount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the expenenceofpainandsuffenngduetolossofttfe.Lossofachild,ltfe oralimbcanneuerbeeliminatedoramelioratedcomplet,ety.Toputit simplg-peamiar!)damagescannotreplaceahumanliporlimblost. Tlerefore,inadditiontothepecuniarylosses,thelawrecognisesthat pagmentshouldalsobemadefornonpeamiaralossesonaccountof, Actprouidesforpaamentof,Justcompensotion,,uid,esection Ioss o/ ttoppiness' pain' suffenng and expectancy of lW etc' The 166 and 168' lt is left to the Courts b decide what would' be "iust T?te real problem tlwt aises in thec@ses of d'eath of clatdren is tlwt infacts of a case' comryensation" theyarenotearningatthefimeoftheaccident.Inmostoftlecoses theywerestillsfud.aingandnotulorking.Houleuer,undernostretch of imasination it can be said'*'':' n""in' haue not suffered anA Pecunu ::;"';"':n'^";"::':"':"t:' 4 9 .fcIBJ x.Lcu.Ltb.5?9 ot zoxt dependency bg its very nature is awarded for prospectiue or future Joss. In this contert, Lord Atkinson aptlg obserued in Taff Vale RIg. Co. u. Jenkins1, as follouts: "ln case of the death of an infant, there mag haue been no actual peanniary beneftt deriued. by its parents durtng the child's lifetime. But thts will not necessarily bar the parents, cLaim and prospectiue loss will found a ualid ctaim prouided that the parents establi.sh that theg had a reasonable eryectation of pecuntary beneJit if the child had liued..""

16. It is very pertinent to discuss the judgment passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Kuntqn Ansari o,llces Kun an Alt & dnothers u. Shganm Kishore Murtnu & Anfi,

12. In the judgment tn tlte case of puttamma & Ors., this Court has obserued that the Central Gouemment was bestowed with the duties to amend Sctrcdule-Il in uieut of Section 163_A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, but it failed to do so. In uiew of tlrc same, speciJic d.trections were issued to the Central Gouernment to make appropriate amendments to Schedule-Il keeping in mind the present cost of liuing. In the said judgment, tilt such amend.ments are made, directions u)ere issued for autard of compensation bg lixing a sum of Rs.1,OO,OOO/- (Rupees one lakh only) toward.s compensation for the non_eaming children up to the age of. S (iue) years old and. a sum of 5- (19 I I - I 3) All England Reporter 160 zozz (r)scc:rz o 10 JVITIR'J N. A. c. M. A. tto. S 79 ol 2O2O Rs.I,50,0 0O/ (Rupees one lakh ftfig thousand only) for tle non- earning persons of more than 5 (fiue) years old'

13. In the case of R.K. Malik & Anr. also, this court has obserued that tl,e notional income faed under section 163-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 as Rs.15,000/- per annum slnuld be enhnnced and increased. as the same continued to exist tpithout ana amend.ment since 14.11.1994. In ttte case of Kishan Gopal & Ann where tlrc d.eceased utas a ten aears old child, this Court has frxed his notional income at Rs'30,000/ - per annum'

14.Inthiscase'itistobenotedthattheaccidentwason 06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, schedule-Il ts not get amended.. TLerefore, fixing notional income af Rs. 15,000/ - per annum for non-earning members is not just and' reasonable' ls.Inuieu.lofthejudgmentsinthecasesinPuttamma&ors,R.K. Malik&Anr.andKishanGopal&Anr.,u)eareoftheuiewthatitisa fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inJlation, d"eualuation of the rupee and cost of liuing' lT. Considering the decisions oi tt e Hon'lcle Supreme Court and the principles laid down in several other cases, more particularly' in the judgmen t of Kunton Ansarl alia.s Kutttan ali & qnothers a' shgom Kishore Munnu & Anr (ctted supror), arrd. consid.ering the ground realities, this court is of the considered view that the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs'25'0OO/- per anntrm' 11 U.LC,U.,,rb-SZg om 18' Apart from that, as per the decision of Honbre Supreme court in National Insurance Compang Limtted. Vs. pranag Setht and. othersz and considering the age of the deceased as 17 years, an additional 4oolo of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the notionar annuar income of the deceased. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.35,000/_ (Rs.25,OOO/_ + Rs. 1O,OOO). 19. As per the column No.4 of Table prescri Honble Apex Court in Sarlo Verma a. Delhl and considering the age of the deceased as multiplier applicable for the deceased,s age is of dependency bed in the judgment of the Tyansp o ra C o tp o ra/flo na, 17 years, the appropriate '18'. Thus, the tota.l loss to the petitioner would come to Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.35,OOO/- x lg) (Annual Income x relevant Multiplier). 20. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs. f 5,000/- + tOo/o + l0%) towards loss of estate and (Rs.15,000/- + Sethd,s Jttdgme Rs.18, tS0/- lOo/o + leo(o1 towards funeral expenses, as per pranag nt (cited supra). Rs.18, tS0/-

21. Appellant Nos. I appellant Nos. l & 2 7 2017 ACJ 2700 8 200e AcJ 1298 (sc) \ \ & 2 being the parents of the deceased, the are entitled for compensation to a sum of I / L2 NIVR'J MA.C.ULLi&-S79 ol2O2O Rs.96,8oo/- (Rs.a8,400 x 2) under the head of .loss of filial consortium, as per Mogma's Judgment (cited supra)

22. Appellant No.3 being the sister of the deceased' the appellant No'3 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs. 48,4oo l- under the head of .lossofconsortium,aSperMagmo,,sJttdgnent(citedsupra)

23. [n scrrla verma's cq.se (cited aboae), the Honble Apex court' while elaborating the concept of Just compensation,observed as under: ,,Postcompensationisad"equatecompensationulhichisfairand equitable,onthefactland,circumstancesofthecase'tomake good. tne tois suffered as a resutt of the w-rong' as far as moneA can do so, by applying,.ihe uell settled principles relating to award"ofcompensation'nisnotintend'edtobeabonanza' largesse or soltrce of Profit'"

24.Onoverallre-appreciationofthepleadings,materialonrecordand thelawlaiddownbytheHonbleSupremeCourtintheabovecited decisions. I aln of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for enhancementofcompensationasmodifiedandrecalcrrlatedasabove and given in the table below for easy reference 13 ilIUR J U.A. C. M- A. tlo. 579 of 2O2O

25. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: Income (of the deceased) 25,OOO l- ii) i ii) v) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X 41o/ol = Rs.25,0OO/-+Rs.10,000/- = Rs.35,OOO/- Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.35,O00/- x t8 Rs.6,30,000/- Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of frlal consortium + loss of consortium = Rs. 18,15O /- + Rs. 18,150/- + 96,8OO /- + 4g,4OO /- = Total Rs.1,81 ,5OOl- Rs.8,11,5OOl-

26. By considering the observation of Honble Apex court in Nagappa Vs-@untdagal Singhs, as the Compensation awarded can be more than the claimed amount". Therefore, the petitioner, appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation-of Rs.grllrsoo/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.3,90,o oo /- by the learned rribunat. ) )

27. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed. The claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.Srllrsoo/-, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 3,90,000/- to Rs.grl1r5oo/- with interest at I I e 2oo: (2)scc274 * \ i I ^l I I I I \ \i t4 NI'R'J M. A.C' M. A- t'lo. 5 79 ol 2O2O the rate @ 9 Yo 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 tt e amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment' The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner as ordered by the learned Tribunal' However' the petitioners are directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within trvo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shatl be no order as to costs' 2g. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed' SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG T REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY" ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. M VIJAY REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. Kota Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies S Y\E1 o() Nt H\\ J It * * HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.S79 ot 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA \ \\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENry SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR Between MISCE APPEAL N

4. S.Pullarao, slo.Venkateshwar Rao, aged 55 years, occ- Nir , R/o. 2-2111, I stakameshwari Nagar, Hayath nagar, Hlyderabad.

5. S.lndira, Wo.S.Pullarao, aged S0 years, Occ- Nil , R/o. 2-21t1, 6. Mounika, D/o, S.Pullarao, aged 1g years, Occ- Nil ,R/o. 2-21t1, lstakameshwari Nagar, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. lstakameshwari Nagar, Hayathnagar, Hydeiabad. ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

4.K. Narendar Reddy, s/o. shan*ril""dd, K, owner Honda Amaze car No. TS 07EC 0387 R/o.Jtlo.203, Srinivasa Residency, Near Spark Hotel, Medipally Road, Uppal, R.R.District

5. M/s HDFC ERGO General lnsurance co. Ltd, Rep.by its Manager,2ndfloor,

6.-3-346/1 Opp. Jalagam Vengalrao Park, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

6. K. Abhinav Redgly, Q/q. _Narendar Reddy , Aged Major, Driver of Honda Amaze car No. TS 07Ec 0387 R/ o. Flat No.203, siinivasa Residency, Near Spark Hotel, Medipally Road, Uppal, R.R.District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.1628 Of 2015 dated. 8tSt2O2O on the fite of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum lX 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 Case and upon hearing the arguments of sRl. M VIJAY REDDY" Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Kota Subba Rao Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent no.1 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 'of frgm Rs.3,90,000/_ to Rs. e,t1-,iOOt_; 1' That the MACMA be and hereby^is.arowing enhancing tne compensation 2. That the enhanced award cosiwittr interest at the rate go/oper annum from the date of petition till the date of reatization; 3' That the receipt a copy are Jrected to deposit to the said amount togethenuith costs and inierest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited if any within a petioo or"t*o ,onths from the date of . receipt of a copy of thii Judgment; 4' That the compensation sher-be apportioned among the appellants/craimants in the same manner as of ordLreo by the rearned 'tribunar However the petition"o directed to pay the Deficit court Fee "r" on the enhanced amount within two months rrom the date of receipt of a _ gopy of this Judgment; 5' That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed _ in allother respects; and 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BA IG TANT REG ISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- rX Additionar chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. Kota Subba Rao, Advocate tOpUCI 3. Two CD Copies a / HIGH COURT DATED i27lOGl2025 DECREE MACMA.No.S79 of 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA t\