The High Court · 2025

Rajapet, Nalgonda Dist 508 105. (R-1 & 3 are set - ex party before the Lower Court, Hence R1 & 3 are not necessary) .R Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. tlr. VIJAY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. K.S.N. MURTHY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.543 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants/petitioners under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the II Additional Chief Judge - cum - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the TribunalJ in M.v.o.P.No.2438 of 20 17, dated 17.01 .2O2O, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the death of Dyanaboina Chinna Narsaiah (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") in an accident that occurred on 23.08 .2ol7.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the!, are arraved before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.2438 of 2Ol7 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, l98g, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. It is contended that on 23.08-2017, the cleceased was proceeding on his TVS xL moped and when he reached Durgamma Temple in the outskirts of Gouraipally village, a Lorry bearing No.Ap-27- 2 .nIrrR'J frIACMA't{rc-543 of 2O2O u_1235 carne in rash and negligent manner with high speed being driven by its d.river wHo lost control over it and d'ashed deceased TVS XLfromoppositedirection.Asaresult,thedeceasedfelldownand sustained, grievous injuries all over the body' Immediately' the deceased wasshiftedtoAreaHospital,Bhongir,wherethedeceasedsuccumbed toinjuries.ThePolice,haveregisteredacasevideCrimeNo.2|7of 2ol. against d.river of the offending vehicle. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.2o,oo,ooo/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads'

4.ThecontentionoftlrepetitionersbeforetheTribunal,wasthatas on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 55 years and was doingagriculturearrdwasearningRs.3.OLakhsperannumbyselling milk from his Dairy farm. Due to the sudden death o[ the deceased' the family of the petitioners lost financial support and their dependency'

5.BeforethelearnedTribunal,respondentNos.l&3remainedex- parte.RespondentNo.2_UnitedlndialnsuranceCompanyLimitedfiled counter affidavit denying all the averments made in the claim petition andcontendedthatoffendinglorryhadnovalidandeffectivedriving Iicence as on the d.ate of accident and further contended that said 3 JVI\IR.J MACMA.I&,S43 of 2O2O accident occurred due to self negligence of deceased and further contended that t-he compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averrnents made by both the counsels, the lea.rned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: "1. WhetLLer the death of tle dedea,sed Dganaboina Chinna Narsaiah, was dtded to rash and negligent driuing of the lorry baring No.AP-27U- 1235 driuen by its diuer?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to ampensation if so, to what amount andJrom whom.

3. To what relief.?"

7. After considering the contention and rival contention and documentary evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending Lorry bearing No.AP-27-U 1235 and the learnecl Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.6,5O,8OO/- along with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum. t |: 4 IITR.J MAC*1A.1b.543 of %)2O

8. Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the following among other grounds, that the deceased was aged about 55 years as on the date of accident and was running a dairy farm and was having 20 buffalos and cows and used to sell milk every day to hotels and was earning more than Rs.3,O0,0OOl- per annum and to substantiate their claim, the petitioners have also frled Ex.A8, i.e., receipts for purchase of buffalos and cows. g. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained and death of the deceased. In cross examination, PWl & PW2 were examined. Exhibits A.1 to A.8 were marked. on behalf of petitioners. In cross Examination. PW2, who is the eye witness deposed before the Tribunal stated that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-27-U- 1235 driven in rash manner and hit the deceased TVS XL, as a result deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries- The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negliqnt driving of offending L,orry, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the deceased, 5 .trw.J MACNA.I,[o.543 of 2O2O the learned Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.6,000 l- per month which is meager and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

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

11. None appear for respondent No.1 & 3

12. Heard Sri M.Vijag Reddg, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri .[f.S.lf. MurtIIg, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - United Indian lnsurance Company Limited. Perused the material orr record.

13. Admittedly, the respondents have not fiIed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that: il whetlrcr the petitioners are entitled for fiE enhnnced. compenstltiort, if so, to what extent? 6 IVIW.J MACMA.I,Io.543 of 2O2O Point No.1: 14. Admittedly, the d.eceased died due to accident occurred on 23.08.2017, alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the offending Lorry. The petitioners/claimants claimed that the deceased was earrling Rs. 2O,OOOl- per month, but the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.6,OOO/- per month' The petitioners have fited Ex.A8 and A9 to show that the deceased purchased buffaloes and earning an amount of Rs'2O,OOO/- by selling milk and also doing agriculture. Ex.A9 is the certificate issued by Sarpanchofthevillageon26.09.20:.T,howeverthe petitioners/claimants failed to examine both of authors of the said Ex.A8 and Ex.A9, hence the Tribunal did not believe and consider the Ex.A9 which seems to be justifrable, however the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000 I - per month as monthly income of the deceased appears to be meager. The Hon'lole supreme court in Lqtha wadhwa us' state of Bih,,rr, ,*,here it is stated that in the absence of such documentary proof with regard to income of the deceased and where there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed. considering the ground realities by the courts. 1 2001(8) SCC 197 7 III'W.J IAACMA.IIb.S43 of 2O2O

15. In Shailch Scdik Shaik Rafique a. Reliance knerq.l Insurqnce compang Litntted and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme court has enhanced the compensation amount of the deceased and the relevant pagraph No.S reads as under for read reference: "5. Ra,mrlchandrappc us. Manage4 Rogal Sundaram Alllance rnsuranee compang Limited. determined an income of Rs.4,s00/- pter month tn the year 2oo4 for a coolie. A constittttion Bench in National Insurance company Limited us. pranag sethi and. others found that there would be an incremental increase in firc income which according to us would be reasonable tf fixed at Rs.50o/- per rnonth for euery successiu e aeor. In the present case, tle accid.ent ocanrred in the gear 2O15, 11 years after 2OO4 and goiw bg tlrc pinciples stated in the afore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilted. worker utould be entttled" to claim monthly income of Rs.lQ 000/ -"

16. In view of recent judgment, dated 13.0s.202s, passed. by the Honble Suprerne court in shaikh sordik shailc Rafiquers ccse (cited supra) and the fact that deceased has not filed any income proof and looking at the avocation of the deceased, this Court is inclined to enhance the income of the deceased granted by the Tribunal from 2 2o2S SCC Online SC 1092 I flNR.J I0ACMA.I&.S43 of 2O2O Rs.6,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month for re-assessment of the compensation

17. Apart from that, as per the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Notional Insurance Companu Limtted Vs. Pranag Sethi and otherss and considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, which is neither disputed nor rebutted by both the learned counsels, accordingly, additional looh of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,90O/- (Rsi9,O00/- + Rs'9O0/-)' The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,18,800/- (Rs.9,900 /- x l2l and, out of which,l/g has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as there are three dependants on the deceased as claimed by the petitioners at the time of the accident' Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.79,200/- (Rs. 1 , 18,800/ - (-) Rs.39 ,600 I -l-

18. As per the column No.4 of schedule prescribed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarta Vertno a. Delhl TYanqlplrt Corporationa' and 32017 ACJ2700 o 2oo9 Acl 1298 (sc) 9 lvt\R.J MACMtLIIb.S43 of 2O2A considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is'11'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,7L,2OO/- (Rs.79,2OO/- x 11). f 1 E I j i

19. The appellants/claimants is further entitled to Rs.1g,1so/- (Rs.15,00O/- + lOVo + lo%l towards loss of estate and Rs.l8,lSO/- (Rs.15,00O/- + lOo/o + lO%) towards funeral expenses, as per pranag Sethi's Judgmcnt (cited supra).

20. The appellant No.1 being the spouse of the deceased, the appellapt No.l is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,4oo/- und.er the head of loss of parental consortium', as per Magma @nerq.l rnsurance compang Limtted vs.Nanu Ram alis chuhnt Roilrrrs.

21. The petitioners/appellants No.2 & 3 are the children of deceased., who was age about 33 years and 27 years respectivelv as on the date of accident, both of them are major, the claimants has not stated anywhere in the affidavit that appellants No.2 & 3 were depended on the deceased. Hence this Court is not inclined to grant compensation to the appetlant Nos.2 & 3 under the head of 'loss of parental consortium,. \ 5 2018 (18) SCC 130 10 ,\INR.J MACMA.IIb.$4S of 2O2O

22. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions. I arn of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference

23. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) ii) ual Income (of the deceased) 9,OOOl- X 12 = Rs.l,08,000/- Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X IO%) = Rs.1,O8,OO0/- + Rs.1O,8OO/- = Rs.1,18,800/- iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - | 13 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,18,800/- (-) Rs.39,6OO/- = Rs.79,2OOl- lv) v) = Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.79,2OO/- x ll Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads : loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal consortium + Parental Consortium + loss of frlal consortium = Rs.i8,150/- + Rs.l8,l50/- + Rs-48,4o0/- = Total Rs.8,71 ,2OOl- Rs.84,700/- Rs.9,55,900/- I t f i : 11 mecne.xo.sag offi 24- Thus, the appellants/claimants/petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.grssrgool- as against the awarded amount of Rs.6,50,800/- by the learned Tribunal. 25- Considering the circumstances of the case, the Iearned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7.5 oh per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interes t @ T.S o/o on the enhanced amount.

26. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in parr, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 6,50,g00/- to Rs.g,55,gool- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand and Nine Hundred Rupees onlyt with interest at the rate @ 7.5 o/o p.a. on the enhanced amotrnt from the date of petition tilt the date of realization. The respondenrs are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the 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 €unong appellants/claimants/petitioners in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned rribunal. on such deposit, the craimants are t2 II'IW.J MACMA.I,1o.543 of 2O2O permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety' There shall be no order as to costs' 27 Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD'. M. JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY'/ OFFICER To, Court, at HYderabad.

1. Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum ll Additional chief Judge, city civil 2. one ic to sri. M. VIJAY REDDY, Advocate [oPUCI a. One CC to Sri. K.S.N. MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC]' 4. Two CD CoPies w TTS/GR I I \c 4 x. tl- \T. .s )h .-\' .N)\* ().., \ 't He ld t t HIGH COURT DATED: O1lOBl2O25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.S43 o12020 MACMA IS ALLOWED G*{d YY'-- Gtilap IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA i,OTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 543 OF 2020 Between:

1. Smt. Dyanaboina Kalamma, Wo. Late Dyanaboina Chinna Narsaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Houserivife, R/o. Nagapuri, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District presently R/o. 3-7-583/A, Jaiswalnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

2. Dyanaboina Bapu, S/o. Late Dyanaboina Chinna Narsaiah, Aged 33 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Nagapuri, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District Presently R/o. 3-7- 583/A, Jaiswalnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

3. Dyanaboina Sudhakar, S/o. Late Dyanaboina Chinna Narsaiah, Aged 27 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Nagapuri, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District Presently R/o. 3-7-583/A, Jaiswalnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. AND ...APPELLANTS'PETITIONERS

1. Manikanta Parboiled Rice lndustries, Rep.by M. Venkatesham, Owner of Lorry No. AP 27U 1235, R/o, 1-3-165/5D, Urban Colony, Bhongir, Bhongir Dist.

2. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by its Manager, T.P. Hub, 2nd floor, Poshnet Bhavan, Church Building, Ramkoti, Hyderabad.

3. Lachaiah D, S/o. Balraj, Aged major, Occ: Driver, R/o. 9-24, Gollawada, Raiapet, Nalgonda Dist 508105. (R-1 & 3 are set - ex party before the Lower Court, Hence Rl & 3 are not necessary) ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in M.V.O.P,No.2438 ot 2O17 Daled. 171112020 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. ORDER: 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. M. Vijay Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. K.S.N. Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent and of the Respondent No.2 not appeared either in person or by Advocate. --7 / That Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby iS illowed; 2. The enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,50800/- to Rs.9,S5,900/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand and Nine Hundred Rupees only) with interest at the rate @7 5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. The respondents is directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

4. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants/petitioners in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the leamed;

5. The on such deposit, the appeilant is entifled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

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

7. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal ,,TRUE COPY" SD'.M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ \), SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum ll Additional chief Judge, city civir 2. Two CD Copies Court, at Hyderabad. TTS/GR Y{ rI L4 .9 orL P d. $' s. \, , t...!_l i- i HIGH COURT DATED: O1lO8l2O25 DECREE MACMA.No.543 of 2O2O MACMA IS ALLOWED tt cd(d> sn"