The High Court · 2025

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Dec'ree dated 18.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.449 of 2015 passed by the Ch;airman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal") .

2. Fclr convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they r^,ere arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on

10.06.2015 at about 1:00 p.m., the deceased was going to Kamarerldy on motor bike bearing No.AP-29-BM-5937 as a pillion rider, while one of his villager was riding the bike and when they reached Hamara Mitti School near Kupriyal Village on NH-44, a lorry driven b'y its driver in a rash and negtigent manner has hit the motor bike from behind, as a result, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and when he was being shifted to Government Area Hospital, he died on the way. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte 2 ETD,J MACMA No.605-2021

5. The respondent No.2 has fired counter denying the averments of 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 crime vehicle was not hoiding valid driving license and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. tt is further contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motor bike and that there is no negligence of the driver of the lorry.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial court has framed the following issues for trial:- "7- whether on 10.06.201s at about 1:00 p.m., at Hamara Mitti schoo/ near Kupriyal viilage, accident occurred due to rash and negligent diving of lorry No.MH46F3991 by its driver?

2. whether Kushaji Mohan Rao received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

3. whether the petitioners are entiiled for compensation? tf so fo what amount and from which respondent?

4. To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, petitioner got examined pws 1to 4, Exs.Al to 410 were marked. on beharf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and 82 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,42,000/-. Aggrieved b;. the said award, the r- ^v -- 4P .: =J 3 ETD,J MACMA No.605 2021 present appeal is preferred by the ctaimants seeking enhancement of comperrsation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri palle sri Harinath, learned counsel for the appellants and sri B. yuvraj, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counser for the appeflant has submitted that the petitioners herein have lost their source of dependency, but the tribunal h;as granted a meager amount of compensation by assessing the income of the deceased to be tow as Rs.9,000/- per month. He further argued that the deceased was a milk vendor and agriculturist and was possessing Ac.2-00 gts of rand and that they have produ,ced the rncome certificate of the deceased to show that he used to earn Rs.48,000/- per month by supplying the milk, but still the tribunal failed to consider the documents filed by them and has granted mr3ager amount. He therefore prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learrred counser for the respondents has submitted that the tribunal has rightly considered the evidence on record and has granted a just amount towards compensation and has prayed to uphold the s;ame 4 ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021

12. ln view of the above contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 Whether the claimants compensation? are entitled to enhancement of 2- whether the order and Decree of the Tibunat need any inbrterence ?

3. To what relief ? 13 Point No.1: a) The claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. It is their case that the deceased used to earn through agricurture and was also doing vegetabre and mirk business. To prove their case, they got examined pW3. b) PW3 who is the president of Milk producers cooperative society Limited, Dharmaraopet. He stated that they used to purchase milk from the deceased and that he issued Exs.A6 and Ag. He has also submitted the dates between which they have received supply of milk from the deceased. ln his cross examination, he admitted that Ex.A10/Register of the society does not show the name of the deceased as one of the supprier of mirk and that Ex.A10 does not bear the signature of the secretary who used to maintain the register. lt is further elicited from him that the date noted on top of Ex.A6 is corrected by using whitener and that Ex.A6 bears his srgnature. / -...-,..- --+... *..-r. i I h"..=- - - I 5 ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021 c) PW4/Dr. Geetha Mallika, is a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. she depos,:d that she visited the house of the deceased and noticed 15 Buffaloers and has assessed that the said Buffaloes yield 1.8 to 20 liters of milk per day and thus, has issued Ex.A7 in the presence of the President of the milk center and another villager. ln her cross examinatiorr, it is elicited that Ex.A7 does not bear the date. Several suggestions were given in her cross examination which were denied by her. d) A perusal of Ex.A6 reveals that it is a certificate issued on the Letter Head of the Milk Producers cooperative society, Dharmaraopet and the recitals of the documents show that the deceased used to supply 20 to 25 liters of milk to their centre and used to earn around Rs.48,000/- per month from their society. Ex.A7 is the Certirricate issued by the veterinary Doctor i.e, PW4 certifying that the de<:eased possessed 15 Graded Mudra Buffaloes which are high milk yielding animals and that the said animals wourd approximatr:ly produce 18 to 20 liters of milk per day and the income from the sarid animals would be around Rs.18,000/- to 20,0001- for every 15 darys. Ex.A10 is the copy of the Register maintained by the Milk Producers cooperative society, wherein it shows the registration number of the milk supplier and the number given to the sarnilabottles and also the quantity supplied by the said person. I ,l ,}:- 5 ETD,J MACMA No.505 2021 Though a suggestion was given to the witness that it does not disclose the name of the deceased, there is no such column mentioned in the register, but one fact is elicited from the said record that there is Milk Cooperative Society. Ex.Ag is the Milk Account Book pertaining to the deceased, it bears the name of the deceased and his number is revealed as "61". The register under Ex.A10, does not reveal the name of the deceased but, his registration number "61" is shown and the entries reflect that he supplied 55 liters on several dates. Further the Milk Account BoouEx.A9 discloses the quantity of the milk that is supplied by the deceased on several dates. Thus, it is revealed that the deceased used to supply milk to the Cooperative Milk Society. e) The age of the deceased as discrosed from Ex.A4 is 33 years, he was maintaining his wife and daughter. Thus, it is revealed that the deceased was an able bodied person of 32 years age and was rearing buffaloes and was supplying milk to the Milk cooperative society. considering the evidence on record, the tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.9,000/- per month. Ex.AB is the original ritle Deeds of the deceased showing that he owned an agricultural field to an extent of Ac.2-07 guntas, this also shows that he was an agriculturist. Thus, on an over all perusal of the eviderrce -7 i,i; LLl 7 ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021 on record, it is opined that the deceased must have earned Rs.10,000/- per month. 0 As per the dicta laid down in National lnsurance company Limited vs;. Pranay sethi & otherst , 4oo/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged,32, years, adding 40o/o towards future prospects i.e., 10,000+4000 would give Rs.14 0001- per month, which comes to Rs. 14,ooot- x 12 = Rs.'1,68,000/- per annum. g) The number of claimants herein are two and therefore, 1/3d deduction need to be made to his income towards personat expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,1 2,oool- (Rs.1,6g,000/- (-) Rs.56,000/-). h) The rnultiplier 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 rrans;port corporation2, the deceased being aged ,32'years, the appropriate multiplier is '16'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.17,92,000/- (Rs.1,12,000 x 16). /I ArR 2017 SCC 5157 2 zoorlolgcc r:zr 8 ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021 I rIiG:;-"-. . i) ln the right of pranay sefhis case, Rs.1s000/_ towards ross of estate and Rs.1s,o0o/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/_ towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts shourd be enhanced by 100/o ever! three years. i) ln Magma Generar rnsurance company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ chuhru Ram and others3, the Apex court has etaboratery discussed the principles laid down in pranay seffifs case and has further held that not onry the spouse but the parents and chirdren of the deceased are arso entifled to rbss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, there are two claimants and would get Rs.4g,400/_ each, hence, the compensation amount under this head woutd be Rs.96,800/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs- 18, 1501- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1g,1sot_ towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. k) ln all, the petitioners are entifled to the foilowing compensation amounts:- l" I i\ 1

3. mCo nsation oss of Rs. 17,92,0001- to the towards ortium Rs.96,800/- towards loss of estate

4. Compensation towards funeral expenses 31zort; t8 scc t3o Rs.18,150/- Rs. 19,1501- I I =7 'a-' 9 ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021 Total Rs.19,25,100/- Thus;, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is l) calculated as Rs.19,25,100/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,42,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of comPensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2 7 It is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified vrdth regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.19,25,100/- from that of Rs.12,42,C1001 that is awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- ln tl're result, the appeal is partty allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 18.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.449 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,42,000/- to Rs.19,25,100/- and the a enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum frc,m the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents 10 ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021 \ t'\\ are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any arready deposited. on such deposit, the craimants are entifled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Misceilaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appear, shail stand closed. SD/- T SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER District Judge, To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Nizamabad. (With records)

2. One CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri B Yuvraj, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK *" i a 1 1 ) I i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 19,10912025 , , JUDGMENT MACMA.NIr.605 of 2021 ii' () u 21 rEB 2U6 j{ * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA .t G k* J-l( =-- ril IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTTCE TTRUMALA DEVI EADA 605 Between:

1.9mt. (ull:aji.Su.rekha, W1o, (ushaji Mohan Rao, Aged 29 years, Occ. Household, &o. H.No: 5-100, Dharmaraopet (v), of sad=.ashivandgar Mandal Nizamabad District.

2. (uslaji Naqda Kishore, S/o. Late Kushaji Mohan Rao Aged 15 years, Occ. student, R/o. H.No. 5-100, Dharmaraofet (v), of sadaEhivanalar tviandar Nizamabad Districl. (Both are presently residing at Kanteshwar,-Nizambad) (Petitioner No. 2 is minor as such he-has represented the case under th6 guardianship of his natural mother and next friend and guardian Smt. Kushaji Surekha i.e., Appellant No.1 herein) ...Appel lants/Claimants AND

1. M/S. SICGIL INDUSTRIAL GASES L|M|TED., Plot No. V-33, M|DC, Tatoja, Dist Raighad, Maharashtra State, Owner of Lorry bearing No. MH-46-F-3'991. 2. The Oriental lnsurance C_ompany Limited., D.O.No. 7, Chennai-18, (New No. 377 (Old No.272) Anna Salai, lll Floor, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamilhadu- 600018 represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, 2nd Floor, Hero Honda Show Room (Venkateshwara Enterprises), Hyderabad Road Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad-500003. (The Respondent No. t herein is not necessary party in this Appeat) ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in M.V.O:P.No. 449 of 2015 dated 18-03-2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. * ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate for the Appellants dnd of Sri B Yuvraj, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partty allowed

2. That the Compensation amount awarded by the tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.12,42,000/- to Rs.19,25,100/- and the enhanced amount of Compensation shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. l-lowever, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 4. That the Respondents be and hereby directed to deposit the C)ompensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

5. C)n such deposit, that the claimants be and hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security.

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

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. T SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribu Additional District Judgr:, Nizamabad.

2. Two tlD Copies ABK Y\- a HIGH COURT DATED: 19lDgl2025 OECREE MACMA.No.605 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA @rrn[ )-t S*