The High Court · 2025

under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidav t filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To VACATE the lnterim stay dated.27lO8l2021 and permit the petitioners/Respondents No.1 to 3 to withdraw the 50% deposited amount by the appellant wittrout furnishing any security. Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 3: SRl. ANANTHA CHARY KURELLA Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.596 OF 2q2 1 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 22.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.976 of 2OIl passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

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

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

25.12.201O at about 6:1O a.m., the deceased was going to Thandur on vehicle bearing No.AP-28W-6218 as a Supervisor-cum- representative of owner of the goods i.e., coal which was being transported from KothagUdem to Thandur, and the vehicle reached NH-9, the driver of the said vehicle has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to a lorry which was already stranded across the road, as a result of rvhich the deceased sustained head injuries and died.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, d9e, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that \ 2 ETD,J MACMA No.595 2021 the deceascd used to work as supervisor-cum-cleaner of lorry and that he has also paid Rs.lo,ooO/- to the lst petitioner which includes the monthly wages of Rs.5,0ool-.lt is further contendecl by the rer;pondcnt No.1 that the risk of paying compensation if any would be covered by the respondent No.2 and that he is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The: r,.rspondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments oi the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further denied that tire policir was in force as on the date of the accident. It also disputccl stating that the driver of the crime vehicle was not possessir g valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Bar;ed on the above rival contentions, the Tribunai has framed tLLe following issues:- o7.

2. 3-

5. / LVhetlrcr the accident occurred on account of the rush and. negligent diuing of the driuer of the offending uehicre i.e., Cioods Carrier bearing No.Ap-2 BW_62 1 g? whether the offending uehicre d.riuer was rrauing effectiue driuing license at the time of the alleged. accid.ent? LVhether the offending uehicre was having proper record.s at the time of the alleged accident? LVhether the petitioners are entitled. to the compensation? And if so, from whom and if so to uhat ertent? To whqt relieJ?" ,r' 3 ETD,J MACMA No.596_2021

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and Exs.Al to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.Bl was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,17,5OOl-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anantha Chary Kurella, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the DCM vehicle bearing AP-28W-6218 as it went and hit against a stationed lorry. He further argued that surprisingly, the tribunal has converted the petition that was filed under Section 166 to that of Section 163-A, and has fixed the liabitity on the Insurance Company under Section 14O of Motor Vehicles Act, which is not permissible under law. He further argued that it is a settled law, that the Tribunal cannot suo-motu convert the petition filed under Section 166 to that of Section 163-A. He has also submitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and that the insurance company is not tiable to pay the compensation. He therefore, 4 ETD,J MACMA No.596 2021 prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal by allowing this appeal. 1 i. Lezrrned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even in <:ase of a gratuitous passenger, pay and recovery can be ordered :lnd that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a represenr:ative of the owner of the goods and was not a gratuitous passenger. Fie further argued that keeping in view the beneficial legislation of the Act, the tribunal can convert the petition into Section .163-4. and thus, there is no anamoly with regard to the liability lixed on the insurance company. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. L2. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the ra.sh and negligent diuing of the driuer of DCM Van bearing No.AP-28W-6218 resulting in the death of the deceased-Mahender Reddg?

2. Whetlrcr the deceased was a gratuitous pa.ssenger. If so, whether the Insurance Compang is liable to pay compensation.

3. Whether the Order and Decree passed bg the Tribunal need ang interference?

4. To what reliefr

13. Point No.1:- a) Th,-' contention of the appellant's counsel is that the Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion that the deceased was a third party ), 5 ETD,J MACMA No.596 2021 and that they are entitled for compensation under "No Fault Liability". Firstly, this court has to examine whether there was any dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and what was the necessity flor the tribunal to convert the petition to that of Section 163-A. b) A perusal of FIR/Ex.A1 and Charge Sheet/Ex.A4 reveals that the charges are levelled against two accused persons one is the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-26-TT-OO77 and the other is the driver of DCM Van bearing No.AP-28W-6218. The recitals of the charge sheet reveal that the lorry bearing No. AP-26-TT-0077 was going with a coal load from Kothagudem to Thandur and on the w&y, when it reached at the outskirts of Malkc.pur Village, near Pal Dhaba, in the mean time the driver of .*ih".lorry bearing No.AP- 29y-4275 has driven in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed to this lorry, as a result, the lorry cabin got damaged and in the mean time, the DCM Van bearing No. AP-28W- 6218 coming behind this damage lorry, was driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and thus hit the lorry from behind. As a result, the front portion of the DCM got damaged and the cleaner/Suresh, Supervisor/Mahender Reddy of the DCM Vehicle received injuries and succumbed to death. Thus, the recitals of the charge sheet throw light upon the facts that the deceased/Mahender Reddy was travelling in the DCM Vehicle and 6 ETD,J MACMA No.596 2021 that the said DCM Van was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and due to his rash and negligence, the vehicle went anc[ hit the rear side of the lorry. It clearly indicates the rash and negl.gence on part of the driver of DCM Vehicle. c) The owner of the DCM Van is arrayed as respondent No. i and the Lnsurer of DCM Van is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the present 1>etition. When the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending; vehicle is clearly proved, there is no necessity for the tribunal to look into the aspect of converting the petition into Section 163-A. It is once again reiterated that Vakiti Mogilanna is arrayed as accused No.2 in the charge sheet and the recitals also reveal that he was rash and negligent in driving the van, resulting in the death of Mahender Reddy. Therefore, this Court holds that it wds not proper on part of the tribunal to convert the petition Iiled under Section 166 into that of Section 163-4. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. L4. Po:lnt No.2:- a) It is elicited from the crime record that the deceased was travellinE; as a Supervisor in the DCM Van at the time of the accident. Now it has to be seen whether the crime vehicle had the provision for a cleaner and a Supervisor. i i i i I I N i I i a i l j 7 ETD,J MACMA No.596_2021 b) The charge sheet further revears that there was a cleaner/Suresh in the said vehicle, apart from the driver and the supervisor/Mahender Reddy. A perusal of the policy under Ex.Bl reveals that it is issued to the crime vehicle that is DCM van bearing No. AP-28w-6218 and that the policy is a "package policy,, issued for GCCV-Public carriers other than three wheelers, it includes the third party cover. It is also made out from Ex.B I that it had a seating capacity of " 2 + l" i.e., one driver and two other persons. The crime record clearly discloses that there were two persons apart from the accused driver by name V. Mogilanna, there was one Suresh/cleaner of the vehicle and. the deceased/Mahender Reddy/supervisor. Therefore, even as per the terms and conditions of the polic5r, the seating capacity was permissible and there is no violation as such. Therefore, the deceased is not a gratuitous passenger and hence, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. c) It also discloses a premium of Rs.50/- was collected for two persons and Rs.25/- was collected towards the limited liability of driver and the limit of liability is to an extent of Rs.7,s0,ooo/-. Therefore, the company is liable to pay compensation. I t 8 ETD,J MACMA Ne.596_2021 d) The accident pertains to the year 2OlO, and there is no proof of inconre fiied by the petitioners. As per the Post Mortem Examination Report, the deceased is aged about '22'years. e) The deceased is a bachelor, the age of deceased is'22'years and he is found to have been travelling in the DCM Van as Supervisor. Thus, the income of the deceased as assessed by the tribunal i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month appears to be justified in this case. As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Compang 0 Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Othersl, 4Oo/o of the income needs to be addecl towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 22 years, adding 4Oo/o towards future prospects i.e., 3O00+ l,2OO would gi're Rs.4 ,2OO l- per month, which comes to Rs.4,2OO l- x 12 : Rs.50,z1OO/- Per annum. g) Si-rrce the deceased is bachelor at the time of the alleged accident, 50% deduction need to be made to the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.25,2OO /- (5O,4OO x 50/ 100). 1 AtR 2017 SCC 5157 -).,: 9 ETD,J MACMA No.s96 2021 h) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age oi rfr" deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Vernta a. Delhi Transport Corporation2. The deceased being aged 22 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.4,53,6OO/- (25,2OO x 18). i) In the light of Pranay Setht's case, Rs.15OO0/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,00O/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,00O/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by lOo/o ever! three years. j) ln Magma General Insurance Compang Limited. a. Nanu Rc;m @ Chuhttt Ro;m and others3, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Sethi's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.L,45,2OOl- instead of Rs.40,OOO/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. 'zooqlo; scc 12l ' (2018) ts scc 130 I I I I i I I I i I i i I i i , i 10 ETD,J MACMA No.596 2021 k) The present appeal is preferred b), the Insurance Company and there is no appeal or cross objection filed by the ciaimants. Now the cluestion is whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of any cross appeal by the claimants. 1) In ,Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirzq. and ors. vs. Ahmed.abad. Municipctl Transport sentic/, the claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Trib,rnal has granted Rs.3,51,300/- along with interest towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment the respondents has filed an Appeal before the High court and the High courrt has partly allowed the Appeal of the respondent and reduced the compensation to Rs.2,s1,8oo/-. Being aggrieved by this Jud6;ment, the legal representatives of the deceased filed civil Appeal before the Apex court. The Apex court has awarded the compensretion more than that claimed by the petitioners and further has held that, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agor,y. It has further held that without a claimants appeal also, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation. a' u lzor; l6 scc 7 r9 11 ETD,J MACMA No.595_2021 m) Similarly, in Surekha and Ors. I/s. Scntosh and Orss, the claimants case was allowed by the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.40,17,6021-. Aggrieved by the said order, the lnsurance company has flled an appeal before the High court wherein, the High Court has held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.49,15,3761-, but has held that the High court cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal and cannot enhance the compensation more than that awarded by the Tribunal, in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. However, the appeal preferred by the Insurance company claiming reduction of compensation was dismissed. when the matter reached Apex court, it has hetd that in the matters of Motor Accident claims, 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 modified the order passed by the High court to the effect that the compensation amount payable to the appellants is determined as Rs.49,85,376/- with interest thereon as awarded by the High Court. n) In Andhrq. Prad.esh State Road T?anspott Vs. Dusari Pramilq. and, AnotheF, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,00,OO0/- and aggrieved by the same, the Insurance ' 1zozt1 166 scc 467 u vtACMA.No.88 of 2ol4 +{ifr l l i I I I i I i I I I I I I i I i t' L2 ETD,J MACMA No.596 2021 Compan'7 has preferred an appeal before this High Court which has hekl that even in the absence of Cross Appeal or Cross Objection filed by the respondents, it is pertinent to consider the jurisdict:on of this Court to grant just compensation and has enhance,l the compensation from Rs.9,00,OOO/- to Rs. 15,82,6001- with an interest of 60/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. o) Applying the above cited decisions, compensation is enhance,l in the present case, though the claimants have not {iled any app(:al or cross objections. p) It j,s observed that the Tribunal has erroneously held that the petition filed under Section 166 has to be converted into Section 163-A and then has awarded compensation under structured formula'casis q) But however, in view of the finding arrived at Point Nos.l and 2, the deceased is entitled to compensation under Section 166, hence the same is awarded as follows:- r) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensationamounts:' i 1 d. Compensation under the head of loss Compensation consortium towards loss of Rs.4,53,6001- Rs.1,45,200/- 13 ETD,J MACMA No.595_2021

3. Compensation towards loss of estate

4. Compensation expenses Total towards funeral Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.6,35,1OO/- s) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,17,5OO/-, while, this Court arrived at a compensation of Rs.6,35,1O0/- and hence, it is held that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. Thus, Point No. 2 is answered accordingly

15. Point No.3:- In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.l and 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.6,35,1OO/- from that of Rs.4, L7,5OOl- i.e., ( f awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. I6. POINT NO.4: In the result, the appeal is disposed off, modifying the Order and Decree dated 22.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.976 of 20 1 1 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additionai Chief Judge, City Civil Court, I{yderabad, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4',t7,5OOl- to Rs.6,35,10O/- and the errhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition tlll realization. However, the I \

1.4 ETD,J MACMA No.596 2021 interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant- Insuran,le company is directed to deposit the compensatio'r amount with accrued interest within a period of two months fron-r the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after cleducting the amount if any already deposited. on such deposit, the claimanrs are entilled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appear, shail stand closed \ To, SD/. T.SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER ,,? //TRUE COPY/ Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

1.' The Ctairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumXXV Additional Chief 2. One CC to SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. ANANTHA CHARY KURELLA Advoiate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL % ,ri€ : : :|, r'i HIGH COURT DATED:0110812025 t / JUDGMENT MACMA.No.596 of 2O21 I t sIH'E 1 I i : 1$ ttB tu$ t) .F DISPOSINI3 OFF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS &v t 9t \ \ t l i, i i I i I i I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Between: Shriram General lnsurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by its Legal Manager, No.401 and 403, 4th Floor, Sai Datta Arcase, Street -No. Hyderabad. No.3-6- 517, Flat 6, Himayatnagar, AND ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 1 Mulukala Kanakamma, Wo. Malta Reddy, Age 45 R/o.Vemulagattu Village, Mandal Thogutta, MedakDistrict at H. No. 1 5 --3=3621 1, Near Moosrambagh, Hyderabad. years, Occ. Coolie, now presently residing

2. Mulukala Sailender Reddy @ Sai Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Age Driver, R/o.Vemulagattu Vill-ge, Mandai Thogutta, Medak Distiict residing at H.No. 15-3-36211, Near Moosrambagh, Hyderabad. 22 years, Occ. now presently

3. Mulukala Rajeshwari, Wo. M.Surender Reddy, Age 20 years, Occ. House hold, All are R/o.Vemulqggtlq _Village, Mandal Thogutta, Medak District now presently residing at H.No. 15-3-36211, Near Moosrambagh, Hyderabad.

4. Joseph, S/o. Philips, AGe 40 years, Occ. Business, R./o.H.No.2-56l33/39, Sai Nagar, Madhapur (Owner of Goods carrier LMV) .... Respondents/Petitioners ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 22.03.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.976/2011 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumXXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 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 argument of SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI ANANTHA CHARY KURELLA, Advocate appeared for Respondents 1 to 3 and none appeared for respondent No.4. This eourt dcth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That tlre Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby disposed off by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4, 17 ,5001- to Rs.6,35,1001 and the errhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annun'l from the date of claim petition till realizatiori and that the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

2. That the appellant - lnsurance company is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from 1.he date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amourrt if any already deposited.

3. That l:he on such deposit by the respondents, the claimants are hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security.

4. That tlrere shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. T.SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR llTrueCopyll. To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumXXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. SECTION OFFICER

2. Two CD Copies. (, () € / n HIGH COURT DATED:01,t0812025 DECREE MACMA.N,r.596 of 2021 DISPOSINI3 OFF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS