The High Court · 2025

Heard Mr. Pallati Chandra Mouli, learned counst I for appellanLs- claimants and Ms. T.Padmaja, leamed couns t I representing Mr. Flarinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for r:,pondent No.2- msurance comPany.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the apJ,r llants-claimants challenging the order and decree dated 19.04.2022 in I'.1 VOt'] No.2830 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Clairr ; Tribunal-cum- XXVI Additional Chief fudge. City Civil Court, [{ydt,r abad (for short, 'Tribunal') and seeking to enhance the compensa tion a r ount.

3. The appellants, who are the wife, children arr mother of the deceased-B.Krishna filed the claim petition unclcr St,c1i >n 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, L988 before the Tribunal, claiming , rmpensation of Rs.20,00,0@/- for the death of the deceased in a mc t rr accident that occurred on 08.05.2016 at about 16.00 hours while tr : deceased was proceeding towards Damaragidda village on his nrir orcycle bearing No.AP-28-DP-0486. l4lhen the deceased reached near Jagigutta Gate, Ibrahimpally village, Chevalla Mandal, Ranga Recir y District, one Piaggio Goods Auto bearing registration No.'fS-06-Ur\ . 636 (hereinafter 2 referred to as 'crime vehicle') came in rash and negtigent manner with high speed, lost control over it and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustahed fatal injuries and on the way to hospital, he succumbed to injuries.

3.1. The Police, Chevella Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.82/2016 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet.

3.2. The appellants/claimants claimed that the deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was eaming Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a labour-cum-labour contractor and contributing the same to his family members. Due to sudden death of deceased, the appellants/claima nts lost their source of income.

4. The respondent No.l i.e ., orvner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle rcmairred ex Wrte.

5. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the allegations i.e., the manner of accident, age, avocatiory eaming capacity, and further averred that the compensation amount claimed by the petitioners is exccssive ancl cxorbitant and finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. ,.

6. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and docurr:ntary evidence 3 produced by both the parties, has categorically held t rat the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the cr me vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.15,03,855 /- along with ir :erest @ 6o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit , nd fastened the liability on the respondents jointly and severally and a:;r ailing the same, the appellants/claimants have filed this Appeal for ,nhancement of compensation

7. The main contention of the appellants/clairr i nts is that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the earnings of tt e c{cceast,cl and though the appellanS/claimanb claimed the earning; of the deceased at Rs.20,000r/- as the deceased was labour-cum-labgrr contractor, the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the earnings ;: Rs.8,000/- per annum and deducted 1/3ra towards personal ('\l) nditure of the deceased though the dependents of the deceased are li ,e members and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/ 4tr' as per tlr( dccision o[ the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and r,t rers Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothert. The learnetl counsel further contended that the Tribunal failed to award consortirr n of Rs.40,000/- to c.ach of the claimants and the interest awarded br thc Tribunal is very less and the same needs to be enhanced ' (2009) 6 scc r2t : I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l I i I I l 4 r-l

8. The leamed counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 31, though they claimed the age of the deceased as 30 years, for computation of proper compensation. Perusal of the record, P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the age of the deceased was 31 years as on the date of the accident. As such, the admission of P.W.1 itself is sufficient to prove that the deceased was 31 years as on the date of the accident and therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the'fribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 31 years for computing the proper compensation and the same needs no interference on that ground.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the res;ronclcnt No.2-insurance company would submit that the Tribunal after appreciating the facts has arrived atiust compensation and that the earnings of Rs.8,000/- per month is just and proper in vicw o[ the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malakappa and others v. lffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and another2, and that the learned counsel for insurance company fairly submits that thc lritrunal ought to have deducted 1/4m bwards personal and living expenses of the deceased as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra)' 2 2025 scc oorinc sc 9?9 / A

10. Insofar as the contention of the learned counse for appellants that Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceas:d at Rs.8,000/- per month is concerned, as per the record, it is con ended that the deceased was working as labour-cum-labour contr rctor and was eaming a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, but, howe.r rr they did not produce any materiaI to show that the deceas,., was earning Rs.20,000rr- per month as being labour and labour contr.t ctor.

11. Perusal of the record would show that the Triburr rl observed that on reasonable assessment on hypothesis, the income cf the deceased is fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month and as per Malakapp;r (stated supra), the amount can be eamed by any person without an. avocation can be takcn and therefore, Tribunal is justified in fixirl the incomc of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month.

72. The other contention raised by the learn:1 counse,l for appellants that the dependents of the deceased arr. ive. in rrumbcr and, therefore, 1/4th towards personal and living t xpenses of the deceased to be deducted. In my considered opinior ,, the Tribunal erred in dc'ducting I /3,a of the income of the drr -.ased ton,arcls personal and living expenses and the same needs to r : modified and as the dependents are five, I / 4* amount has to be dcr rr6gscl tovr.ards personal and living expenses as per the decision crf I [on,blc ,\pex t-\ Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and the same is liable to be modified to 6 c that extent.

13. Perusal of the impugned award, under the conventional heads i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,m0/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively With regard to awaid of consortium, the I lon'blc Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and othersl, at paragraph No.59.8 held that reasonable figures on conventiorral heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.aO000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid amounb should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in cvery three years. In Magma General lnsurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whilc referring its own judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- to each claimants. Tlrcrefore, in vicw of the above decisiory the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium. The petitioners are also entitled to receive the aforesaid amount with enhanced amount at the rat(' of 10o'o for every three years. Thus, petitioners are entitled to an amount o( Rs.2,20,ffi0 / - (Rs.a4,000/- x 5) towards consortium, Rs.16,500/- c'ach (tts.15,000/- + ' (2o ri) 16 scc 6Eo f ( 7 10% of Rs.15,000/-) towards loss of estate and funer,r expenses since first block period of three years have elapsed from the rl rte of the award i.e.,19.04 2022.

74. The other contenLion of the leamed counsel for ap >ellants that the Tribunal awarded the less interest @ 6% per annum nd the interest awarded by Tribunal is on lesser side and thus, requir,: interference of this Court and accordingly, the interest is enhanced to i, . i% per annum.

15. In view of the above, the compensation amount il recalculated as Sl.No. Head Income L- [:uture prosp('cts Total inconre -> 3 { I 5 6 8 9 ll0 Compensation award,:, Rs.8,(X)V- per month Rs.3,20{- p.m., (Rs.,to% of income i.e., Rs.8,rX )/-) Rs.11,20fl- p.m., Rs.EOOq- + Rs.3200/- [)cduchon towards personal Rs.2,80U- (i.e., one-lc rrth of the total n5C's Nct nronthlt rncome Rs.8,40fl- (i.e., Rs.71.,D l- (-l Rs.2,800/ tiplic r 15 Loss of dependency Compensatiorr for lrqryr, lgq (Rs.aa,ooo/ - t-oss ol "rtotr' - Funt ral erpensc,s Rs.1612,80V- (i.e., Rs.8 {00/- r l6 x l2) loss of x5 Rs. 2,20000/- Rs. 16J0fl- Rs. 16500/- Total conr nsation to be Ifs.lE 55r0ry-

16. The Appeal is partly allowed and the compen:;i tion amount is reduced from Rs 15,03,856/- to Rs.1g,65,g00/_ with pro )ortionat(, costs l l I I 8 and interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization 77 . The respondent No.2-insurance company herein is directed to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

18. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount as per the apportionment awarded by the Tribunal.

19. 'l here shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous a pplica tion-s if any shall stand closed SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGIST ,,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Ad tional Chief Judge, CitY Civil Court Hyderabad. il;6c t shr-inrGl cHANDRAMoULI, Advocate [oPUC] One CC to Ms T.PADMAJA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies. Spare To, 1 2 J 4 Ny I L HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.264 of 2022 tlE i, r4 0 5 IEB i:\ C. -{ L'-) *. \.- MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITH(: UT COSTS ,\6 $ 1b [ 3/1851 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 264OF 2022 Between:

1. B. Anjanamma and 4 others, Wo Lab B. Krishna Aged about. 26 years, Occ. House Hold.

2. B. Balu, S/o Late B. Krishna Aged about. 7 years Occ. Student 3. B. Jyothika, D/o Late B. Kr'shna Agred about. 6 years Occ. Student 4. B. Sanjana, D/o Late B.Krishna Aged about. 5 years Occ. Student 5. B. Chennamma, Wo Balaiah Aged about.60 years, Occ. House hold Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 being minors rep by their Mother and natural guardian i.e appellanUclaimant No.1, B. Anjanamma. All aref,t/o H.No.1-1, Hayathabad Village, Shabad Mandat, Ranga Reddy Districl Presently residing at H.No.167, EWSH New Santosh Nagar Cotony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ...Appel la n ts/C la imants ANO 1 2 Pebbati Mallesh, S/o Bala Swamy Aged Major, Occ. Owner cum Driver of Piaggio Goods Auto bearing no. TS 06 UA 2636 R/o H.No 9-53, Katwakole village, Peddakothapally Mandal Mahabubnagar District. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, Rep. by its Manager (Legal), HNo.4-1-327 to 337, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001 ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.|,1o.2830 of 2016 daled.19l04l2022 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lolver Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of sri p.chandra Mouli, Ac\ ocate for the Appellant and of Sri Harinath Reddy Some, Advocate, Represent rg by Ms.T.padmaja, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2, and None appeared for r, spondent No..l. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal le and hereby is parily allowed by reducing the compensation amount i lm Rs.1 5,03,g56/_ to Rs.18,65,800^ with proportionate costs and interest i t the rate oI 7 .So/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realizatic r.

2. That the respondent No.2 insurance company be an lhereby is directed to deposit the said compensation amount with a period r f eight (g) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. That on such deposit, the appellants/claimants be arr hereby are entifled to withdraw the entire compensation amount as per the i pportionment awarded by the Tribunal

4. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of it e Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/, N. JAWAHAR REDDY AS,I ISTANT REGISTRAR tt---- t\="r,o N OFFICER \ \

1. The Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- XXVI Addrt >nar chief Judge, city 2. Two CD Copies. Civil Court Hyderabad. To, Spare 6, HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 DECREE MACMA.N o.264 ot 2022 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITH( IUT COSTS 0, r1 1a >1