The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of operation of the decree and judgment in MVOP No.292 of 2003 on the file of the Vl Additional District Judge cum MACT., Ranga reddy District at Vikarabad, dated 06.12 2006, pending disposal of the main CMA. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2007(MACMAMP. NO: 6649 OF 2007) Between:

1. Smt. Susheela Bai, Late Pathold Vinod, Aged about 26 yrs 2. P. Sriram, S/o. Late Pathold Vinod, Aged about 9 yrs 3. P.Srikanth, S/o. Late Pathold Vinod, Aged about 9 yrs 4. Laxma Nayak, S/o. Jyotya Nayak, aged about 54 yrs 5. Ramani Bai, Wo.Laxma Nayak, aged about 49 yrs Respondents 2.and 3 being minors, represented by their natural mother and gualdian the 1" respondent herein R/o Peddumul Thanda, Peddumul village, RR District. ...Petitioners/Respondent Nos.l to 5 AND

1. The New lndia Assurance Manager Regional Office Secunderabad Company Limited, V Floor, Surya rep., by its Regional Towers, S.P.Road,

2. K.Chinna Babu, S/o.K.Subba Rao, R/o.Q.No.B€, Vlll Block APSP Quarters, Kondapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Respondents/ Respondent No.6 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders dated 28-8-07 in MACMA MP.No. 4580 of 2OO7 in MACMA SR.No. 35871 ot 2007 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: JUOGMENT .a L macma 2845 2@7 N8X,l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A No.2845 of 2fi)7 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited (for short, 'the insurance company') challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 06.12.2006, passed by the VI Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, at Vikarabad, in O.P.No.292 of 2003. By the impugned judgmeng the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum to the claimants, on account of the death ofone Pathold Vinod (hereinafter, 'the deceased') in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.05.2003 at 3:00 PM near Antharam Village crossroads.

1.1 The deceased was proceeding from Tandur to Peddumul in an Auto (No. AP-28U-8965) and the driver of the Auto drove in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle near the limits of Antharam village, and the Auto overtumed. Consequently, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries, and he was given first-aid at Govemment Hospital, Tandur, and was re f'erred to Osmania General Hospital for further treatment; and he died on the way to the Osmania General Hospital.

1.2 The deceased, by the date of his death, was survived by wife (aged 22) two minor children (6 years and 3 years old), father (aged 50 years), and mother (aged 45 years). The claimants filed O.P.No.292 of 20f3 before the i Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal granted the total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the insurance company filed this appeal. t 2 macma_2845-2m7 NB(,J

2. Heard Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance company; and Mr. L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company would contend that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum, and the compensation granted is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. Leamed counsel for the respondents-claimants would contend that the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the facts of the case, and awarded the compensation and the same does not warrant interference.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the occurrence ofaccident on 08.05.2003 at 3:00 PM near the Antharam Village limits when the deceased was travelling in the Auto j bearing No. AP-28U-8965 and upon the Auto flipping due to the rash and negligent drivrrg by the driver ofthe Auto, and the deceased succumbing to the injuries suffered in the said accident, are not in dispute. ,l /

5.1 There was eye-witness (Smt. M. Savithri/PW-2) who deposed before the Tribunal about the manner in which the accident occurred, and also considering the Exs.Al to A7, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was dtre to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto.

5.2 Further, the deceased was said to be working as Mason. The Tribunal was inclined to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, however, considering the evidence of PW-l who deposed that the deceased used to eam around Rs.4,000/- per month, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per monrh \ 3 macrna_2845_4007 NB{ J / I

5.3 With regard to the age of the deceased, there was no docwnentary proof filed by the claimants before the Tribunal, and therefore the Tribunal considered the Postmortem Report, and assessed his age as 25 years.

6. Having taken the age of the deceased as 25 years, and assessing the income at Rs.4,000/- per month, the Tribunal had rightly deducted l/3'd from the income towards personal expenses, and applied the multiplier '18' for assessing the loss of future income/dependency, which is in accordance with the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation /. tn fact, by calculation, the Tribunal arrived at a higher compensation of Rs.5,76p00/-, however, restricted it to Rs.5,00,000/-. There is no illegality in either assessing the income of the deceased, or his age, or adopting the appropriate multiplier as per his age group, as per Surla Verma (supra). In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Misoellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall stand closed SD/. N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER I 1 I I I to",. ,n. Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Vikarabad'

2. One CC to Sri A Ramat(rishna Reddy' Advocate IOPUC] ;. il; 66 i" sii I p.bhakar Reddv' Advocate [oPUCl 4. Two CD Copies ABK f{- I 2oo9 (6) scc 121 \{t STA?F 'c 2 [tB 2u$ l-'l n QeS:, HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2845 of 2007 DISMISSING THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS G.,("l' k+ i I I l I [ 3300 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY HE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACcIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2845 OF 2007 Between: The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep., by its Regional Manager Regional Office, V Floor, Surya Towers, S.P.Road, Secunderabad ,..AppellanU2nd Respondent AND 1 . Smt. Susheela Bai, Late Pathold Vinod, Aged about 26 yrs, Occ: Household 2. P. Sriram, S/o. Late Pathold Vinod, Aged about 9 yrs, Occ: Student 3. P.Srikanth, S/o. Late Pathold Vinod, Aged about 9 yrs, Occ: Student 4. Laxma Nayak, S/o. Jyotya Nayak, aged about 54 yrs, Occ: Labourer 5. Ramani Bai, Wo.Laxma Nayak, aged about 49 yrs, Occ: Nil Respondents 2. and 3 being minors, represented by guardian the 1sr respondent herein. Respondents 1 Peddumul Thanda, Peddumul village, R.R. District. their natural mother and to 5 are residents of

6. K.Chinna Babu, Sio.K.Subba Rao, aged about 49 yrs, Occ: Business Ri/o.Q.No.B-8, Vlll Block APSP Quarters, Kondapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Respondents/Petitioners ...RespondenUl "t Respondent Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicbs Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 292 of 2003 dated 06-12-2O06 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Clairns Tr'rbunal-cum-Vl Additbnal District Judge, Vikarabad. 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 A Rarnakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri L Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents- / / I This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Dismissed.

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

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- N SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR ,-----'a \!--- \\ecnox OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Vikarabad.

2. Two CD Copies ABK Y{ HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.2845 ot 2OO7 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 4 ./P?"4 Y*- G['Pt"