1 . Poreddy Ralrtha, Wo v. 1. M.Madhukar Redd

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHI LAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.546 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This MACMA is filed by the appellants/c I imants assailing the Award, dt.06.O2.20 18, in Op.No.994 of2(t 2 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Trib: nal_cum_special Sessions Judge, for trial of SCs/STs(pOA ) Cases_cum_VlI Additional District Judge at Nalgonda, for enh::r cement.

2. Heard Sri Sakinala Ravi Kumar, learne<l counsel for the appellants, and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned S,t mding Counsel appearing for respondent- Insurance Compaly

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties ii i I hereinzrfter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, the clai nants, vvho are the wife, children and mother of the deceasecl I oreddy Venkat Reddy, filed a petition under Section 166 and l. O of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation ol ls.2g,OO,0OO/ for the death of the deceased in a road accident hat took place on 29.O1.2012. On the fateful day, after compl: ion of process duty at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, while tL r deceased was 2 returning to Yadagirigutta poiice Station on his pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP 24 K i356, when he reached near Kondamadugu Mettu, near Indian petrol Bunk near Bibinagar - Village at about 2.00 a.m., he dashed to a lorry bearing No.Ap_ 36-XC-4246, which was parked in a negligent marner and sustained several injuries and died on the spot.

5. A case in Crime No.12 of 2012 of Bibinagar police Station, Nalgonda District, was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and charge sheet was also laid against the driver o[ the lorry.

6. The claimants contended that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale & healthy and u,orking as police Constable 21 17 in Yadagirigutta police Station and used to earn Rs.21 ,7 49 / pcr month, and on account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their only breadwinner. The 1"r respondent being the driver-cum-owner and 2nd respondent being insurer ol the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensarion.

7. The 'liibunal after due enquiry and examining the evidence available on recorcl, held ttrat the accideut has 3 occurred due to the rash and negligert act of the 1"r respondent-driver and awarded an amounr , f Rs.l5,3O,0OO/_ as against the claim of Rs.2g,00,000/_, rvitJr lterest Qi,,6ok per annum from the date of petition till the date cf r eaJizatntn.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the clajmants .iled the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the ap rellant_claimants submits that the Tribunal erred in coming the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash anrl negligent acts of driver of the lorry as rvell as the deceased anr-l , rroneouslv fixed contributory negligence on the part of th( deceased and deducted 25ok out of the tota-l compensation

10. Learned counsel for the appellants furttrt.; contended that the Tribunal has not awarded just and propcr r ompensation in the light of the judgments of the Honbl,_. Apex Court in Nqtional Insurance Compang Ltd.. as. prct tag Sethi o.nd. othersl and Sq.rla Verma qnd othe.s us. Delhi 2017 ACJ 27 oO 4 Transport Corpordtion and another2, and thus' prayed to allow the appeal enhancing the compensation'

11. Per contra, Iearned Standing Counsel appear for respondent-insurance company submitted that fixing of liability on the part of the deceased torvards contributory negligence is justifrable, and while supporting the au'ard and decree passed by the Tribunal, contended that the interference of this Court is unwarranted and sought to dismiss the appeal' t2 I have taken note of the respective submissions made on either side and perused the record'

13. As regards the findings of the Tribunal in fixing contributor-v negligence @ 25% , from a perusal of the Sketch Map of offence panchanarna ancl MVI Report' i'e'' Ex'A5 and A7, it is evident that lorry was parked on the road without taking any precautionary measures to avert any danger' Normally at odd hours during night at 2 00 a'm'' in the absence of precautiona-ry steps 'being taken in averting any danger' it is beyond the imagination of a prudent person to anticipate that a vehicle u'ould be parked on the road The deceased had no 2 z 1zooel o scc tzt 5 occaslon to sense the parking of the lorry as the accident occurred at midnight 2.OO a.m. This Court rr rdisputedly holds that the findings arrived at by the Tribr, r aI in fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the 11 r eased @r 2S%o, is unreasonable, unjustified and perverse ancl i; accordingly set

14. Now coming to the point of what rvoul,l be the just and reasonable compensation, as per the sal;u r certificate, the deceased u.as police constable and drawing rL r ronthly salary of Rs.21,749/-, and the Tribunal has rightt-r considered the monthiy income of the deceased @ Rs.21,249r The deceased being 40 years of age and is working as c< nstable, as per Pranag Sethi's case (supra), 30% is to bt addcd to,*,ards future prospects, which comes to Rs.6,52a /_. Thus, the monthly loss of earnings of the deceasec would be to Rs.28,274/- (Rs.21,749/- +Rs.6,525/_). As on rt e date ot.death, as the dependents are four in all, the Tribr-r ral has rightly deducted 1/3.d towards personal expenses nd arrived at Rs.18,850/-p.m. So aiso, the multiplier of ,1, applied by the 6 Tribunal needs no interference, as is in terms of the guidelines issued in Sarla Varmc's case.

15. Thus, the total loss of earnings of the deceased arrived at by the Tribunal of to Rs.3l,66,8O0/_(Rs.18,850/_ x 12 x 14), is just and reasonable, and needs rro interference

16. Further, under the conventional head of loss of consortium, the Tribunal has erred in granting Rs.aO,000/_ 1o 1st petitioner alone, contrary to the law laicl in pranag Sethi's case(supra) and further clarified in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. a. Nanu Ram aliols Chuhnt Ram and Ors3 wherein it was held that Rs.4O,O00/_ eacle is to be granted towards loss of consortir-rm to wife, children or paJent, with an enharr-cement @ lO9/, every three years. The tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/_ under the heads of funeral expenses ancl loss of estate, it did not consider for granting enhancement (d, tOV, every three years, as directed in pranag Sethi,.s case(supra). '1zort; rr scc r:o 7

17. In the instant case, since, the accider t ,"l,as occurred before the judgment in pranag Sethi,s cast: ;upra), the date of said judgment i.e., 31.O2.20 17, should tr : taken as base date for calculating the applicable three_yer r block periods for enhancement. Thus, as of date, app- rximately eight ycars and two months have elapsed, const tuting two full block periods of three years each. Thus, err I,r petitioner is entitled for consortium amount of Rs.4g,4() )/_ (First block: Rs.4O,OO0/- + jO% = Rs.44,O0O/-; Second blocl: Rs.44,000/ + 10%: Rs.4B,4Oo/-). Similarly, for loss of er; ate & funeral expenses, the petitioners are entitled for Rs. tg,1S0/_ lFlrst bktck: Rs.15,OOO/ - + 1O% :Rs.16,5O0/ _; Second block: Rs.16,5OO/- + 1O% = Rs. 1B,1SO/_). 18. In view of the above findings, the ;ompensation amount is recalculated as under: Sl.No. Head compensati< n awarded I 2 Income Rs .217491- per. annum Future prospects Rs.6,525/- (3O% X 2t,749) 8 -- Total monthly income Rs.282741- (Rs.2'1,7 a9 I - + Rs.6,525/-) Deductions towards personal expcnses. Rs.9,4251- (Rs.2A,27a/- X 1/3rd) Net Monthlv Income Annual Income Rs.1885O/- (Rs.27 ,274 - Rs.9,425=Rs. 18849/- rounded to Rs. 18850/-) Rs,2,26,2OO/- (Rs.18,850/- x 12) Multiplier 14 Loss of dependency Rs.31,66,8OO/- (r.e., Rs.2,26,2OO/- x lal Consortium (Rs.48,400 l-x4) Funera-l expenses & Loss of Estate Total Compensation Rs.1,93,60O/- Rs. 18,15O/- Rs.33,78,55O/- 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11

19. With regard to the deduction of Rs.9,15,000/- made by the Tribuna-l out of the total compensation determined, it is settled principle of law that no double benefit should be passed on to the claimants while awarding compensation and it must exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rules of 2006.

20. Therefore, the Tribunal, by relying on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has rightly deducted 9 the said amount of Rs.9,15,000/-, whir; I the claimants have received from the police Department I ttdcr Ex.82 and Ex.B3, on account of the death of the r eceased, which needs no in terference. Thus, after deducti: 3 Rs.9,1S,0OO/_ lrom the total compensation, the just ,: rmpensation to which the appellants are entitled (Rs.33,78,550 - Rs.9, 15,000). Rs.24,63,55O/- IS

27. Coming to the rate of interest @ 60/o p.t, awarded by the Tribunal, this Court finds it not just and ree sonable, and is modified by enhalcingto 2.5%o p.a., as per tht. udgment of the Apex Court rn pranag Sethf,s case (supra).

22. Accordingly, the MACMA is partly allowe c, modifying the Ar'rrard of the 'rribunar, by enha,cing the corr rensation from Rs.15,30,00O/- to Rs.24,63,550/- with interes , Qi T.S,*t p.a. from the date ol petition till the date of realizatrcr .

23. The respor-rdent_ insurance company is drre :tecl to deposit the compensation amount as directed above, r,r,it rin a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of tl e copy of the 10

24. The claimants are entitled to the said amount in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal in OP.No.994 of 2012. As a sequei thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed SD/.M.OSMAN ALI ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal m-special Sessions Judge, for trial of SCs/S Ts(POA) Cases-cum-Vll Addition al District Judge at Nalgonda with records if an ( SRI. SAKINALA'Aou, *rro* Advocate IoPUC] One CC to KOTA SUBB ARAo Advocate [oPUC] One CC to SRl. Two CD CoPies 2 4 GE/psl M. HIGH COURT DATED:2511O12O25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.546 of 2022 r- I r i t : : 1i ",4' , --:i\TE .t 5o (.-) ,. \: l tiB 2$28 I i,li PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1 5 v xb IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCIOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT [ 3485 ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 546 OF 2022 Between

1. Poreddy Ra.litha, W/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ Household.

2. Poreddy Pooja, D/o Late Venkat Reddy, Aged about 18 years, Occ. Student,

3. Poreddy Hruthik, S/o Late Venkat Reddy, Aged '10 years, Occ. Student

4. Poreddy Janakamma, W/o Late Lachi Reddy, Aged about 67 years, Occ Household. Nos.3 being Minors, Rep. by their Mother and natural guardian Poreddy Rajitha-Appellant No. 1. All are n/o Poreddygudem Village, Vemulapally Mandal, Presently Residing at Gandhinagar of Nalgonda Town and District. ...A',ELLANTS (Petitioners) AND 1 M.Madhukar Reddy, S/o Linga Reddy, Aged tMajor, Occ. Driver and owner of the lorry Bearing No.AP-36-X-4248, R/o 4-34, Azam Nagar, Bhoopalpally, Warangal.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divrsional Office, Sangamithra Bank Complex, Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda Town and District, Rep. its Divisional Manager. ...REspoNDENTs (Respondents) Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 06.02 2018 passed in O,P.No. 994 ol 2012 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessrons Judge, for trial of SCs/STs(POA) Cases-cum-Vll Additional District Judge at Nalgonda. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, thejudgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRl. SAKINALA RAVI KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondent I o.1 and SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Oder and Decree as folloars:

1. That the fvlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be z 1d is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation amount be and is here) enhanced from Rs 15,30,0001 to Rs.24,63,550/- with interest @ 7 5% 1r r from the date of petrtion till the date of realization

3. That the respondent- insurance company is direcle j to deposit the compensation amount as directed above, within a periorl )f two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

4. That the claimants are hereby entitled to the said a I lunt in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal in OP.No.994 ot 2A1 l.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal ifirue Copyll SD/-II, OSMAN ALI BAIG ISi' ANT REGISTRAR I :CTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman L4otor Accrdents Claims Tribuna\c#n-Sp, , al Sessions Judge, for trial of SCs/STs(POA) Cases-cum-Vll Mditional )istnct Judge at Nalgonda. (with record. rf any). \l

2. Two CD Copies GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2511012O25 DECREE MACMA.No.546 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS a