The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI HARINATH GUPTA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA JTIDGMENT: This appeal is liled by the craimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 31.10.201g in M.v.o.p.N o.444 0f 20l6passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunar-cum_vlll Additionat District Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B Nagar (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 craim petitioners before the Tribunal is that the deceased-smt. N. Mangamma was warking at Salkarpet V,lage on 15'o4'2016 at about lr:oo p.fr., one rorry bearing No.Ap_16_ TD-8378 c€une in a rash and negrigent manner at a high speed and hit the deceased from behind, on account of which the deceased sustained severe injuries and when she was taken to the Government Hospital at Mahabubnagar, she was declared dead. The case of the claimants is that Mangamma was an agricurturist and she was earning Rs.1S,O0O/_ per month.

4. The respondent No.l and 3 remained ex_parte. I I I i t 5 1 Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age and 2 ETDJ MACMA No.69_2021 avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended ttrat the Policy details mentioned by the petitioners are not tallying with their records and that they are not liable

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: ii) whether the arcident hod oeturcd. on 1s.04.2016 at 1r:00 p.m., at salkatpet vilrage utas du? to the rash ard. negtigent aaiig ,j't;n uretfrr'it is resttlted in tle death of fie deeo,sed? fin rorry bearhq No.Ap-16TD-aszg "nd "{ whether the crime vehicte begruq No.Ap-16TD-g37g was ttaving uatid insurarci bg ttrc date oTacctaent afid. uheutb, i ii ii.iia with respondent No.2? iii) Wtether tle.driuer of the crime uehicte was houing uatid driving lieznse to driue the uehicte beaing No.Ap_16-TD-asVa o3 fi* ;;;. of arcident? iu) whetler the petitioners are entitted. to claim ampensationfrom the respondent No.l to 3 andif so to what annount aiaftromwlam? u) To wltot result?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got exd.mined pwl and,2 and got marked Ex.Al to A5. The respondent No.2 did not add.r.lce any evidence.

8. Based on the evidence on record., the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,56,4oo/-. Aggrieved by the sarne, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. I 3 Erqr MACMA No.59_2021

9. Heard the submission of Sri Mirza Safrulla Baig, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri p. Harinatha Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted . that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate ttre evidence in a proper perspective and has granted a very meager compensation by assessing the earnings of the deceased as Rs.6,O00/- white the deceased used to earn Rs.1S,OOO/- per month. He further argued that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transportation and that tJle Ttibunal granted very low compensation under various heads. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has passed a well justified order and that in the absence of income proof, the Tribunal has assessed Rs.6,0OO/- as the income of the deceased which is proper and therefore, prayed to confirm the judgment of the Tribunal. L2. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: \ \ 1 2 Whether the claimants are entitted for enhanrement of aAmpensation? If so, to tDhot ertent? Whether the ord.er and. decree of tle Tribunal need. any interference? 4 ;;,, MACMA No.69_2021

3. To ulwt relieJ?

13. PIOINT NO.1: a) The ciaim petitioners in this appeal are aggrieved with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is their case that the deceased used to work as ar agriculturist and used to earn Rs.15,0oo/- per month. However, no proof is filed by the petitioners in this regard. b) In Ram,,chqndrappa vs. Manager, Rogar sundaram Alllance rnsuronce conpang Ltmttedl, the Apex court has held t].at in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,soo /- per month can be safely taken as the income. But in the present case, the deceased stated to have been an agriculturist as per the contention of the claim petitioners. In the said case the accident occurred in the year 2oo4, while in the present case, the accident has occurred in the year 2016. Thus, the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.6,ooo/- is found. to be just and proper. c) As per the dicta laid down in Nqfj,ono,l rnsurqnce @mpany Llmtted vs. Ptunag setht & other*,2so/o of tJ:e income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 45 '1zot11 t2scc236 ' ArR 2olz scc slsT \ \. I I 5 Ef6J MACMA No.69_2021 years, adding 2SYo towards future prospects would give Rs.7,500/_ (Rs.6,000/-x 2S/LOO = ISOO/-) per month, which comes to Rs.750O/- x 12 = Rs.9O,OOO/- per annum. d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, 1/3o deduction need to be made to her income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.6O,0O0/_ (Rs.9O,OOO/_ (_) Rs.3O,OOO/-). e) The Post Mortem Examination report frled under Ex.A3 reveals the age of ttre deceased as 45 years. As per the evidence of PWl, the deceased-Mangamma was aged about ,S0, years. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as .5O,years, because PWI has deposed as such. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Aadhar Card is filed in this case and that as per the Aadhar Card the age of the deceased is 5O years. But a perusal of the record shows that the petitioners have not Iiled any Aadhar Card in this case. The contention of the appellants counsel is that pwl is a rustic villager and hence. courd not say the correct age of ttre deceased and prayed to consider the documents on record. As per tle documents filed by tJ e claimants under Ex.A3 and A4 i.e., the Inquest Report and pME Report, the age of the deceased is revealed as 45, years and hence, the same has to be taken as the age of the deceased. Therefore, the age as 5 ETD,J MACMA No.69_2021 revealed under Ex.A3 is taken into consideration. The muttiptier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in sqrla verma a. Derht TYansport cotporqdon3. The deceased being aged 4s years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ,r4,. Thus, the loss of dependency comes up to an extent of Rs.g,4O ,OOOI_. f) with regard to the amount to be awarded under the head loss of consortium', in the light of pranag sethi,s case, Rs.l5o0o/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,ooo/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.4O,OO0/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by lovo every three years. g) ln Magma Gre,nero,l rnsurance compong Ltmited v. Nanu I?qm @chuhnt Ram and, others4, the Apex court has elaborately thl's case and has further held that not only t].e spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the craimants would get Rs.4g,4oo/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under tlris head would be Rs. L,4s,2oo/- instead of Rs.4o,ooo/-. with regard to amounts to be granted under the heads of funeral 3 zoog 6)scc l2l '1zors1 l8 scc t30 l- 7 EID,J MACMA No.59_2021 expenses Rs.18,15o/- and loss of estate Rs.18,15o/- would be just and proper. h) In all, the claimants are entifled to the following compensation amounts:

1. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency 2. Compensation consortium towards loss of

3. Compensation towards loss of estate 4. Compensation eKpenses Total towards funeral Rs.8,40,000/- Rs.1,45,200/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.1O,21,5OO/- 0 The Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,56,4oo/- while the craimants are held to be entitled to a compensation of Rs. ro,2l,50o/- and hence, it is held t.l.at the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. L4. FOINT NO.2: It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This court has enhanced tJre compensation to Rs.1o,21,so0/- from that of Rs.7,56,4 OO /- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. \ \ I 1 8 ff;r MACMANo.69_2021

15. pTOINT NO.B: In the result, the MACMA fired by the appellants is parfly ied 31.1O.2O18 in M.v.o.P.No .444 of 2016 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-vl[ Additionat District Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B Nagar, enhancing the compensation from Rs.z,56,4oo/- to Rs.1o,21,5oo/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 o/o prer annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, t]:e interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellants shall pay the deficit court fee. Respondent Nos.l to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. on such deposit, the appellants are entifled to withdraw t]:e said amount without furnishing any securigr, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. The judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment of deficit Court fee by the appellants. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY/ To, 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims / Tribuna District Judge, Ranga ReddY District at L.B.Nagar 2. One CC to Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Hari 4. Two CD CoPies nath GuPta, Advocate loPucl AS/SWT f{r . OSMAN ALI TANT OFFICER um - Vlll Additional HIGH COURT DATED: 11t06t2025 JUDGMENT+OECREE MACMA.No.69 of 2021 f i E t'r iiilll ?m .O i_) -L PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS c"d'A k- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\A EADA a

1. N. Bhimaiah, S/o. Chennappa, A'/a.56 Yrs, Occ.Agriculture Ri/o. H.No.8- .11618, Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy District)

2. N. Pedda Venkataiah, S/o. N. Bhimaiah, Ala. 29 Yrs, Occ.Agriculture' (All are R/o. H.No. 8-1 16/8, Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy District) 3. N. Narsimulu, S/o. N. Bhimaiah, Ala 27 Yrs, OccAgriculture (All are R/o. H.No.8-116/8, Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy District) ...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. P.S.C. Bose Automobiles, rep. by its Managing Partner, P.Sudheer S/o. Not Known, Age.Major, Occ. Business, Ri/o. D.No. 5+7-75 B/8, 3rd Road, Jawahar Autonagar, Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District, A.P. State.

2. National lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep, by its Regional Manager, Moghul 56050031 15100070'16 Lorry No. 1-01-2016 to20-01-2017 Ehgine No. Courts, bearing 31 H84 124594, Chassis No. MAT,!66422D5K09397. Policy from 2 No. AP 16 78, Valid

3. Venkata Ramana, M.S S/o. Ramana, Age. Major, Occ.Driver, No.2-529, Arban Nagar, Atmakur, Kumool District, A.P. State -518422. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, aggrieved by the Debree and Judgment passed in M.V.O.P No. 444 of 2016, dated 31/'10/2018, on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims / Tribunal- Cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 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 arguments of SRI MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG, Advocate for the Appellants and of SR!. A HARINATH GUPTA appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby partly allowed modifying the order and Degree dt 31/1012018 in M.V.O.P No. 444 of 2016, passed by the Chairman Motor Accident Claims / Tribunal- Cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar enhancing compensation of Rs.7,56,400/- to RS. 10,21,500/- and the enhanced amount the compensation shall carry interest at the rate @ 7.5 o/o p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.

2. That however, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

3. That the appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee.

4. That the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited

5. That on such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without fumishing any security as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

6. That the Judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment of deficit court fee by the appellants

7. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

8. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal llTrue Copyll M.OSMAN ALI BAIG REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims / Tri Cum Vlll Addational District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Two CD Copies AS/SWT Y* \ \ HIGH COURT DATEDi 11l0d2025 DECREE MACMA.No.69 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS %