The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V.sambasiva Rao Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 3 : None appeared The Court made the following : JUDGMENT i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.N .622 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-lnsurance Company under Section 173 of the M.V.Act, against the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accidt:nt Claims Tribunal (VI Additional District Judge), Mahabubabacl (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.4'26 of 2014, dated 16.09.2O 19, wherein the Tribunal has granted comp3nsation of Rs.14,81,20O1- to the respondent No.1 herein.

2. For the r;ake of convenience, the parties u,ill be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The briet facts of the case are that claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.476 of 2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 seeking compensation for the death of the Varre Raju (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TS-O2-UA-

0999. [t is contended that on 09.05.2006, the deceased was proceeding on his motor bike bearing no.AP-36 -L52OO towards Kurvai Village on Warangal-Khammam highwa/, when the deceased reached near Hero L-. / 2 W.e.C.tW.e.tn.AZZ orW Honda showroom, a lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999 driven by respondent No-1 in a rash and negrigent manner, dash the deceased,s vehicle' as a result cleceased received sever-ar i,jurries all over the body and died on the spot. The porice registered a case, vide crime No.g6 0f 2016 under Section 304-A of Ipc against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle' wherein a charge sheet was also fired against driver of the crime Lorry and made him responsible for the accident. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.g,00,0 OO/_ as compensation for the death of the deceased u,der various heads. 4' The contention of the claimant before the Tribunal, the deceased was aged about 22 years and was working as Mechanic and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, as on the date of accident. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimant rost her beloved son and all the claimants rost their happiness and rost deceased,s company and there is no other person to take care of the claimant and the claimant lost their dependency. 5' Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.l-Driver of offending vehicle and respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte' Respondent No.3 - National Insurance company Limited, filed 3 ^NNR,J IuI.A. C. M.A. No. 622 of 2O2 O counter-affide.vit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that there \r/as self negligence on the part of the deceased, dlle to which, the said accident occurred and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: " 1) Whett.er the incident happened due to rash and negLigent drtutng1 of driuer <tf the crime uehicle bearing No.TS-O2-UA-O999? 2) Wheth,zr th.e petitioner is entitled for compensation amount, if so from uLrcn and to uthat amount? 3) To what result ?"

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.14,8 L,2OC) I - along with interest @ 9% per annum

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/lnsurance 4 IVIVR.J M.A. C.u. A. No. 62 2 of-ioi o Com pany on the ground that the craimant has craimed compensation Rs.8,00,OOO/_ but the Tribunal erroneousll, passed the exorbitant award of Rs'14,87,200/- in the absence of any orai and ciocumentary evidence and the income of the deceased and arso the interest portion was taken on the higher side. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased was bachelor and the Tribunal ought to have deducted the personal expenses 50% instead of L /3,a as per the settled principres of law rvhile computing the compensation, hence prayed this court to set_ aside the Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal and allow the present appeal 9' Heard, sn r.sambasiua Ra.or rearned counser for the appelrant _ National Insurance company Limited and None appeared for the respondents. perused the material on record. 10' The claimants have not f,ed cross-appear against the Award and decree passed by the Tribunal' As such, the claimants are satisfied with the Award and decree and the compensation arvarded by the Tribunal. The only point that arose before this court in this appeal is that: "i) whether the Tribunanr had ::l;'"::::::: ryohtru consid.er the craim petition fited. 166 of Motor vZnide ni"" g";g and awarded just , 5 NilR.J M.A.C.M.A. No.622 of 2O2O ii) Whetlrcr the Tribunal has erred in factual aspects uhile passing the award" Point No.1 &;22 1 1. Admittc d11,, the deceased died due to accident occtlrred on

09.05.2016,;illeged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TS-02-UA-0999 and the petitioner lost his son (deceased) in an unfortunate accident. The petitioner claim that the deceased r,vas rn,orking as Mechanic and was earning Rs.B,0OO/- per month, horvever there is no other documentary proof to the salne, such as relevant ziccount books or bank entries to show that the deceased rvas earning Rs.8,000/- per month as claimed by the claimant. But looking at th,: records available, it is evident that the deceased was aged about 23 years who was hale and healthy. In Latha Wqdhwa us- Stcte of Biharl, the Honble Apex Court held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed b.v the Courts, considering the ground realities, hence the compensatio r granted by the learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notional In66rme of the deceased @ Rs.7,OOO/- per month looked to be reasonable and on ground realities, as the deceased would have atleast earned. Rs.7,iJgg /- per month by doing mechanic work or arly odd job. In 1 2001(B) SCC 197 '6 M.a.c.u.a.No.azz oWo view of the above observation, this court is of the opinion that Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs. T ,ooo /_ per month which needs no interference. 12' Learned counser for the Insurance company argued that Tribunar has awarded Rs. 14,B7,2oo/- against the claim petition of Rs.B,00,oo0/_ illegal and arbitrary and the Tribunar cannor grant compensation more than claimant. In this regard, it is rerevant to cite authority in Nagappa Grtntd.agat singh and. otheri wherein at paragraph No.7, with respect to the provision of M.v.Act, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has observed that ',s. "..there rs no restriction that compenlsation courd. be award"ed. onrg up to the amount croimed. by the craimant. In an d"ppropriate case where from the euid.ence brought on record. if Trtbunar/ court consid.ers that craimant is entitred. to get more compensation than craimed-, the Tribunar maa pass sucrt award' onry embargo ,s that it shourd. be ,Just, compensation, that is to say, it should. be neither arbitrarg, fancifur nor unjustiftabte from the euid.ence. Thi^s wourd. be clear by reference to trte rereuant proubions of the M.v. Act. section 166 prouid.es that an apprication for compensatton arbing out of an accid.ent inuorutng the d.eath of, or bod.,g 2 2}oz n(B) Supreme 497 i I ! I I 7 IVIIIR,J M.A.C.M.A. I,{o. 62 2 o f 2 O2 O injury t(t, persorLs a.rising out of tlrc use of motor uehicles, or damages to aruy property of a third partA so arlsing, or both, could b,z m.ade (a) bg the person who has sustained the injury; cr (b) bg tlrc owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or ahy of the legal representatiues of the deceqsed; or (d) by ang agent duly authonsed bU the person injured or all or anA of the legal represetltatiues of the deceased, as the cq.se may be."

13. ln the light of the above judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Guntdayol Slngh's ccse (cited aboae), the Tribunals/Courts have the authority to award the compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimants.

14. As far as personal deductions of the deceased are concerned, the Tribunal in the Paragraph No. L7 of the order has clearly stated that "deceased ist a bachelor and claimant mother is widow", hou,ever the Tribunal has deducted I l3,a towards personal and living expenses of the deceased rvhich is against the guidelines prescribed by the Honble Supreme Court in Sqrla Verma a. Delhi T?ansport Corporations', wherein it has categorically discussed the said issue at paragraph No.15 which reads as under: 3 zoog ACr 1298 (s:;'* *- B w.e.c.w.e-xo.azz offi "15. Where the d.ecea.sed. was a bachelor and. the claimants are the parents, tLte d.eductton foilows a d.ifferent principre. In regard to bacherors, normaily, s0% is d.educted. as personal and liuing expenses, because it ls assurn ed. that a bachelor would tend. to spend. more on himself. Euen otheruise, there is a/so the possibility of his getting married" in a short time, in which euent the contrtbution to the parent/ s and sibrings fs riketg to be qtt d"rasticattg. Further, subject to euid.ence to the contrary, the father is tiketg to haue his o'un income and- wiil not be consid.ered. as a d'epend-ant and. the mother arone wil be consid.ered as a dependent' In the absence of euid.ence to the contrary, brothers and. sbters wiil not be consid.ered. as d.epend.ents, because tlrcg witt either be ind.epend.ent and. earning, or married, or be depend.ant on the father. Thus euen if the deceased is suruiued. bg parents and. sibrings, onrg the "mother utould be consid.ered. to be a d.epend.ant, and. so% would be trea.ted as the personar and. nuing expenses of the bachelor and. S0% as the contributton to the familg. Howeuer, uLtere famitg of the bacheror rs rarge a.nd. dependant on the income of the d.eceased., as in a c,,'e where he has a wid.owed. mother and. large number of aounger non-earrling si^sters or brothers, hb personar and" liuing expenses maA be restricted. to one_third. and. contrtbution to the famitg tailr be taken as tuo-third.., 9 NNR.J M.A.C.M.A.No.622 of 2O2O

15. ln the l)resent case, the deceased was bacheior and the sole claimant is de,pended on the deceased, accordingly, this Court is of the opiniol that -he learncc-l Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3'a of income towards pers,)nal and living expenses instead of deducting 50% of income towarrls personal and living expenses of the deceased as per the directions callse(l bv Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma''s case (cited supro,),

16. After co:tsidering the contentions and rival contentions and overall re-appreciaticn of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon',ble supreme court in the aforesaid cited decisions' This court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to modified compensatiorr and as recalculated as under:

17. As per the decision of Honble supreme court in Natlonal Insurance cotnpang Limited vs. Pranag sethi and others4 and considering tee age of the deceased as 23 years which is not disputed by both the parties, additional 4Oo/o of the income has to be added towards future prosp(lct to the monthly income of the deceased' Therefore' the monthlv income of the deceased would come to Rs'9,80O/- (Rs'7'OOO/- + 4 2017 ACJ 2700 \._*/ 10 a.a.c.u.a.xo.azz orW Rs'2'g0o/-)' The annuar income of the deceased would come to Rs' 1, 17 ,600 / - (Rs.9,g00 / - x 12), out of which, so% has to be deducted towards the personar expenses of the deceased as the deceased was bacheror' Then the actuar annuar income would come to Rs.5g,Boor_ (Rs.1 ,17,600/- (-) Rs.58,BOO/_). 18' As per the corumn No.4 0f schedure fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarlq. Verma a. Dethi Transport Corporations, ancl considering the age of the deceased as 23 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased,s age is '18'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.lO,Sg,4 0O / - (Rs.58,800/_ x _18) Head Income of the Loss of Estate Loss of m Amount at by Tribunal Amount arrived at by this Court Rs. 14,L1,2OO/_ Rs.1O,58,4OO,/_ Rs. i5,OO0/- Rs.4O, ooo/- Rs.1 5,000/_ Rs.15,000/- Rs.40 ,o00 Rs. 15,000/_ Total Rs. 14,8 L,200- Rs.1

19. Considering the circumstances has rightly awarded the rate of interes needs no interference by this Court. s 2oo9 ACI 1298 (sc) of the case, the learned Tribunal t at 9 o/o per annum and the same 11 rUtsJ a.a. c. u. e. ri@. 6zz oF 2oi6

20. Accorcingly, the M.A.C.M.A is alrowed in part, by reducing the compensatic,n from Rs.14,8 l,2oo /- to Rs. ]-Lrzg,4ool- with @ 9 o/o p.a. inertest frorn the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents therein are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdrawn ttre same without furnishing any surety. However, it is made clear, if the claimant has arready drawn the excess compensation amount, the respondents are not liable to recover the sarne from the claimant:,. TLLere shall be no order as to costs. 2t. Miscelleneous petitions, if any are pending, shal stand closed. SD/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The MACT-cum-Vl Additional District Judge at Mahabubabad.

2. One CC to Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies w !.. ,..i. HIGH CCIUNT DATED:03/0912025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.I{o.622 of 2020 t\t E 3r 3 IIAfl 2026 { Ii PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

6."6d #.- [ 34431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 622 OF 2020 Between : National lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by lt s Branch Manager, B.O., H.No. 16- 1-4221A and B, Second Floor, SVS Legend, SVP Main Road, Warangal District. ...AppellanUR-3 in O.P. AND

1. Varre Subhadra, Wo.Late Venkanna, 46 years, Household, H.No. 3-2-88, Bestha Bazar, Mahabubabad Village and Mandal, Warangal District. ... RespondenUPetitioner in O.P.

2. Dussa Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Dharma Rao, Major, Driver, R/o. Kotipally !illage, H/o. Putrela Village, Vissannapet Mandal, Krishna District. ...RespondenUResP-1 in O.P.

3. Konasani Siri Bhushan, S/o. Chinna Bhushaiah, Maior, Flat No. 201, Alkapuri Colony, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District. (Owner of the Lorry NO. TS 02 uA 0999) ...RespondenUResP'2 in O.P' ...Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles against the Judgment-and decree in M.V.O.P.No.476 of 2016 dated 16/09/2019, on the file of Court of the MACT-cum-Vl Additional District Judge at Mahabubabad. 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 V.sambasiva Rao, Advocate for Appellants and None appeared for the Respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly- allowed by reducing the compensation from Rs.14,81 ,2001- to Rs. 11,28,4001- with @ 9 o/o p.a. inertest from the date of petition till the date of realization. 2. That thr: respondents there in be and hereby are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.

3. That on such deposit, the claimant be and here by is permitted to withdrawn the sane without furnishing any surety

4. That thr: claimant has already drawn the excess compensation amount, the responcents are not liable to recover the same from the claimant.

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

6. That therre shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The MACT-cum-Vl Additional District Judge at Mahabubabad. 2. Two CD Copies w' HIGH COIURT DATED:0t3/09/2425 DECREE MACMA.No.622 ot 2020 PARTLY I\LLOWING THE MACMA r-t -fl4 tr{,"