The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Companl, aggrieved by the Order ancl ttecree dated 03. 12.2O2O in M.V.O.P.No.469 of 20 15 passed by th,: Ohariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Disitrict Judge, Karimnagar (for short ..the rrial Court,,)

For converience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as thcy were rtrrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

13.07.2015 the deceased-B. Ram Murthy went to his friend,s honse at Karrmnagar and was returning home, and while he was crossing the road by foot near Alphores Women pG College, Karimnagar, aL about 22:30 hours, the driver of Maruthi Car bearing No.AI) C,9-AG-8O28 has driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent nranner at a high speed, proceeding from Jagiryal towards Karirnnagar and dashed the petitioner at the edge of the road, as a restllt of which the deceased sustained severe head injuries and irnmediately he was shifted to Surya Hospital, Karimnagar and from there Lo Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimnagar, where the Dccr.ors declared him as brought dead. Thus, the petitioners who ,re the wife and children of the deceased have filed a claim petition tbr Rs.30,00,OOO/-. ."P-. 2 ETD, MACMA No.778 2021 4) The respondent No. 1 remained ex_parte 5) The respondent No.2-lnsurance Company has filed a counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age and income of the dee eased. They further contended that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the car driver and that the driver of the car did not hold a valid driving license and their company is not liable to pay compensation. They contended that the deceased might have been negligent while crossing the road.

6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has lramed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident u.tas occrtned due to rosh and negligent driuing of the olfending uehicle Manuthi Car bearing No.Ap-T9_ AG-8028? 2) WLrether the petitioners are entitled. for ampensation as praAed. for and against tuhom? 3) To uhnt relief, 7 . To prove their case, the petitioners got examlned pWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.Ai to A20. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.26,3g,526/_ agatnst claim of Rs.30,00,0OO/-. 3 ETD,J MACMA No.778 2021 Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard thr: submission of Sri G. Purushotham Rao, learned counsel for tree appellants and Sri Ram Chander Rao Vemuganti, Iearned counsel for respondents.

10. Learne<l counsel for appellants has submirted that the Tribunal has wlongly held that the Insurance Company is liable to pa), compensation and that PW1 was a pension holder and that she is taking a monthly pension of Rs.950/ - and that she has not hled any docunrent to show that the deceased used to earn even after retirement The counsel further argued that the avocation and income of thr: d eceased are not established and that lhe Tribunal has wrongly czrlculated the income of the deceased and thus arrived at a htrge compensation and that their company is not liable to pay the same. He further argued that the Tribunal has failed to account for the negligence of the deceased and therefore, prayed to set as;ide the award passed by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

11. The respondent counsel on the other hand has argued that the Tribunal has; passed a well justihed order and pra5.ed to uphold the same. 4 ETD MACMA No.778 2021 12 Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: I Whether the claimants are compensation? not entitled for ang 2 Wlether the order and. decree of the trial Court ne ed- an g inte rfere nce ?

3. To u_shat relief.>

13. POINT NO. 1: a) The grievance of the appellants is rvith regard to the quantum of compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal. It is asserted by the petitioners that the deceased was a pensroner, the said fact is also not disputed by the Insurance Company. Their only contention is that the wife of deceased is drawing a pension of Rs.950/- per month, and has thereby calculated the actual annual income to be Rs. ll,4OO / _ lor computation ot compensation amount. b) The petitioner has hled Income Tax Returns under trxs.AlO to 19 and a ktter issued by the Regional Commissioner, Godavarikhani is liled under Ex.A7. A Memo is issued by the Singareni Collieries under Ex.Ag. It is the case of pW1 that her husband took retirement in the year 2OOZ and was getting a pension of Rs. 19,056/- per annum and therealter, he joined a Privlte Granite polishing Industry known as Ganapathi polishing {-:a-,;:ei :::e!!*F=+E7 .i'l 5 ETD,,J MACMA No.778 2021 Industries and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/- ti[ his death, and LLe was also working as a Commission Agent in dealing with the busin,:ss between the industries and the Foreign Traders and was gettinta a commission of Rs.2,46,7561- per annum" c) Ex.A8 rs the application for Voluntary Re[irement. A perusal of Ex.A9 shorvs, that his voluntary retirement was accepted by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. A perusal of lncome Tax Returns under Exs.AlO to 14 shows the assessment for the years 2O1I-2O12 tt 2tOl5-2O 16 and he has also liled a Bank Statement unclcr Ex.A15. A perusal of trx.A15 discloses that the deceased used to hold a (lurrent Account bearing No.043g0550019 1. d) PW3 is the Deputy Manager of ICICI Bank, his evidence reveals that the deceased was having Current Account in their Branch and l.hat some of the transactions are Inter_State transactions and that their Bank issued trx.A15. A perusal of Ex.A15 reveals -he daily transactions made by the petitioner. Thus, it is proved that he used to hold a current Account rvhich discloses that he used [o do business after his retirement. e) PW4/lrrsF,ector of Income tax is also examined in this case and his evidence reveals that Exs.Al1 to A14 are issued by tl-rem and. the originals of Income Tax Returns are produced by pW4 and the bopies of the said documents are marked as Exs.Ai6 to A19. I I I I I ; I I 6 ETD, MACMA No.778 2021 Ex.A20 is the Covering Letter. Nothing much was elicited during his cross examination to discredit his evidence. By considering the entire evidence on record wiLh regard to Lhe income of the deceased i.e., the oral evidence of pW3 and 4 and also the documentary evidence under Exs.A7 to A2O, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,29 ]TS/_ per annum, and has applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi & Othersl, since the petitioners were four in number, l /4G deduction was made and addition of future prospects was also considcred by the Tribunal to be lO%o, since the deceased was aged .52,years, rightly calculated the amount towards future prospects, 0 With regard to consortium also, as per the dicta laicl down in Mdgma Generq.l Insurance Compang Ltmited Vs. No;nu Ro,m (d) Chuhru Ram and. Others2, the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.40,000/- to each of the petitioncrs towards consortium i.e., Rs.40,0OO/- to the petitioner No.1 towards spoual consortium and Rs.4O,OOO/- each to the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 towards parental consortium. It has also awarded the funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/- and also loss of estate to an extent of Rs.15,OOO/_. Therefore, the assessment made by the Tribunal with regard to the ' AtR 20 lz scc 5 157 '1zora; rs scc t:o n: P_-i,:Ee!"*. - .;!d-F;E.r,7 compensation is found to be justified as perused in the light of the 7 ETD,] MACMA No.778 2021 I I I I i evidence or: r('cord Hence, toint No.1 is answered accordingly

14. Point No.2: In vierr. rf the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and tlccrree ol the Tribunal does not need any rnterlerence and the sante is upheld. Point Nc .2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- In thr: r:sult, the appeal is dismissed uphoJding the Orcler and Decree Cared 03.12.2O2O in M.V.O.p.No.469 of 2015 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_l Additional Dlstrict Jud,ge, Karimnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shatl stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G- SECTION OFFICER The Chairman Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (With Record, if any). One CC to liRl. G PURUSHOTHAM RAO, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to S;Rl. RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies GK Ft- To, 1 ? 4 : :.*td' _ '. -.4. .t"' 'i .,".i HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 JUDGEMENT MACMA.N o.778 ot 2021 /?E: t, d S,a i 3 [[T 21ffi a,_) . t.)- i* -:)- ,-f,i1r1i:' '^ ,,1. I I ;l .6) ,/ ! i I i I I I I I I I I DISMISSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS G*Cd Yk ffih, 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 778 OF 2021 Between: The United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep by its Branch Manager H No 2-6- 299, 1st Floor, A.K.Estate, Mukarrampura, Karimnagar. AppellanURespondent No.2 AND

1. Smt Bura Padma, W/o Late Ram lt/urthy, aged about 53 years Occupation House-Hold, Fl/o H.No.2-236118 12, Suryanagar Road, Seetharampur Village, Karimnagar [v'landal and Dist

2. Sri Bura Rajendra Prasad, S/o Late Ram Murthy, a-ged about 35 years. Occupation'Private Emptoyee, Rl/o H-No.2-23611812, Suryanagar Road, Seettiarampur Village, Karimnagar Mandal and Dist

3. Sri Bura Vidyasagar, S/o Late Ram Murthy, aged ab-out 33 years Oc.cupation Business, R/o H.No.2-23611812, Suryanagar Road, Seetharampur Village, Karimnagar Mandal and Dist

4. Sri Bura Srikanth, Sio Late Ram Murthy, aged about 30 years (Respondents'1 to 4 are R/o H.No.2-2361181 2, Suryanagar Road, Seetharampur Village, Karimnagar Mandal and Dist ) Respondents/Claimants

5. Sri Vallampatla Ramsunder, S/o Sri Rajqmouli, ag-ed about 37.yea.rs. Occ Owner-Cuin-Driver of Maruthi Car No.AP-og-AG-8028' Rl/o H.No.4-9' V.e.Cotony, Theegalaguttapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal.and District ...ResPondenU ResPondent No.1 Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,19B8 against the Award and decree in tvl.V.o.P.No. 469 0f 2015 dated.03.12.2020 0n the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional. District Judge at Karimnagar. . ,:.r,1 €ieFia:;G;;;at ,/ This appeal c:mino on.for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment anr, DecreI of the Tribunlr ti"',i'uturiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri G. prrrrr,oin"rn "na Ra"o, eovocate for the Appeflants and of sri Ram chander rao Vemuganti, Advocate for the Respondent No..l to 4 and none appeared f:r the iespondent No.5 and 6. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 'l rhat the Motor Accident civir Miscelaneous Appear be and herebv is dismissed uohrtdino tire.oroer ano J;J#;;II $/12t2o2oin v.v.o.p ruo 469 of 20.1 5 par."i by thu. Cnrirrrr,,-il;", A="lidents Ctaims Tribunat _cum_ I Additional District Judge, Xrrirnugrr. 2' That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunar sha, stands 3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. confirmed in all other respects; and ''''"' ^"" //TRUE COPYII ,.B?,',#?EB,l'#1,*. 6- SECTION OFFICER J!i. 3i1U3:,T:iilY:i:','." Accident craims rribunar-cum-r Additionar Two CD Copies To, 1 2 GK Y? HIGH COURT DATED:241031202i DECREE MACMA.N o.778 ot 2021 DISMISSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 4c@ tA- ,f+'