Honble Apex Court in Natlonal Insurance Compang Limited vs Pranag Sethi and othersl.

Judgment

The appellants/claimants/petitioners filed the present appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the II Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in M.v.o.P.No.229 of 2014, dated 2l.ol.2o2o, seeking compensation of Rs. 24,oo,oool- on account of the death of A.Jyothi (mother of petitioners), (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in an accident that occurred on 26.05.2012.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier Iiled M.v.o.P.No.229 of 2ol4 under section 166 of the M.v.Act, lggg I seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of the car. It is contended that on 26.05 .2012, at about 11:00 pM the deceased was going slowly on her husband's motor cycle bearing **/ r 2 \f MACMA.No.64, of 2o2o No.AP-28-R-2831 from Dammaiguda to champapet along with her children (petitioners) as pillion rider and when they reached ear ECIL Ground, suddenly a Car bearing No.AP-29-BD-909 carne in high speed in rash and negligent rnanner from opposite direction and dashed the deceased motor cycle. As a result, the deceased, her husbancl and petitioners fell d.own and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased and others were shifted to Tulasi Hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the'deceased died on 2g.o5.2o12. The Police registered a case in Crime No.360 of 2012 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of offending vehicle. The appellants/claimants claimed a.n €rmount of Rs.24,00,000 l- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal, was that petitioners lost their parent due to the accident and their future has become dark, and the petitioners has to depend on others for their day to day basic needs and prayed the Tribunal to award just compensation. ! I

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 arrd 2 remained ex- parte. Respondent No.3 - Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the a' L ,-i 3 MACMA.No.64Z of 2O2O claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that driver of the offending car did not have vatid and subsisting driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the said offending vehicle was not road worthy to ply and further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the preadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) whether A.Jyothi died in tlw aetdent took ptae due to the rash ad negligent driuing of the d.riuer of fiw ur bearinj xo.ep-ig-ao-gog.? ti) wtrcther th-e petitioners are entifled for ampensation and if so, from whom and whnt quantum of amount? tii)To wlnt retteft

7. To prove the petitioners, case, pws.'r to 4 were examined and marked Exs'Al to A7. Rwl was examined on behalf of the respondents, and Ex.Bl-copy of the insurance policy was marked. t 8' After considering the material on record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in 4 MACMA.No.647 of 2O2O part and granted compensation of Rs. L2rSAr2OO/- along with interest @

7.5% per a.nnum.

9. Being unsatisfled and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is frled on the ground that the deceased. was aged about 33 years at the date of accident and rvas working as Beautician and earning Rs.10,0OO/- pet month and was contributing the sa.me to the welfare of the family, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the above averments and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,0O0/- per month and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation arnount under other heads.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that there o is no dispute with regard to accident, death of the deceased and the injuries sustaine$ by the deceased. In cross examination, PWl to PW3 were examined. Exhibits A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of petitioner. I Learned counsel further contended that PW2 who is an eye witness to the accident-narrated the said accident. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Car, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard \\ 5 MACMA.No.647 of 2O2O to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased's income at Rs.6,000/- per month and also not awarded just compensation under the various head as per as per the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Natlonal Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and othersl.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the accident was occurred on 26.05.2012 and the deceased was admitted in the hospital for three days from 26.O5.2OL2 till her death i.e.,

29.O5.2O12 and the petitioners had incurred medical bills of Rs. 1,45,0OO / -, which proved by Ex.A7.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

13. None appear for respondent No.1 & 2.

14. Heard Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the " appellants/petitioners and Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for --'-..-....__ 1 2017 ACJ 2700 -Yc\. 6 MACMA.No.647 of 2O2O the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Perused the material on record

15. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Wtether the petitioner is entttled for the enlnnced compen sation, if so, to ttLnt ertent? Point No.1:

16. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on

26.05.2012 alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the car driver and the petitioners lost their beloved mother (deceased) in an unfortunate accident. The petitioner claim that the deceased was beautician and rlas getting satary Rs. 10,000/- per month, however there is no other documentaqr prove the same, such as relevant account ' books or bank entries to show that the dbceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioners/claimants. But looking at the records available, the averments and submissions made f 7 MIC[4A.I[o.64? of 2o2o by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is evident that was aged about 33 years who was hale and healthy and would earn more than the monthly income which the learned Tribunal has granted. In Latha Wadhua us. Stcte of Blhana, the Honble Apex Court held that even when there is no proof, of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed by the Courts considering the ground realities, hence the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000 l- per month looked to be meager. t7. Hence considering the ground realities and deceased was aged about 33 years who was hale and heatth at the time of accident, hence following the law laid down judgment passed in Latho. Wodhuta's cq,se (cited supra), this Court is of the opinion that the deceased would obviously earn Rs.250/- per day by doing beautician work or any odd job accordingly, the deceased income can be notionally taken as Rs.7,SOO /- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Honble l Supreme Court in .I\Ictio nctl Insurantce Cotnpang Ltmited. Vs. Pranag Sethi o:nd otherss and considering the age of the deceased as 33 years, 22001(8) SCC 197 32017 ACJ2700 r }{ \:?q\\ Ci \: 't I - MACMA.No.647 of 2O2O additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, tJre monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs'1o,5oo/- (Rs'7'500/- + Rs'3'ooo/-)' The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,26,000 I - (Rs.10,5001- X l2l and,, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are two in number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.84,000/- (Rs. 1 ,26,OOO l- (-) Rs.a 2,OOO I -ll.

18. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Scrrlcr Verttto tt, Delht Transport Corporationa, and considering the age of the deceased. as 33 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '16'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. L3,44,O00/- (84,0OO l- x 16)'

19. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + lOo/o + lOYol towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,0001- + loo/o + LO%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranag ) Sethi's Judgment (cited suPra). 4 2oog ACI 1298 (sc) 9 HAC[A.No.647 of 2O2O

20. Appellant No.l and 2 are children of the deceased, the appellant No. 1 & 2 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,gO0/- (Rs.48,400/- x2) under the head of 'loss of parental consortium,, as per Magrna General Insurance Compang Llmtted Vs.No;nu Ram o;lls

21. The petitioners incurred medical bills of Rs. 1,45,000/-, which was marked as Ex.A7, which was not disputed, hence the said amount is also awarded to the petitioners.

22. In Sarla Verma's case (clted. abooe), the Hon,ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of Just compensation' observed as under: "Post compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and eEtitable on the fads and ciralmstanes of the case, to make gad tle loss -sylfere! a.s a result of the wrong, as far as moneg can io so, by Tyylying, the yell settled pinciples relating to award. iy ampen"aitoi. It is not intended to be a bona nza, largesse or source of profit.;

23. on overall r.e-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme court in the aforesaid cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitred to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalc,lated as above I and given in the table for easy reference 5 2ot8 (18) scc t3o 10 MACMA.No.647 of 2O2O C;' \

24. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) ii) {nnual Income (of the deceased) Rs.7,5O0/- X 12 Total Annual Income : Annual Income + F\rture Prospects (Annual Income X4O%l = Rs.9O,0OO/-+Rs.36,OOO/- = Rs.1,26,O0O/- Rs.90,O0O/- iii) Annual DependencY = Total Annual Incorne - I l3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,26,000/-(-)Rs.42,O00/- Rs.84,OO0/- Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.84,00O1- x 16 = Rs.13,44,000/- Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral E:<penses + loss of Parental Consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs. 18,15O/- + Rs.96,80O iv) v) vi) Medical Bills Total Rs. { ,3 3, 1 00/- Rs.1,45,000/- Rs.1 6,22,1 00/- I!

25. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation oi O. 161221100/- as against the awarded. amount of Rs.12,50 ,2OO /- by the learned Tribunal. .

26. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7.5 Yo per annum and the sarne needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the ( 11 MACMA.No.64Z of 2O2O opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ T.S o/; on the enhanced amount. r2,so,2oo /- 27 ' Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 16122 ,loo I - Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is aflowed in ptrt, enhancing the compensation from Rs. Rs' Rs.16,22,tool- with interest at the rate @ T.s o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of reaJization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount arready deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appelants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the rearned rribunar. There shall be no order as to costs.

28. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGTSTRAR 6 t To,

1. The chairman [.Additionar chief Judge-cum-MotorAccidents _ rribunal, city civir couii]'rlioliliJo ? one CC.to Sri Hari rr,roriilh;iJ;;:Advocate IopUCl I qne Qg to sri K C. Veniila iljdi,;4.il;;;i"lr"op"u"Cr t ?#S BB B#Sj namiiiisn;;iUailffi;;ji. r6F,uc1 SECTION OFFICER Claims GE/PSL q .."#r .:'t$* ' ' '41 ."6 4 ,",p [} i .:.'tr l-sx,{' *- - 1.,_:*frJ ,\-'apl !' fi@. t. : ' za- ; vr' a i s I I \ \ ! 1"" HIGH COURT DATED:I210612025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.647of 2020 b 3i 1t .t ['il E?T * ir: PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS * \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APP 'NO: 647 OF 2O2O Between:

1. Kum. A. Varsha D/o Late A.Balreddy, Aged about 14 years, Occ: Student

2. A.Baba Balramreddy S/o Late A.Balreddy, Aged about 11 years, Occ: Student, (Petitioners No 1 and No.2 are being minors they are represented by their next friend and guardian Smt G.Sarala Wo Anantha Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife) R/o H.No.9-151/1, Edulabad Road, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District. ...APPELLANTS AND

1. A Padma Wo A.Narasimha, 3-9-44616 Plot No.23, Cristian Colony, L.B. Nagar R R Disttict

2. Mr Kumar Goud D S/o Shankaraiah, T-4TP?.lel Guda, lbrahimpatanam, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Com., Ltd., Rep by its Manager, A-Bloch 5th Floor, Jawal Pavani Towers, Somajiguda Hyd-082 f, ..RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 ot Motor Vehicle Act, against the Order and Decree dated 21.01.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.229 of 2014 on the file of the ll Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, 1 Hyderabad. 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 Hari Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 and Sri K.C. Venkata Reddy Advocate a Advocate roo",,^"Jloi[:rnffi:::*' No 2 and sri A Ramakrishna Reddy This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: a the Motor Accident civir Miscelraneus Appear be and hereby attowed in ' JHI 2. That the compensation amoun t ewarrtaa }.rr rL^ enhanceo-ii:rn,rz-,so).66itLT.:li",i,r,%#",il!i+:!.?".,1ffiff on tr," l"Z,,Zi;?; "nn-rilJo""rrornt rr", in" jit of petition til th; Jate of :"8 3' That the respgndents be and hereby are directed to,ggpo.:it the said amount -costs "nornt"rri="rt"; gilng'irJ.rlyoit,to within , p"i[i"r t"o ,5.irir-#oil ,n" receipt oi a copy or the ,rount lireroy ,1i5i,11'ifu[,anv, together w*h

4. That the compensation amount t the appellantl/daimanb ,n the rearned rribunar. -re and hereby shallte apportioned among _ _ame manner and ratio #;rd# [, ,n"

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. llTrue Copytt To oeffioHoffi,i 6 \ SECTION OFFICER I iff !g ."; , Jil t,J,frlil'i"J:?Lch i er J uds e-cum -Motor Accidents c ra i ms t GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1210612025 DECREE MACMA.No.647of 2020 I n PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \