High Court · 2025

Judgment

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compe nsation awarded by the learnecl Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nalgoncla (for short, the Tribunal)' 1n O.P.No.I056 of 2OO7, dated 22'lO 2OOa, the claim petitioners in the said O.P prefcrrecL the prcsent Appeal seel<ing enhattcement ol compensatron

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referrecl as they tvere arrayecl before the learnecl Tribunal'

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No' 1 is the husband of the deceased Nagamma arrcl the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased and the petitioner No.1 On 21 .O9.2007 after purchasing vegetables and kirana items at Nakrekal village. the deceased Nagamma was returning to their village Babasaigudem on foot by observing traffic rules and on the way, when she reached Culvert No.112/1 near Babasaigudem Bus Stage of N'H'No'9 in the 2 \IGP..J iuAC\'lA 96.1 2009 meantime at about 03.00 PM one Car bearing No.AP 0l G 2345 came from Hyderabad side with rash and negligent manner, at high speed and dashed to the deceased. As a result, she had sustained grievous injuries on her head and other parts of the body. Immedia te ly, she was shifted to Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Narketpally for treatment, whbre she succumbed to injuries. Based on the complaint, Nakrckal Policc registercd a case in Crime No.181 of 2OO7 against the driver of the Car under Section 304-4 of IPC by Nakrekal Police

4. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and used to earn an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month bv doing tailoring work and milk business. Due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winncr and were deprived of their future earnings and estate of the deceased Hence, the petitioners fited claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,000/ from respondent No.1/being the owner and respondent No.2/insurer of the offending car bearing No.AP 01 G 2345. -) \I'J F,J IIACillA 9Li'l.2009

5. Before the learnecl Tribunai, responclent No' 1 did not contest the case and remaine d' ex-par1e' Respondent No 2 filed counter deniecl the averments of the claim petition' age' income, avocation and further contented that the claim of compensation is execessive and exorbitant zrnd prayed to dismiss thc Pe tition. 6 . Based on the pleadings made by both tl-re partie s ' the learnedTribr.rnalhadliamedthefollorvirrgissuesfor conducting tria 1: i) i, Whether the deceased-Gaddapai Nagamma died in thc road ctccident? Wh.etlrcr the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the d-ectth of the deceased? If so' to uhat lmount and from uhom? ii, To utLrut relief 7 . Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners' PWs l and 2 were examined and Exs'A1 to A7 were marked' On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced' however, trx.B 1-Cop5' of Insurance Policy was marked I NICP..] \,IACNIA 964 2009

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunai had partiy allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.l,25,OOOl- along with interest @7 .5% per annum from the date of petition tiil the date of deposit. Having not satisfied with the said compensation amount, the claima nts preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancenrcnt of saue

9. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri P.S-P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No-2/lnsurance Company. Perused the record i0. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the appellants ha-vc adduced cogent evidence to prove their case and also tl-re income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal without considering same fixed meager amount of Rs.3,000/- per month and did not apply multiplier nor awarded the conventional heads and awarded meager amount. Hence, the appellanls are entitled -"?v l \ICP.I x,tACMA-.16+ 2009 forenhancementofcompensationandprayedtoallowthe appeal. ll.PerContra,IearnedStandingCounselfortherespondent No.2/Insuranr:c Company contended' that the learned Tribunai has awarded reasonable compensation as the accid.ent is of lhe year 2OO7; hence, interference of this Court is unwarranted :ind prayecl to dismiss the appezrl'

12. Now the llotnt that arises for determinatlon 1s' Whether the finding s of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court? POINT:- I 3. This Coltrt has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record. The appellant No 1' who is the husband of the rleceased. reiterated the contents of the claim petition ancl deposed about the accident' Holi'ever' as he is not an eye witness to the accident, he got exarnined PW'2' who is an eye-witness to the accident' PW 2 in his evidence stated tl-rat on the date of accident while he was proceeding to 6 MGP.J t{ACtIA 96'1 2009 village, he witnessed the car bearing No.AP 0l G 2345 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and hit the deceased. As a result, deceased sustained injuries and immediately himself and others have shifted the injured in 108 Ambulance to Kamineni Hospital, Narkatpally, where the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment. Though PWs.1 and 2 were cross examincd at length, but nothtrg was elicited to disbelieve their evidence. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided that deceased died in a road accident.

14. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A1 is the F.I.R along with charge sheet, Ex.A4 is the scene of offence panchanama, corroborates the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to dcal vvith the above 1SStle. 1 5. Now corning to the compensation amount as per the petitioner No.1/husband of the deceased, the deceased used to work as a tailor and used to do milk business and used to 1 \10P,.1 N,tACr.rA 96.1 2009 earn an amollnt ol Rs.B,OOO/- per month. However, as he has not filed an1' document to show that she is selling milk nor doing tailoring work, the learned Trlbunal has not considered the income of the deceased as pleaded by the appellants and awarded total amounl of Rs.1,25,O00/ withont assigning any head of compcnsation. Hence, this Court rs inclined to calculale all the heads to award . just and reasonable compens:Ltion to the appellants.

16. As far .rs iltcornc of the deceased is concerned, though appellant No.I stated that his wife used to earn Rs.8,000/ pcr month by doing milk business and tailoring, thc-t' failed Lo file any documentary proof showing that thc cleceased used to do milk business. Therefore, the learned Tribunal considering the date and year of accident and age ol tl're deceased, assessed her monthly income (! Rs.3,00O/ rvhich thrs Court finds reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same. Since the Tribunal failed to ar.r,ard future prospects to the income of the deceascd, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the HonbLe Apex Court in the case between National 8 NIGP,.] M?\CI{,\116'1 2OOO Insurantce Cornpang Limited- Vs' Pranag Sethi and othersr, hereby add 4OV. towards future prospects to the estabiished income of the deceased for the deceased being below 35 years at the time of accident' Then. the net luture monthly income comes to Rs 4,200/- (Rs'3,000/- + Rs.12O0/-). Since the number of dependants are '5', if I l+rt, is decluctecl towards personal expenses of the d.eceased, then the net monthly income comes to Rs.3,150/ (4,2OO I minus Rs' 1,050/ ) The age of the deceased as per inquest and post-mortem reports was 35 years. Hence, considering the same, the appropriate multiplier is 'l 6' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verrna u. Delhi TransPort Corporation2. Therefore, the total loss of income on account of lhe death of the deceased comes to Rs.6,O4,800/- (Rs.3,i50x12x16) Further, the petitioners are awarded Rs.77,OO0/ towards loss of consortium' funeral expenses and loss of estate by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National 1 2017 AcJ 27oo r 2oo9 AcJ 1298 (sc) 9 N'IGP.J I\lACN1A 96.1 2009 Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs.Pranag Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 27OO). Considering the fact that the appellant Nos.3 to 5 being minor chilclre n of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a slrrl of Rs.40.000/ to each of them under the head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Compang Linited o. Nanu Ram ia Chuhnt Ram and. otherss. Thus the appellants are entitled for a totai compensation of Rs.B,01,800/

17. h-r the rcsult. the Appeal is allowed bv enhancing the compensatioll amollnt awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,25,0OO/ to Rs.8,0I ,800/ , rvhich shall carry interest (l 7 .5?:' per annum Pa)rab1e by both the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly arnd severally within a period of two months from the clate of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The respondents are directed to deposit thr: enhanced compensation amount within a period of two rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the total compensatior-r, the appellant Nos.3 to 5 are apportioned an ' (20 t8) t8 sc( I r0 t II It) N{GP,J l\lACIrl,{ 964 2009 amount of Rs.1,50,000/ cach, which shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till they attain maj ority' Since, appellant Nos.3 to 5 are minors, their naturai guardian/ father is entrtled to withdraw thc interest accrued on the compensation amount deposited for every six months to meet day to day expenses of the minor appellants. Further, appeliant No. j being husband of deceased, is awarded Rs.3,0O,O00/ and appellant No 2, being major son of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.51,800/ and both of them are entitled to withdraw the said amounts without furnishing any security However, the appellants shali pay the dehcit court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// SD- T. JAYA SREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR hd- 1. The chairman, fvrotor.Accident craims Tribunar (principar District Judge), ^ Nalgo_n_da,(wjth records, if any) 2. one cC to SRt. p s.?ii.u-B_Egt1.(VVAE,Advocate topucl 3. One CC to SRt. SRt V SAMBASTVA RAO; nOvocate fOpUCj 4. Two CD Copies SECTIO N OFFICER I I I I I l i I I I To, sdr f- I * r'.' g ',: ' J. \'i, fi. li;i \1. -,-- rs6 \ \, tc'J +..'r) , _l r,- --, .r. t- i -_ :t:;.::.r:. ::_: ' ' - :11.: t. . - :/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1210312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.964 of 2009 //z X/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS [32s3] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 964 OF 2009 Between: '1 . Gaddapati Pitchaiah S/o. Ramaiah, Age 42 years, Occ. Mason 2. Gaddapati Karunakar, S/o. Pitchaiah, Age 21 years, Occ. Student 3. Gaddapati Aruna, D/o. Pitchaiah, Age 17 yearc, 4. Gaddapati Sushma, D/o. Pitchaiah, Age 13 years, 5. Gaddapati Santhosha, D/o. Pitchaiah, Age '13 years, (Petitioner No.3 to 5 is Students and being minors, Rep. by their natural father and Guardian the Petitioner No.1, here) All are Ri/o. Nakrekal Village and tvlandal Nalgonda District. ...Appellants/ Petitioners AND '1 . Ch. Krishna Rao, S/o. Venkat Narayana, Age tvlajor, Rl/o. H.No. 33, Housing Board Colony, Adilabad town, Presently Residing at D.No. 7-89, Near S.B.l. Gollapudi, vi.jayawada of Krishna District. ( Owner of the Car bearing No. AP. 01lG 2345 )

2. The National lnsurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office - ll, Rejency House Green Lands Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad Rep. by its Divisional Manager, ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.No.'1056 of 2OO7 dated. 22.10.2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nalgonda. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellants and SRI V SAIMBASIVA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This court doth Order and Decree as follows. 1 That the [Vlotor Accident Civil fi/liscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.8,01,800/-, which shall carry interest a. 7.Soh per annum payable by both the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

2. That the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3. That out of the total compensation, the appellant Nos.3 to 5 are apportioned an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each, which shall be deposited in any Natronalized Bank till they attain majority.

4. That the appellant Nos.3 to 5 are minors, their natural guardian/father is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the compensation amount deposited for every six months to meet day to day expenses of the minor appellants.

5. That appellant No.'1 being husband of deceased, is awarded Rs.3,00,000/- and appellant No.2, being major son of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.5'1 ,8001 and both of them are entifled to withdraw the said amounts without furnishing any security.

6. That the appellants shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation.

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

8. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal SD- T. JAYA SREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// h,s- SEC TION OFFICER 1 2 The Chairman, [\/otor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nalgonda,(with records, if any) Two CD Copies To, r' HIGH COURT DATED: 1210312025 DECREE MACMA.No.964 of 2009 4 ,/ .1 ?. .,' , "(/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS