The High Court · 2026

Counset forthe Appellants : SRt. ANNAPURNA SREERAM Counsel forthe Respondent No.i : M. yAKESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : V. SAMBASIVARAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT TITE HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE NARSING RAO NANDIKOIIDA JUDGMENT: The appellants/claimants filed the present appear against the Award and decree passed by the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunau in M . v. o. p. No .422 of 20 L4 , dated t2 .og .2o LT , wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section L66 of M.V. Act, 19gg seeking compensation of Rs. r3,oo,ooo/- on account of death of lst petitioner husband, namery sri N. Goverdhan Reddy, (hereinafter referred to as 'the d.eceased') who died in acciclent occurred on 04.06 .2OL4. 2' The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants who are the wife, and children of the deceased fired M.v.o.p. No.42T of 2or4 under section 166 of the M.v. Act, 19gg seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent driving of resporrdent No. 1. It is contended that on 04.06-2014, the deceased and his rerative MaIIa Reddy, have purchased the cotton seeds at Nalgonda and were returning to their 2 rt,R'J M'A'C.' ti'A'No'' ? 89 of 20 7 8 village choudampally on motor cycle bearing No.AP-24 lAKl6558 and Malla Reddy was driving the motor cycle and the deceased was travelling on the said bike as a pillion rid.er. when they reached APSP Battalion located in the outskirts of Anneparthy of Addanki-Narketpally High way, the driver of the lorry (Truck) bearing No.HR-38-Q-85O2 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle, due to which, the deceased and. the driver Malla Reddy sustained grievous injuries and both died on the spot. The Police, Nalgonda registered. a case in Crime No.151 of 2014 und'er Section 3C4 of IPC agaiirst the driver cf the lorry, i-e., respond,ent No.1. On account of the death of the deceased., the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.13,OO,0OO/- under various heads'

3. The contention of the clairnants was that as on the date of accident, the deceased \t'as aged about 44 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month being agriculturist. Due to the said accident' the claimants lost their dependency. As such, filed claim petition seeking compensation.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respond.ent No.l remained ex parte' Respondent No.2 filecl coUnter-affrdavit, denying all the averments made -\ ,/' ,/ 3 na.c.n-e.No.nagoffi4zog in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that the rider was not holding vatid driving licence at the time of accident and as such, the compensation cla.imed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) whether th.e deceased Nandyala Gouerd.han Reddy and. his relatiue Basireddg Malta Reddg died in tlrc motor uehicle aciid.ent due to rash and negligent driuing of the drtuer of one container Lorry ffruck) bearing I{o.HR-38-Q-85O2? ii) whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, fo what amount and from wlam? iii)To whnt relieft

6. The claimants got examined pws 1 and 2 and, got marked Exs.Al to 46. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents, but got marked Ex.B1-policy copy. 7 - Having heard both the counsel and after perusing the oral and documentary evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash 1- 4 .il.rR-, fr.A.C.,I-A.No. I 7 89 of 20 1 A and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry and made the respondents responsible for the accident and partly allowed the claim petition, awarding an amount of Rs.7,49,0OO/- in favour of the claimants and against respondent Nos.l and 2, with interest @ 7o/o pet annum from the date of f,rling of petition till the date of award and also subsequent interest @ 60/0 from the date of award till the date of realization.

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not consider the age of the deceased and took \f,/rong multiplier as 13 in place of L4 and that the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, though the deceased was earning Rs.15,O0O/- per month at the time of the accident. Further, even though the petitioners are entitled for 5Oo/o increment towards future prospects, the 'learned Tribunal did not consider the same and the interest ought to have been awarded @ g% per annum and love and affection also ought to have been granted -z 5 rv,vR.J fi .A-c. tlt.A. No. t 7 E9 of 20 7 t g. Heard Sri Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company. None appeared for respondent No.1.

10. The point which arose for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is that: i) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhnnced compensation as praged for? IJ so, to what ertent?

11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that even though the claimants got marked Ex.A6 which shows that the deceased was doing agriculture on Ac.4.27 gts., and earning Rs.15,000/-, the learned Tribunal failed to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,O00/- white awarding the compensation. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgrnent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailaja & Ors., v. Pavan B. Udupudi & Anotherr and the relevant paragraph No.5 is reproduced hereinudner: "5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and by taking into consideration the date of accident was on 11 .O5.20L2, the ceiling limit of the income tax at the relevant point of time was Rs.1,80,OOO/- the income of the deceased from profession is accordingly taken or in other L 2025 Law Suit (SC) 860 6 .TIYRJ il, A, No. I 789 of 20 I I |r. ^.C, wgrds we accept the income of the deceased from profession to said extent as he was an advocate with 17 years of standing. Absence of income proof cannot be a grou.rd to deny just an? reasonable compensation, particularty when there is no dispute that deceased was having a standin g-of LT years at the Bar. The Courts below concurrentll, 1-r"" accepted that deceased owned around 3 acres of agricultural land as evident from Ex.p.w-13 and 14 and yet was not persuaded to construe the income generated from the agricultural operations, for reasons best known. To maintain the said agricultural land and carry on the operations, the claimants have to necessarily explnd an amount and Rs.3,ooo /- per acre and same would be required to be spent for carrying on the agricultural operations or in other words at least a sum of Rs.1o,0oo/- per month will have to be paid towards supervision charges for maintaining 3 acres of agricultural land, nccessarily thls arnount has to be construed as the loss of income to the dependents of the deceased. The supervision cha-rges which claimants will have to speird would be Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs. r,2o,ooo/- per year). Hence total earning of the deceased comes to Rs.3,OO,bOOi_ per year. If we add 1096 towar'is futur.e prospects, the annuai income comes to Rs.3,3o,0oo / -- Taking note of the number of dependents, if we deduct L/4th, the amount wouid be Rs.2,4Z,iOO1_ per year. c-orresponding to the age of the deceased (51 years), murtiplier would be appricable. Thus, the amount oicompensation to which claimants would be entitled towa.rds loss of income would be Rs.27,22,500/- (2,4Z,SOO X 11). if we further add Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of love and a-ffection and filiat compensation and Rs.75,ooo/- under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, total amount of compensation to which claimants would be entitled to would be Rs. 30,37,500/-. After deducting the amount of compensation awarded by the High court i.e., Rs.15,76,g00/- the enhanced compensation payable would be Rs. 14,60,T00/-". 11 12' Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently contended that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as 7 ilIIRJ U.A.c.uA. No. t 7a9 of 20 I a Rs.6,000 /- td award.ed compensation, which needs no interference' Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has further relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Devi and othersz and the relevant paragraph Nos.10 and 11 are reproduced hereunder: "10. In Ja.sbir Kaur's case (supra), the claim was based on an assertion that tLrc d.eceased" wg;s an agria,tlturist earning an amount o/Rs. 1O,0OO/- per month by anltiuating his land. Dealing with the question, this Court held: "8. xxxxxxxxx. The land. possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. Tlrcre is howeuer a possibility that ttrc claimants may be reEtired to engage persons 'to look i7., agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the depriuation of in"o^" is not strictlg applicable to cases uthere agricultural iicome is the source. Attendant cirqtmstances haue to be considered." 11. Coming to the case on ?wnd, the claim is based on the assertion that the deceased" owned agricultural land apart from the abouementioned three mini-buses. Ttrc High Court reiected the claim insofar as if is based on tLrc income from the land, on the ground tnat tne income would. still continue to accrue to the benefit "oY tn" family. Unfortunately, the High Court fgiteg to see thnt the icz*" logic- *ouid" Ue appticable euen to the iname from the abouemintioned. three buies. The asset (three mini-buses) would still continue with the famtlg and fetch income. Tlrc only difference, perhaps, would. be that during his lW time the d.eceased wrs *anaging the buses, but now, the claimnnts may Itnue to engage soffLe competent person to manage tlte asset, which iru fitrn, would" require some pagment to be made to such a mano.ger. To the exteit of such pagment, lhere would be a depleiion in the net income aeruing to the claimants out of the asset. Tlerefore, the amount reEtired for engaging the beruic.e of a manager oia tfo salary payable to a driuer - as it is assefted that the deceased. himset| isZa to drtu" one of the three buses - would z zot2 (4) ALD 101 (sc) 8 JV,VR.J ,LA.C. M.A.No. I 789 of 20 18 be the loss fo the ctaimants. In the norrnal course the claimants are expected to addue euidence as to wlmt would. be the quantum of depletion in the income from the abouementionei asset on account of the abouementionecr factors. unfortunatery, no sucheuidence utas led. bg the claimants". 13' Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further argued that it is only a single crop land and the question of supervisory charges which the appellants are claiming cannot be awarded, but considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is no dispute and denial in respect of the deceased being in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.4.27 gts., which is agricultural land as held by the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of State of Haryana and Another v. Jasbir Kaur and others3, wherein, relevant paragraph No.g is reproduced herein under: "8. It is clear on d bare read.ing of the Tribunal,s d.ecdsron as affr.naed. bg tlrc High cour.t.thnt no rnaterial uas placed. beftrethe former to proue as to ,tlnt was the income. As rightlg coitended. bg learned counset for the appellants, *rcre was not euen qna materiat ad.duced to shout tgpe of tand which the d.eceased. possessed. The matter can be approached from a dtfferent angle. TIE land possessed by the diceased, itrt remains with the claimants as his legal h.eirs. There i.s houteuer a possibilitg that th.e claimant2-mag be reEtired to engage persons to rook after agriailhtre. Therefore, th.e normal rutb auiut the depriuation of -agricultural incom.e rs n?t strictty applicable to cases where iname is the source. Attend.ant circum.stances haue to be 3 1zoos1 z scc 484 9 IYIIf,.J U.A.C,X.A. No. tzag of 20, a -Tribiiat consid.ered. F\trthermore, there u)as no material before the Tribunal to arriue at the -figure of Rs.4500 per montlu No reason hns been indicated to arriue at this figare. In tlrc l@ht of wlwt hns been discassed aboue about 'iust compensation" the income cannot be estimated without any material to iustify the estimation' In the normql course, we utould hnue remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. But considering tlrc fact that one aoung person losf his life, and the matter was pending before and fue High Court for some Aears, we feel it appropriate to take all releuant factors irfio cottsideration, and decid.e the matter. Gauzing *Le releuant aspects, noted aboue, tlrc montltly income is fixed at Rs.3OOO/ - per month and after d.eductl,ng Rs.l,ooo/ - 1or personal expenses, financial contribution so far oi *o claimants are concerned is fixed at Rs.2,o0o/ - per minth. Worked. out on tle basfs of multiplier of 78, the compensation is fixed at Rs.4,32,OOO/ -. T?e amount of Rs.2,OOO/ - awirded bg the Tribunal for funeral expenses is not interfered with and thus the total compensation comes to Rs.4,34,O0O/ -. The rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum as fix"d by the Tlibunal and affirmed" by the High court is appropriate, and does not need any a[teration.-After ad"justing the sum which was deposited pursuant to the. ord.ei of this Court d.ated 14.12.2007, the balance amount along with interest shalt be deposited within three montls from todiy before t?rc Trtbunal. On the deposit being made along with the amount alread.y d.eposited", a sum of Rs.3 lakhs shall be kept in the _fixed deposit in the name of the claimants and a sum of Rs.SO,bOOt- siatt be kept tn frxed deposit in the name of Smt. Bald.eu Kaur, mother of the d.eceased. Theg slnll be entitled to d.raut interest on the deposit, which shnll be re-deposited for furtlrcr terrns of fiue Aears. In case of urgent need, it slwll be open -to th.e claimants to moue Tribunal for release of ang part of the amount in d.eposit. Tle Tribunal shall @nsider the reEtest for utithdrawat aid. shall direct withdrawal in case of an urgent need and not otheruise of suchsum as would meet the need. It shall be specifically indicatia to the Bank wlrcre the deposits are to be mad.e tlnt no aduance or withd.rawal of ang kind stto;ll be permitted without the ord"er of the Tibunal. It stwll be open to the -claimants to approach ttrc Tribunal for uariance of the ord9l relating to aepisit in ftxed. deposit, if any other sch.eme would fetch better returns and. also would prouide rewlar and permanent income". 10 IVIvIlJ M.A.C.,,,A.No.l7a9 of 20 I A 14' In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that though the appellants have succeed.ed to the land to an extent of Ac.4.27 gts., there would not be loss of income of the petitioners, as rightly held by the Honble supreme court and the petitioners for the purpose of doing agriculture, they may incur some amount for the purpose of engaging supervisor for cultivation of the land or they may involve in the said cultivation. In such case, obviously, they have to incur certain amount. 15' Taking into consideration of the judgment of the Honble Supreme court cited in Shailaja case (supraf, this court is arso of the opinion that an amount of Rs.2, ooo /- per acre can be taken as a basis for assessing the notional income of the deceased. The actual income would be Rs'2,OOO / - and when multiplied with the extent of lancl ownect by the deceased, it would come to Rs.gr54C t- (Rs.2OOO /_X Ac.4.2T gts.,).

16. As per the decision of Honble Supreme court in Nationo,r rnsttrance compang Ltmited. vs. pranag sethi and. othersq and considering the age of the deceased as 45 years as on the date of accident which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants, additional 25o/" of the income has to be added towards future prospects 42017 ACJ2700 11 I{ilRJ LA.C.fi .A. tto. t 7a!, of 20' I to the monthly income of the d.eceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the d,eceased would come to Rs. tO,675l- (Rs.8,540/- + Rs'2,135/-)' The annual income of the d.eceased would come to Rs.1,28,LOOl- (Rs.10,67 5l- X 12) and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are three in number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs'85,40O1- (Rs.1 ,28,LOO /- (-) Rs.a2,7OO l-l'

17. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarlcr Verma a. Delhi Transpott CorporatTons ' anld considering the age of the d.eceased as 45 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased age is '14'' Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,95,600/- (Rs.85,4OO/- x 14).

18. The appellants/claimants are further entitted to Rs'18,LsO1- (Rs.15,000/- + lOo/o + 1O%) towards loss of estate and Rs'18,150/- (Rs. 15,00 O l- + looh + 1o%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranag Setlri's Judgrnent (cited suPra). s 2oo9 ACI 1298 (sc) a L2 ivlvP-J tt.,t cu.t. No. t 789 oiidl8

19. Further, considering that appelrant No.1 being the wife of deceased, she is entitred to a sum of Rs.4g, 4ool-under the head of ,ross of consortium' as per pranag sethi's Judgment (cited supra). 20' Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,goo/- (Rs.4g,40o x 2l under the head of 'ross of parental consortium, as per Magma General Insurance campany Limited. o. Nanu R,,m aris chuhnt R..rn 21' In sarla vermq.'s ccse (cited. aboae), t,.e Hon,ble Apex court, rvhile elaborating the concept of ijust compensation, observed as under: "Past compensatioT is ad.equate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and. .irc,mstances of the case, to make good fhe /oss suffered as a result.of the- *ing,-L" p, as moneA can do so, hy applging, the well settled pincioles relatirry to attard of c.ompensation. It is not intend.ea ,o'i" o bonanza,

22. considering the above assessment made by this court, appeilants wor;ld be entitled to as follows: ual Income (of the deceased) 8,540/- X 12 Rs.1,02,4gol_ ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X2Syo1 = 1,O2,48O/- + Rs.25,62O/- : Rs Rs.1,2g, LOOI_ I i) , Ann ttal Dependency =\61 Annual Income - l/3 13 ItittRJ &A.C.X.A. Itu. t 7Ag of 20 t t deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased iv) v) Rs.85,4OO/- Rs. 1,28, 1OO/- (-) Rs.a7,7OOl- Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Multiplier = Rs.85,4OO l - x 14 Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads : Loss of Estate + f\rneral Expenses + loss of sPousal consortium + loss of Parental Consortium: Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs'48,400 + Rs'96'8O0 = Applied Total Rs.11 ,95,6001- Rs.1,81 ,500/- Rs.13,77,10o.1'

23. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. Lg,77r1OO/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.7,49,0 OO I - by the learned Tribunal'

24. considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest @ 7 oh per annum and the same need.s no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled for the interest @ 7o/o on t}lre ) enhanced arnount. 25. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the appellants and \ against the respondents. The claimants are entitled' for an enhanced compensation of Rs. t3r77 r1OO/-' 1 I t4 a-a.c-ilt.r*-.tztg o#fa 26' Accordingly, the M.A.c.M.A is ailowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,49,0o0/- to Rs. LgrTzrroot- with interest at the rate @ 7o/o p'a' on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of tealization. The respondents 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. The respond.ents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due ci.edit Lo the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a cop5z of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordere<I by the learned Tribunal. on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There sha, be no order as to costs. 27 Miscellaneous petitions, / ,/ I 1{ any are pending, sha[ stand closed. SD/ - T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /I //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

2. 3. 4. 5. GE The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. one cc to sRt- ANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate topucl one cc to sRt. M. YAKESHWAR RAO Aavo&GloFlct -' One CC to SRt. V. SAMBASIVARAO, ndvocate iOeuCl Two CD Copies tW HIGH COURT DATED:04l0TIZO}S JUDGMENT EH s T t ? o3 Jl,rl 2r?6 MACMA.No.1789 of 2O1B * ALLOWTNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS $./ a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 34431 FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MO CCIDENT CIVIL M ELLAN APP L NO: oF 20 Betvveen: 1. Nandyala lndiramma, Wo. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age' 43 yearc, Occ' House hold,

2. Nandyala Radhika, D/o. Late Goverdhan Reddy, Age. 24 years, Occ student

3.NandyalaRamReddy,S/o.LateGoverdhanReddy,Age'23years,Occ'student R/o. Choudampally Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District' ...APPELLANTSTPETITIONERS AND

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o. Sh. Uday Ram' Age- Majorr Rl/o' H'No' 63, Spctor-2-]p' " iil;ilg iioiio cotoni, Farid'abad taniit and District, Haryana State, Pin-

2. National lnsurance company Ltd, Regional office, T.P. Legal Hub, Jubli Building, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad Rep. by its Manager. (Policy No. 361 1 O2tg1 I 1 g 16300006003 valid from 1 1 -1 -20 1 4 to 1 0-01 -20 1 5) ...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofM.V.Act,againstOrderandDecree dated 12.09.2017 passed in o.P.No.427 ot 2014 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motoi Accident Claims Tribunal (Prl. District Judge), Nalgonda' 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 argument of SRI ANNAPURNASREERAM, Advocate for the Appellants and sRl M. YAKESHWAR RAO, Advocate appeared for SRI V. SAMBA SIVA RAO, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decrce as follows: 'l. That the Motor Accident civir Misceilaneous Appear be and is hereby allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.7,49,000/_ to Rs.13,77,100/- with interest at the rate @ 7o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That the respondents be and is hereby 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.

4. That the compensation amount shail be apportioned among the craimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal.

5. That on such deposit by the respondents, the craimants are hereby permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD'- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR llTrue Copyll To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Trib Judge, Nalgonda. 2. Two CD Copies. CTION OFFICER m-Principal District GE/PSL W HIGH COURT DATED:04/0712025 DECREE MACMA.No.1789 of 2018 ALLOWNG THE MACMAWTHOUT COSTS 1 6 \1/