The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. K VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: A.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO. 210 0F 2o2L JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03.03.2020 in M.V.O.p.No.3g1 of 2()16 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum I Addittonal District Judgc, Warangal (for short ,,the Tribunal,,).

2. For convenience and clarit5r, the parties herein are referred to as thcy were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. 'lhe case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was Lhat the deceased-Ratan Singh was going as a pillion ricler on Honda Unicorn Motorcycle bearing NBo.TS_03_EH 0935, when they rcachcd OId Poultry F-orm, Gopa Thanda, a Santro Car bearing No.AP 36-H-7799 coming from behind in a rash and negligent manncr at a high speed, dashed their bike, as a result of which, the dcceased-Ratan Singh and the ridei of the bike sustained injuries and RaLan Singh died on the spot. Thus, clainrants sought a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/_.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.I filed counLer deu'rng the age, avocation and income of the deceased and further contcnded that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and ne$igEnce of the respondent No. 1. 2 ETD,] MACMA No.210 2021

5. The respondent No.2-lnsurance Company has also iiled its counter denying the malerial averments in the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased and has further contended that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.l was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident, and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. He has further contended that there is one day deiay in reporting the matter to the Police creating a doubt with regard to the occurrence of .the accident.

6. Based on the abbve pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- I 2 3 Whether the accident occurred on 31.03.2O15 uLas due to rash and negligent diuing on the part of the driuer of the Santro Car beaing No.Ap-36-H-7799? Whether th.e policg u.tas in force and ualid on the date of accident? Wltether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to uthat extent?

4. To tohat relief ?

7. To prove their case, the claimants got examined pWl to 3 and trxs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but trx.R1 was marked. _/ 3 ETD,J MACMA No.210 2021 -

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensarion of Rs. 10,16,0O0/-. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhanccment oI compensation.

9. Heard Srt K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for responden t No. 2 -lnsurance Company.

10. Thc learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that thc luture prospects have not been awarded by the Tribunal and also that very lou, amoun[ was awarded under the heads of loss of consortium. 'l'herefore, he prayed to consider the said two aspects and enhancc rhe compensation. 1 1. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submittecl to consider the principles laid down in Noltional Insurance Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi & Othersl . by the Apex Court, u,hile considering the aspects of future prospects and loss of consortium. I Ie furrher brought it to the notice of this Court that thc Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1O, 16,000/_, while the petitioncrs cltrimed only Rs. lO,00,OO0/-. 1 AtR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,I MACMA No.210 2021 '- \--.=..1 r\l 4

12. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination 1 2 Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. If so, to tDhot extent? Whether the order and decree of the Tibunal need any interference?

3. To u.that relieJ?

13. Point No.1: a) The grievance of the claimants is that the Tribunal has not considered the addition of income towards luture prospects. As per the larv laid down by National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Others2, by the Apex Court, addition has to be made with regard to future prospects, while computing the compensation. In the present case, the deceased is stated to be an agriculturist, having an extent of Ac.2-34 guntas and further hc used to take Ac.4 0O guntas on lease for doing agricul[ure and that he used to grow commercial crops and earn Rs.2,40,OOO/- per b) His age as revealed by the Post Mortem Report under Ex.P4 is "46" years and thus he is self-employed person, aged'46'years. Therefore, the addition of 25%o towards future prospccts has to be 2 AtR 2017 SCC 5't 57 5 ETD,] MACMA No.210 2021 made in his income, To prove the income of the deceased, the petitioners got examined PW3 and also filed Adangal Pahanies under Ex.P6. A perusal of trx.P6 discloses that the deceased was having Ac.l.34 guntas in Sy.No.338/Cl2 and Ac.l-00 guntas in Sy.No.355/A/3 of Pcddanagaram Village. c) PW3 deposed that he leased out his land to an exten[ of Ac.4-00 guntas to the deceased for doing agriculture. Thus, considering the cvidence of PW3 and said factors that the deceased was possessing Ac.2-34 guntas of agricultural land and that he was into agriculture, the Tribunal has taken the income of lhe deceased as Rs.S,OOO/- per month, which appears to be justified on a reasona ble hypot hcsis. d) As per the dicta lzrid dorvn ir-r National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi & Otherd,2So/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospecLs. As'the deceased is aged 46 years, adding 25% tou,ards future prospects i.e., 8,000+2000 would give Rs.1O,00O/- per month, which comes to Rs.10,000/- x i2: Rs.l,2O,OOO l- per annum. 3 trh zor z scc 5157 6 ETD,J MACMA No.210 2021 e) The number of claimants herein are four and therefore, i /4th deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.90,00O/- (Rs. l,2O,OOO/_ (_) Rs.30,o00/-) f) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceascd, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma a. Delhi Ttansport Corporation4. The deceased being aged 46 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is,13. Therefore, the loss ol dependency comes to Rs.1 1,70,00O/_. g) In the light of pranag Sefhi,s case, Rs. lSOOO/_ towards loss of estaLe and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,O0O/ towards loss of consortium have to be awarded anct the said amounts should be enhanced by IO% every three years. h) ln Magma General Insurance Compang Limited a. Nanu Ram (d. Chuhru Ram q.nd. otherss, the Apex Courl has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in pranag Sethi,s case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the dcceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in\the present case, the claimants would get Rs.4g,400/_ each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount 'zoog (o) scc l2 t 'iuolS; t8 scc t:o ,,. l ETD,J MACMA No.210 2021 under this head would be Rs. 1,93,60O/- instead of Rs.4O,0O0/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18, 150i - towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. i) Thercfore, the compensation to which the petitioners are is calculated as Rs. 13,99,9O0/- while the Tribunal has ".rtitl.d awarded Rs.1O,16,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No. I is ansu'cred accordingly.

74. POINT NO.2: It is held that the order and decree o[ the Tribunal need to be modilied with regard to the qu.rntum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 13,99,9O0 l- from that of \ Rs. 1O,16,OO0/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed modilying the Order and Decree dated 03.O3.2O2O in M.V.O.P.No.381 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Warangal, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1O, 16,000/ to 13,99,gOCt l- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ T .S%o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the 8 ETD,] MACMA No.210 2021 interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited. The appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy o[ .this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. The judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment of deficit Court fee by the appellants. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T.JAYASREE DEPUW REGISTRAR SE N OFFICER To, 1 2 4 BGS Chairperson, f\,ilotor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- l-Additional District Judge, Warangal. One CC to SRI K.VENUIvIADHAV Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI A RAMAKRISHNA Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies W HIGH COURT DATED: 171041202s JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.210 ot 2021 SIAfE o o tq N\t 6) * I ttspN PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6cq(& ftr"' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT 134441 THE HONOUR.ABLE SMT JUSTTCE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 210 OF 2021 Between: '1 . Ajmeera Kanthi, Wo. Late Ratan Singh, Age 44 Years, Occ Housewife 2. Ajmeera Saritha, D/o. Late Ratan Singh, W/o. Jatothu Ramesh, Age 27 Years, Occ Housewife,

3. Ajmeera Prem Das, S/ o. Late Ratan Singh, Age 23 Years, Occ Student, 4. Ajmeera Raiini, D/ o. Late Ratan Singh, Age 21 Years, Occ Student, AllareRl/o.KothaThanda,H/oAbbaipalemVillage,lvlaripedaMandal, Warangal District, presently residing at Deendayal Nagar, Hunter Road, Hanamoknda, Warangal.City and District. ...APPELLANTS /PETITIONERS AND

1. K. Mallikarjun Rao, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Age: IMajor, Occ: Owner-cum-Driver of the crime vehicle, Rl/o. H.No. 10-13-134' lll Floor, Flat No 309' Laxmipuram, Warangal District, presently residing at H-No 16-4-425, Under Bridge, Shiva Nagar, Warangal City and District

2. The-Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co., Ltd, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at H.No. 1-7-690, First Floor' Loyola Arcade, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District. ...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under.section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 381 0f 2016 dated 03/03/2020 0n the file of the court of the chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- l-Additional District Judge, Warangal. oRDER: The appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of ipp"iL, the Judlinent and Dicree of the Court below and the material papers in iilJiii" uno upon hearing the arguments 01 qi f VENUMADHAV, Advocate for ifre Appefiants and Sri A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: .1 . That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowedmodifyingtheJudgmentanddecreeint\il.VOPNo'381of2016 dated 03/03/2020 on the file of the court of the chairperson, lt/lotor vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- l-Additional District Judge, warangal enhancing the compensation from Rs..l0,.l 6,000 to Rs.1 3,99,900/_ and the enhanced compensation shalr carry interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of filing the petition titt the date of realization. ! lhat however, the intere.st for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 3. That the appellants shall pay the deficit court fe6. 4. That the Respondent No. 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months rrom irr!-Jaie ot receipt of a copy of this judgment aftei deducting tfre amojni, ii rny, ,fr*oy deposited. 5. That on-such. deposit, the appefiants are entitted to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security as per their respective ,nir", ,i irro]i"iov"t" Tribunal. 6. That the judgmen.t copy shail be made avairabre subject to the payment of dficit 7. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stands confirmed 8. That there be no orders as to costs in this appeal. in all other respects; and court by the appellants. //TRUE COPY// SECTI Sd/. T.JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6-ON OFFICER To, 1 2 chairperson, Motor Vehicre Accidents claims Tribunar-cum- I-Additionar District Judge, Warangal. Two CD Copies BGSw HIGH COURT DATED: 17104t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.210 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS r-rcode Fh r{a--a: