The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DIi'I EADA nI.A.C.M.A.NO.555 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is l1led by the claimants, aggrier.e: bv Lhe Ordcr zurcj Dccree dated 0 i.0,+.2021 ir-r O.P.No.65 of 20 1 7 riissccl bv tlre Chairrnan, Motor Accident Clarms Tribunal-cunt li Aclditional Disrrict Judge, Karimnagar (for shr,i't "the Tribur-ral")

2. For conveniencc and clarity, the parties herein re rcferrcd to as they were arrayed before the 'lribunal- 3 . 'lhe case of thc petitioners bcfore the 'l'r jbu r -rl is ti'rat on

20.09 .2016 at about 6:00 p.m., while the decease -l ancl his rvife were returning from Kondapur Village to Narsingap., - Villagc on a Hero Honda Spler-rdor Plus bearing No.AP 15 Ab- 74:,S and on the \,(/a]' at about 7:0O p.m., when they reachecl Yellart na Templc in thc outskirts of Thatipalli Village, one l.orry bcarintr No.GJ-25-LI 7'759 berng drivcn by its driver in a rash and negligc- rnanrler rlr a high speed, dashed their motor bikc due to u, . ch both rl-rc deceased and his urfe fell down, received fatal injurie ; and died olr the spot. Thus, the claimants sought a cor. rensation ol Rs.3O,OO,000/ -.

4. 'Ihe respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-part(l ! )* 2 ETD,J MACMA No.655 2021

5. The respondent Nos.3 ar-rd 4 l-rled counter denying the averments ot the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income ol the deceased. It is further contcnded that the drrvcr ol thc crin-ie lorrv u.as r-rot har.ing valid driving license as on the datc of thc accidenL and tl'rat thcir Company is not liable to pa)' any compensation. It is further contented that the negligence ol the deccased rider of the motor bike contributed to the accident

6. Based on the above rival contcntions. the Tribrrnal has framed the follorving issues:- Whether the accidert lvttl occuned on accoutll of tlte use of the offending uehtct<, l,orry beaang No.G.l 25 U-7759 b11 respondent No. 1? Whether the petitioners are entitled for conlpensation, if so, to what quantum and fron whonr? To what reliel?" 2

7. To prove their case, the pctitioners gol examined PWs I to 3 and Exs.Pl to P15 were marked. On behalf of the rcspondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.Rl was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, l-he Tnbunal has granted a compensation of Rs.23,14,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 3 ETD,.J IACMA No.655 2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri A.V.K.S Prasad, [, rned counsel for the appellants and Sri Venkata Rami Reddy, learrL, d counsel for thc respondent No.4. 10 Learned counsel lor thc appellant has subnL' ted that thc parenls are thc claimants. He further argued that the TribunaL has noL awardcd consortium and hence, prayed to award he samc.

11. Learncd counsel for the respondents on the ct rer hand has sublnitted that the deceased is a Surveyor and tl'r,: tribr-tnal rvas right in asscssing the income of Rs.12,000/- and th rt lhere is no neeC to enhance the compcnsation awarded b1, he Tribunal. Her-Lce, praycd to dismiss the appeal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Ccr rt lrames the follori,ing points for consideration:- 1 . Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement o_)' otnpensotiott

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed bg the Tr tunal need ang interJe rence?

3. To wLtat relieJ?

13. Point No. 1:- a) PW1 asserted that the deceased used to worl< as Surveyour in Oman, United Arab Emirates and used to earn Il ..120/- Riyals which is equal to Rs.2O,O00/- per month in Indian )urrency. The Lribunal failed to consider the same. 4 ETD,] MACMA No.655 2021 b) Thc Tribunal has held that the income of the deceased is proved, it has takcn wrongly the income of the deceased to be Rs. 12,000/- per month. In support oi rheir case, the petitioners have filed lhe original passport of the deceased under Ex.p7 q,hich discloses that he is issued residcnt card by Sultan Oman and that it is lo expire on 29.04.2or7. Tlie accourr stalemen[ undcr Ex.p9 discloses that it pertains to pW 1 , wherein the deposits are made into his account and it is the contention of the petitioncr that the NEFT transfers are made by his son from Oman. The remittance reccipts are filed under Ex.p1O discloses that the deceased remitted an arrrount of Rs.2gO/ - riyals to his father/ Nagapuri Sathiah and they have also produced Lhc encashmcnt cer-tificate ol Weizmann Forex Limited under trx. p 1 1 rvhich shows the conversion of Riyals to Rupees, it is elicited from the samc that ir.r exchange of 20 Riyals, he could collect an amount of Rs.3,O i2/ . Though the petitioner counsel has statcd that tric converslon ratc is Rs. 16O/- per Riyal, a perusal of encashment certificate reveals that Rs. 150/- would be the Indian Currcncy for one Dirham. Then they have also hled eight E-ticket receipts uncier Ex.p12 to prove that the deceased used to travel from Oman to India and that the return ticket was booked on 15.Og.2016 from Delhi to Oman. Thus, the fetitioners could place it on record that the deceased was employed at Oman and used to earn Rs. 150/_ Riyat per \.. -t"' month. Thus, he was employed abroad and used t: send amount 5 ETO,I MACMA No.655 2021 to his parents. c) The contcntion of the petitioners is that hr: used to carn Rs.120 Riyal per rnonth. Thus, they contended tl rt hc used to earn around Rs.20,000/- per month in terms of Ir< ian Currency. Thc salary certificate is not produced. Though the r' could prove that the deceased used to work abroad and used tc ;end amounts every no\\/ and then, the monthly earnings are rot disclosed. Thcrefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, the tribun€ has assessed l the rncome ol Lhe dcceased as Rs.12,000/- ri,hich rppears to be j ust ified. d) The deceased was aged '27' years as per' Post Mortem Examination Repori, but the tribunal has conr;l lered all the aspects into consideralion as per the guidelines Iaid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pr,a ruy Sethi & Others?,that is 40% of the future prospects are ac led and has also given 1/3.d deduction as number of dependent ; arc only trvo and taken appropriate multiplier as '17'. However it is observed that the tribunal has failed to consider the loss of ccr sortium. I ,| AtR 2017 SCC 5157 6 ETD,] MACMA No.65S 2021 e) In the light of pranag Setht,s case, Rs. 150OO/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,0O0/_ towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,0OO/- towards loss of consortium have to be ar.vardcd anrl the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three I.ears. 0 tn Magma General Insurance Compang Limited. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhnt Ram and, others2, the Apex Court has elaboratclr. discussed the principles laid down in pranag sefhi,s casc and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore. in the presenl case, the claimants would gct Rs.4g,400/ each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensatior.t amount under this head would be Rs.96,800/- instead of Rs.40,OOO/- Further an amount of Rs.1g,150/_ towards funeral expcnses and Rs. 18, 150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. C) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.23, 14,800/ _, while, rhis Courr arrived at a compensation of Rs.24,1 1,600/_ and hence, it is held that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. Thus, point No. 2 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:- )o Iry view of the frndings arrived at point Nos. 1 and 2 , it is held rder and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced that tire regard to '1zots; rs scc r:o the compensation to Rs.24,1 1,600 I - from that of I s.23,14,8O0/- 1 ETD,] MACMA No.655 2021 I i.e., awarded by the Tribunal Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.4: In thc rcsult, thc appeiLl rs partly allou'ccl. mo(lift,ing the Orcler trnd Decrce dated O1.04.2021 in O.P.No.66 c t 2017 passcd by thc Chairman, Motor Accident Claims 'I 'ibunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, by ,l rhancing the compensation from Rs.23,14,8OO1- to Rs.24,11,1 )0/- and the cnhairccd arnoLlnI of compcnsaLion shall carry inte: 'st (tt, 7 .5%o per annum from thc date of claim pc[ition tlll realizatior . Hourever, the intcrest for the perrod of delay, if any, is lorfeitecl. 'I'1 e respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amoun t with accrued interest w,ithir-r a period of two months frorn the d:r1t of receipt of a copy of this Judgn-rent after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are entil.l :d to withdrar.r, the said amounL withoul furr-rishing any security. Miscellaneous petltions, pending if any, in ttr. s appeal, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// n, Sd/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG REGISTRAR S PTANT $ecrrou oFFrcER 1 . The Chairman fvlotor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribl r al -cum- District Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagtial. (With records) 2 one CC to Sri. A V K S Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate [l PUC] 4. Two CD Coptes ll Additional AS/DL \k -!.! +-,.1-1:+r{:l=+*-:4.{rr14}.:,,:1?,r,!iq;!#ElF:s :.},.-e:i-:=.'?,:',.5:E=:!tEE=FEr..:rE-:::i iqFF.:!6!d!reri:a5!'!=:tr;s!:<=r:?E#E{ I dE ST,+r F t t ) 3 1 t'iAR 2[26 v 7* G't i I ".:..'/ HIGH COURT DATED:1210912025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.655 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL G ,ffJ' h". I I i I I I I I I E : I I I I I I I i i [34441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 655 OF 2021 Between:

1. Nagapuri Sathaiah, S/o.Lingaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Nil. 2. Nagapuri Ganga Raju, W/o. Sathaiah, aged about years, Occ: Nil 3. Nagapuri Suresh, S/o. Sathaiah, Aged about 19 years, Occ. Student The Petitioners/Appellants 1 to 3 herein above are Rl/o. Narsingapur (V), Jatial (tt/), Jagtial Dt. ...Appellants/Claimants AND

1. Kodiyatar [Vlandabhai, S/o. Arju Bai, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Lorry Driver, Rl/o. 33-6- 1 40, Navapuri Barvannesh Adityana, Porbander Dt. Gujarat Staie. 2. Karsan Kana Bai Mori, S/o. Kanabai Mori, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Owner of Lorry-HJ-25-U17759, Rl/o. Barvannas Adityana, 7 T.2, Ranavasu, . Porbander Dt. Gujarat State

3. The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd.,, Office at Dilip Cricket Ground, Near LIC Office, M.G. Road, Porbander Dt., Gujarat State, rep. by Br. Manager.

4. The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd.,, Prodduturi Complex, 2nd Floor, Hanamkonda Main Road, Warangal, Rep. by Div. Manager. ... Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of :M.V.Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 01.04.2021 passed in OP.NO. 65 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal --cum- ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagtial. 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. A V K S Prasad, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. 'a]j=.?<,f-*. \.r-.* 'Thqa .t^rv4 d-4vr o''J'e'' c,ut{ Jervee od 4et\or"A" 1. That the lr,4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal : : and is hereby partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 01.0r. 021 in O.P. No. 66 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, I\rotor Accident ( aims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, by enhancing t e compensation from Rs. 23,14,800/- to Rs. 24,11,6001- and the : rhanced amount of compensatlon shall carry interest @ 7.sok per annurr rom the date of claim petition till realization;

2. That However. the interest for the period of delay, if ar r is forfeited: 3. That the respondents are directed to deposit the conrl ensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from .l e date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if ar 1 already deposited; 4. That on such deposit, the claimants be and hereby il: entifled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal :;iz stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appea . Sd/. VI. OSMAN ALI BAIG AS STANT REG //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman N4otor Vehrcle Accidents Claims Tribu I I -cum- ll Additional 2. Two CD Copies District Judge. Karimnagar, at Jagtial. AS/DL Y^'' HIGH COURT DATED:12l09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.655 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE APPEAL .tfl"A )-\