The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO .7 47 0F 202',1 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 20.'1 1.2017 in M.A.T.O.P.No.674 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under Scs & STs. (POA) Act, 1989-Cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short ''the Tribunal" ) 2 For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3 l-he case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on 25 08 2012 the deceased was going to Chinthalapudi on his motor bike bearing No.AP-31-BQ-2875 near Mokamamidi cross road . the driver of the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP-20-TV.TR-4441 & AP-16- l--5996 has driven it in a rash and negligent manner. at a high speed. dashed against the motor bike, as a result the deceased sustarned grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatmenl at Paloncha Government Hospital on 16.09.201 2 l-he claimants sought a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- 4 [he respondent No.1 remained ex-parte 2 EI D,J MACMA No.747 2021

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased lt is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Hence, the company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. Based on the above rival contentions. the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1 2 3 Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of l"rector & Tratld beanng No AP Z0-TV/TR- 4444 & AP-l6-T-5996? Whether the petitioners are entttled lo canlDe nsat oD ) lf so to what amount and from which of the rcspot)denls2 To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitroners got exanrined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of lhe respondents, RW1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to 86 rvere marked B. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.10,69,745l-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri V tsrahmarah Chowdary, learned @unsel for the appellants and Sri Sheetal Kumar Ravula, learned counsel for respondent No.2. -7 3 ETD,] MACMA No.747 202i 10 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be very low and has arrived at a meager amount of compensation and that the deceased was aged 36 years old and was running Chicken Business to maintain his family and used to earn more than Rs.15,000/- per month That the tribunal has failed to consider the medical expenses incurred by the petitioners for the treatment of the deceased after the accident till his death. He further submitted that the loss of consortium may be awarded to all the petitioners as the tribunal failed to award and has prayed to enhance the compensation 11 Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for consideration:- 1 Wlletltu the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation 2 Whetllq the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any inteierance? 3 To v,lhat relief? 12 Point No.1:- a) PW1 has asserted that the deceased was doing Chicken Business and used to earn an amount of Rs.'15,000/- per month. No proof (ran be expected in this regard. b) lt is borne out by record that immediately, after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, paloncha, where he was 4 ':ID,J MACMA No.74l 2021 given first aid and then he was shifted to Hope Super Speciality Hospital, Khammam for better treatment. After few hours, as his condition grew worse, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital. Therefore, he was treated as inpatient for 21 days and that when the doctors in the said hospital expressed their inability to save the life of the deceased, then again he was shifted to Government Hospital, Paloncha, where he died while undergoing treatment. ln support of their case, they filed the bills and discharge summaries of the said hospital. c) ln Ramachancirappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Altiance lnsurance Company Limitedl , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer. Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income But in the present case, the deceased is doing Chicken Business as per the contention of the claim petitioners. Therefore. on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas's case, the monthly income of the deceased, assessed by the tribunal as Rs.4,500/- appears to be justified ' 1:n t t 1 t: scc :.irr 5 ETD,J MACMA No.747 2021 d) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2,40% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 36 years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 4,500+1,800 would give Rs.6,300/- per month, which comes to Rs.6,3001 x 12 = Rs.75 600/- per annum e) The number of claimants herein are five and therefore, 1/4th deduction needs to be made to his income towards personal expenses and thrs would come upto Rs.56,700/- (Rs.75,6001 (-) Rs 18.900/-) f) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the I deceased. as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3. The deceased being aged 36 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is'15'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.8,50,500/- (56,700 x 15). S) ln the light ol Pranay Sefhfs case, Rs.150001 towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,0001 towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by '10% every three years. 2 en lott scc s157 rlrrl, ia)r \('( l)r b tTD,J MACMA No. /47 2021 h) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and othersa, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case 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 present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.2,42,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/- Further an amount of Rs.'|8,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs 18.150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. i) The discharge summary issued by the Yashoda Hospital under Ex.A9 and the prescriptions and bills issued by the llope Super Speciality, Khammam and the bill issued by the Yashoda llospital are flled under Ex.A7. A perusal of the discharge summary under Ex A9 shows that the petitioner was treated as inpatient from the date of accident i.e., 25.08.2012 till his death on 15 09 2012 Thus. with regard to the expenses in relation to treatnrent hospitalization and medicines, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the amount granted by the tribunal to an extent of Rs 7.44.7451 '(lo ts) l8 s( ( ti(l j) ln all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation ETO,] MACMA No.747 2021 I amounts: i 2 4 5 Compensation under the head of loss of d_epenQq1.ga Compensation towards loss of consortium Compensation towards loss of estate Compensation towards funeral EX ENSES p Expenses relating to treatment, Jlospitalization and medicines Total I Rs.8,50,5001 Rs.2,42,0001 Rs. 1 8,1 50/- Rs.18,1501 Rs.7,44,7451- Rs.18,73,545/- k) The 'l'ribunal has awarded Rs.10,69,745l-, while, this Court arrived at a compensation of 18.73,545/- and hence, it is held that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation Thus, Point No. 1 is answered accordingly

15. Point No.2:- ln vrew of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensatron to Rs 18,73,545/- from that of Rs.10,69,7451- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal Point No 2 is answered accordingly. 16 POTNT NO.3: ln the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifuing Order and Decree dated 20 1 1 2017 in tM.A T.O p No.614 of 2013 passed by \ 8 tTD,] MACMA No.747 2071 the Chairman, lVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under Scs & STs. (POA) Act, 1989-Cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Khammam, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,69,745/- to Rs.18,73,545/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in thls appeal, shall stand closed SD/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To. 'l . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under Scs & STs. (POA) Act, 1989-Cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Khammam(with records, if any) -SRl. V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC] 2 One CC to 3. One CC to SRl. SHEETAL KUMAR RAVULA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL .l), I I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.747 ot 2021 i{E SIA 1 o 0 2 rEB 2U6 z o I * o:, - -r.,- PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (t 1 \\ ,., v IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACcIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 747 oF 2021 Between:

1. Kilaru Sumana Wo. Krishnamohan, aged 41 years, Occ . Household, r/o. Konijerla village and Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Kilaru Govardhan Rayudu, S/o. Krishna Mohan, 16 years, Occ . Student, being minor rep. by the 1st appellant and natural mother

3. Kilar Jahnavi Devi, D/o. Krishna Mohan, 15 years, Occ. Student, being minor rep. by the 1st appellant and natural mother

4. Kilaru Nageswara Rao (Died), (died) S/o. Gangaiah, 5 Kilaru Anasurva (died)' (Died) wo Nageswara.I6Brrao*rr/pETrroNERS AND 'l . Battula Anji Wo Mallaiah, a bearing No AP 20fVffR444 IVandal. Khai'nmarn Dist. ed . Major, Occ. Owner of Tractor and Trarler and AP 'l6T 5996, r/o. Mulakalapalli village and s 4

2. Bharti AXA Generall lnsurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office. Khammam Town and District. ...RESPON DENTS/RESPON DE NTS Appeal frled under Section '173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 20 11 2017 passed in M A.T.O.P.No. 67412013 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under Scs & STs. (POA) Act, 1989-Cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Khammam. 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. V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondent No.'1 and SRI.SANDEEP KUMAR BODLA, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. // This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.1 0,69,7451- to Rs.18,73,5451 1 I

3. That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o pt annum from the date of claim petition till realization and that the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited

4. That the respondents be and are hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

5. That on such deposit by the respondents, the claimants be and are hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Itf rue Copyll \\ \ To 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Ctarms Tribunal- for Trial of Cases Under Scs & SIs (POA) Act, 1 Diskict Judge, Khammam (with record. if any)

2. Two CD Copies. GUPSL Ny ECTION OFFICER pecial Sessions J udge um-Vll Additional HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 DECREE MACMA.No.747 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING TI]E MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 11 0) "t