The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri P. Radhive Reddy Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DET'I EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.4 oF 2021 JUDGME NT: This.rppeal is filed by the claimants aggriev<.r rv the Orcler and Decree dated 13. L1.2Olg in M.V.O.p.No .979.ot 21 l3 passecl by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_Cum_Addi t i, nal District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal,).

2. For convcnience and clariry, the parties herein ,r e referred to as they werc arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The ctrse of the claim petitioners before the Tr:l unal is that on 24.11.2013 u,hen the deceased/Ragi Bharath u.z.: proceeding towards Nandipet side from Nikalpur village in the :ar beanng No.AP-2S-AM _2947 of respondent No. l, when they _, a6hsd n6,ar Substation at Thondakur Village, in the meantime or : dog came across the rr>ad and to avoid the accident he drove rt o a side on the road, due to rvhich the car turned turtle and 1l e deceased sustained severe head injuries and fractures and die<i r n the same day while undergoing treatment at Amrutha Laksh r i Hospit rr, Nizamabad. It is re case of the petitioners that the de :eased was aged about 22 years and was earning Rs.1O,OOO/_ pel' nonth and Rs.20O/ - per day batta, as he worked as a cr ver under respondent No. I,who is the owner of crime vehicle TI'r,: peti tioners AS ) ETO,J MACMA No.4-2021 sought a compensation of Rs.6,80,0O0/- under Section 163 (A) of MV Act

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-pdrte. Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition with regard to the occurrence of accident, income, avocation and age of the deceased. It further contended that the deceased driver did not hold valid driving license on the date of the accident and that the insurance company is not Iiable to pay any compensation.

5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the qccident has taken place due to rosh and negLigenl dnuing of the car beaing NI.AP-25-AM-2947 bg its diuer? 2) Whether the petttioners are entitled Jor compensotiort on account of deatlt of Rogi BharatlL If so, to wLLat amount ond against whom? 3) To what relief

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs. I to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A5. On behalf of respondents RW. 1 was examined and Ex.Bl was marked. 7- Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,OO,000/- as against the claim of Rs.6,8O,OOO/. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. 3 ETD,J MACMA No.4 2021

8. Heard Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned ccr nsel for the appellants and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learn: 1 counsel for respondent No.2.

9. lrarned counsel for the appellants has subn il.teci that the Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence ri pWs. I to 3 and the documents filed by them and that the Tr bunai should have granted just compensation. He further sultrr itterl that the Tribunal has committed an error by taking the t:i rnings of the deceased to be very low and has also granted me lger amounts under various convenlional heads. Therefore, he pral:d to enhance the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has sutr ritted that the petition is hle<1 under Section 163 (A) of M.V.Act arrd that the Tribunal has taken all the points into consideratior r and has given a lvell reasoncd order and that there is no need t,r interfere with the same.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this (]o Lrt frames the follou'ing points lor determinarion: 1 2 Wlletlrcr the clc.imo'nts are entitted for of compensation as pragedJor? enlic temerlt If sototululi ertent? Whether the ord.er and decree need any interkrence? oJ the '.-t bunat

3. To uthat niief? 4 ETD,J MACMA No.4 2021 L2. POINT NO.1: a). The claim petitioners in this appeal are aggrieved with rcgard to the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The case of thc petitioners is that the deceased used to work as a driver and used to earn Rs. I0,00O/ - per month apart from the batta of Rs.200/- per day and that the same should be considered while assessing the income. b)- A perusal of the trx.B1/lnsurance Policy discloses that a premium of Rs.SO/ -is paid towards the paid driver, 'Personal Accident' coverage is with regard to the owner cum driver. It is also mentioned in the Insurance Policy that the claim towards paid driver is covered under tMTl7 in the terms and conditions annexed to the policy. A perusal of IMT17 reveals that there is 1OO% coverage for the risk of paid driver in case of death. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the deceased, who is working as a driver. Ex.A3 is the Driving license of the deceased issued to drive LMV and is valid from 17 .ll.2Ol2 to

16.11.203- Thus he was possessing a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and the salary certilicate is filed under Ex.A4. A perusal of thc salary certificate reveals that he used to work as a driver under respondent No.1 for the car bearing No.AP 25-AM-2947 and was paid the salary of Rs.10,00O/- per month .::, 5 ETD,' MA(lMA No.4 2021 besides Rs.200/- per day as batta. Ex.A4 is issuerl 1, respondent No. 1/the owner of the car. A perusal of the policy .r jo reveals the said name of Siattcr,\'a to be the owner of the car. I tus based on the trxs.A3 ancl A4, it is held that the deceased us(( ro-work as a driver under rcspondent No.1, who is lhe owner of I <. car bearing No.AP-25-AM-2942. Thoogh the petitioners asse rtc( _l,re income of the deceased to be Rs.l O,OO0/- per month, the an.r ral income of the deceased should be restricted to Rs.4O,O0O/_ rL the claim is made under 163A. c). As per the Second Schedule, the multip r:r applicable to the deceased is 18 as he is aged 20 years, as oer the post Mortem Examination report. The compensation as : :r the Second Schedule is Rs.7,60,O0O/-. l/3ra of the compensat on has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, z.: r:r deducting 1/3;,i, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.5,, 6,666/-. To the said amount Rs.2,OOO/- towards funeral expen s( s, Rs.5,000/_ towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/_ towardsr loss of estate have to be awarded. Therefore, the petition,) is entitled compensation of Rs.S, 16,166/_. Hence, point N.. I is answered accordingly.

13. PTOINT NO.2: In view of the finriings arrived at point No. I, i is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal nceds; t r be modified { / 6 ETDJ MACMA No.4-2021 -j with regard to quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,16,1661- from that of Rs.2,OO,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

14. POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A hted by the claimants is partly allowed, modif-ving the order dated 13. I l 2O 19 in M.V.O.P.No.979 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,OO,000/- to Rs.5,16,166/- and the enhanced amounl of compensation shall carry an interest (A 7 -5 o/o x,, per ann\rm from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of detay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.2 is 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 appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -. G/ SECTION OFFICER ,| TheChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum.AdditionalDistrictJudge, Nizamabad.

2. One CC to Sri P. Radhive Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] ' 5. o;; cc to Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies To, 1 AS&am HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 / I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.4 ot 2021 i(- AlE UA rts s o F I I i \ r) t1 I PARTLY ALLOWED tk,.1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.No: 4 OF 2O21 Between:

1. Ragi Savithri and another, Wo. Hanmandlu 2. Ragi Santhoshi, S/o. Ragi Narayana AN D 1 2 ..AppellanUClaimants Donukanti Sattewa, Wo. Gangadhar Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, D. No. 8-3-300, First floor, Kothi Rampur, Hyderabad Road, Karimnagar-505 00'1 . ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under section 173 of lr/otor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.o.P.No.979 of 2013 dated 13-11-2019 on the fite of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamadad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Cou( and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of sri p. Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Appeltants and sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimants be and hereby is allowed modifying the order dated 13-11-2019 in M.V.O.P.No.979 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,0001 to Rs.5,16,1661 and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization;

2. That the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited;

3. That the Respondent No.2 is be and hereby dire c .ed to deposit the compensation amount with accured interest within a I ,riod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after c :ducting the amount if any already deposited;

4. That on such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withc'aw the said amount without furnishing any security;

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court l;l all stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. t\I JAWAHAR REDDY ASSI: TANT REgISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Ad,l ional District Judge, Nizamabad. 2. Two CD Copies AS/kam % HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 DECREE MACMA.No.4 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWED ),a "91