The High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. P. Pushpalatha W/o Late P.Ramesh, Aged about. 25 years, Occ. House Hold, Bhanumathi, D/o Late P.Ramesh, Aged about. 6 years Occ, Student P. P.Jashmanth, S/o Late P.Ramesh, Aged about. 4 years, Occ. Student P. Chennaiah, S/o Late P.Balaiah Aged about. 54 Years, Occ Nil (Petitioner no.2and3are being minors represented by their natural guardian and mother i.e Petitioner no.1), All are Fl/o Urkonda Village, Midjil Mandal, at FUo H.No. District presently residi ng Mahaboo 16-11-2Ut1tA, Malakpet,

1. D.Bheemaiah, S/o D.Chandraiah Aged abodt.28 years, Occ. Business of Tractor beari ngnoAP22L 2028 and Trailer bearing no AP22W 31 Near milk center, Kalyani Nagar, Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District. (owner 49) R/o

2. lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Co 2nd Floor, Shop Nos I to 7 and 18 to No2, Banjarahills, Hyderabad-34. Tpa.ny Llg, Rep by its Manager (Legat) 20, Lumbini Jewel Mall Road Gounsel for the Appellants : SRI PALLATT CHANDRAMOULI Gounsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K AJAy KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.l : The Court delivered the following: Judgment ,:'

THE ]PION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.71 I OF 20/21 JUDGMENlT: This ,rppeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 27.O8.2O21 in M.V.O.P.No.14O of 2OL5 passed by the Motor'y'ehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-XXVl Additional Chief Judgt:, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") .

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed br:fore the Tribunal.

3. 'lhe r:ase of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

09.08.2014 at about 10.00 hours, while the deceased was going as a labour on Tractor bearing No.AP-22 -L-2o28 attachecl to Trailer bearing No.AP-22-W-3149 from Urkonda Village with a load of fencing stones to unload the same at Mallepalty vitlage along with another labour namely Kavali Venkatesh, on the way when the said rractor and Trailer reached outskirts of Thandra village, Veldanda Mandal, I\{ahaboobnagar District, the driver of the Tractor an,l Trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner a at a high rspeed and lost control over the same, due to which the Axle of thr: Tractor had broken down and the tractor and trailer turned turtle and fell down beside the culvert. As a result, the fencing stones fell over the deceased and he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of 2 ETD,I MACMA No.711 2021 Rs.13,00,000/-. 4- The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

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. It is further contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer. It is further contended that the driver of tractor-trailer does not have valid driving license and that the insurance company is not liabte to pay any compensation.

6. [t has further filed an additional counter stating that they have issued a policy bearing No.l-2948 62ll in respect of the tractor bearing No.AP22L2O28 and Trailer bearing No.AP-22-W 3149, which belongs to re$pondbnt No.l for the usage of Agriculture arrd Forest purposes but not for hire or reward and thus, the owner and driver of the tractor has violated the terms a and conditions of the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1 Whether th.e Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driuing of tle Tractor bearing No.AP 22 L 2028 and Trailer bearilq No.AP22W3149? tE: / 3 ETD,J MACMA No.711_2021 2) 3) whether the claim petitioners are entitled. for compersation, if so fromwhom? To uthat relieJ?

8. To prove their case, petitioners got examined pws 1 and, 2 and got marked Exs.Al to AT. on behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 we,re examined and Exs.Bl and 83 were marked. The record revee-ls that the evidence of RWl was eschewed.

9. Baseci the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.12,12,4oo/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

10. Hearcl sri P. chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the appellants and sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

11. Learr:ed counsel for the appellants has submitted that the there are flour claimants in this case, thus r /+tt has to be deducted but the Trillunal has wrongly deduc,tbd 1/3'a and has awarded low amount tovrards compensation. He further argued that they have proved the earnings of the deceased by fiting salary certilicate under Ex.A6 but the Tr:ibunal failed to consider the same. He has \ also conterLded that loss of consortium is awarded only to the lst petitioner rvhile the Law as on date says that loss of consortium has\o be e.warded to all the petitioners including the parents and the children. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation bv i 4 ETD,J MACMA No.711_2021 considering the earnings of the deceased under Ex.A6 and also the principles laid down in the Nationq.l Insurance cotrytang Limited Vs. Prqnag Setht & Othersl.

12. The respondents counsel, on the other hand has fairly submitted that the deduction taken by the Tribunal is not proper and that I l+tt deduction should be made. He argued that though Ex.A6 is filed, the author of document is not examined and thus, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,0oo/-: He further submitted that the decision of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income of the deceased may be upheld and need not be interfered with. He further submitted that the loss of consortium may be awarded to the claimants as per the law laid down by the Apex court in Nattonal rnsurance compang Limited, vs. pranag sethi & othcrs.

13. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideraJion in this Appeal are as follorvs:-

1. W?rcther the claimants are entitted. for enhancement of 2. compensation? Whether tlrc Order and Decree of the Tribunat need. ang interference ? .. a

3. To what relief ? 1 ArR 2017 SCC 5157 I 5 ETD,J MACMA No.711_2021

14. Point No.1: a) PW1 is the wife of the deceased. It is asserted by PWl that the deceasr:d used to work as a labourer and was earning an amount of Rs.8,OOOl- per month and Rs.100/- per day towards Batta. No proof can be expected in this regard. b) In Rtamachandrappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaro;m Alliance rnsurance compang Limited2, tk,.e Apex court has held that in th: absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,Soo /- per month can'be safely taken as the income. In the said case, the a.ccident occurred in 2oo4 and the deceased was a labourer. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2014. Thus, on a reasonable hypothesis, the income of the deceased €.s assessed by the tribunal i.e., Rs.6,000/- per month, appears to be justified. c) As per the dicta laid down in Natlonal rnsurance compang Limited vs. Pranag sethl & other.J , 4oo/oof the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 2g years, adding 4oo/o tou'ards future prospects i.e. ,6000+24o0 would give Rs.8,,+OOl- per month, which comes to Rs.S,4OO/- x 12 : a Rs. 1,008,(lO I - per annum. '1zot r; 12 scl 236 3 nrR zdrz s;cc srsz ) I 6 ETD,J MACMA No.711_2021 d) The number of craimants herein are four and there fore, 1f 4* deduction need to be made to his income towards personar expenses and this would come up to Rs.75,600/- (Rs,1,00,g00/_ (_) Rs.25,2O0l-) e) The Post Mortem Examination Report filed under Ex.A4 reveals the age of the deceased as 2g,years. The multiprier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased as per corumn No.4 of the table given in sarla verma vs. Derhi Transport corporation4, the deceased being aged ,2g,years, the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Therefore, the ross of dependency is assessed as Rs.12,85,2OO1- (Rs.75,60O x 17). 0 In the light of pranag setht's case, Rs. r50oo/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,o0o/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,o0o/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should b. .#fi;""fb, roo/o everythree years. g) rn Magma. Generar Insurance compang Limited, a. Nanu Ram @ chuhnt R,,m and. otherss, the Apex court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in pranagsethf,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 . t o 2oog 121 ) (2018) l8 scc 130 I /, 7 ETD,J MACMA No.711-2021 in the pr()sent case, the claimants would get Rs.48,4O0/- each towards Ltss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this; head would be Rs.l,93,600/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further alt amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,15O/- towards [,oss of Estate have to be awarded. h) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amount.s: -

3. 4- Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Compensation towards loss of consortium to the Detitioner Cornpensation towards loss of estate Compensation towards funeral expenses Total Rs.12,85,2OOl- Rs.1,93,600/- Rs.l8,15O/- Rs.l8,150/- Rs.15,1S,1OO/- i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.15,15,100/- while the Tribunal has awarded IRs.12, 12,4OO l-. Thus, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. He rce, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.2: \ t\ It isr 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 compensation to Rs.15,15,1OO/- from that of \ \ Rs.12, L2,4OO l- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. Poirrt No.2 is answered accordingly. r

16. NO.3: 8 ETD,J MACMA No.711 2021 ,\ t ln the result, the appear. is partry allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 22.o9.2o21 in M.v.o.p.No.140 of 2o1s passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum_XXVl Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.l2, L2,4ool- to r5,15, rool- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.so/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The appellants shall pay the deficit court fee. 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 securit5r. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- N DEPUTY //TRUE COPY/I OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad(With records, if any) 2. One CC to SRI PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies ADK W HIGH COIJRT DATED:2510612025 JUDGMENT+DECREE 2D MACMA.N o-711 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA -7 1) v 6 STATE 1 t[N t$t$ .>- 21 * gel.' I I i I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MACMA.NO: 711 OF 2021 Between:

1. P. Pushpalatha W/o Late P.Ramesh, Aged about. 25 years, Occ. House Hold, 2. P. Bhanumathi, D/o Late P.Ramesh, Aged about.6 years Oe. Student 3. P.Jashmanth, S/o Late P.Ramesh, Aged about. 4 yraarc, Occ. Student 4. P. Chennaiah, S/o Late P.Balaiah Aged about. 54 Years, Occ Nil (Petitioner no. 2 and 3 are being minors represented by their natural guardian and mother i.e Petitioner no.l), All are R/o Urkonda Village, Midjil Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District presently residing at R/o H.No.16-11-264111A, Malakpet, Hyderabad ...appellants/Petitioners AND

1. D.Bheemaiah, S/o D.Chandraiah Aged about.28 years, Occ. Business (owner of Tractor bearing no AP 22L2O28 and Trailer bearing no AP 22W 3149) R/o Near milk center, Kalyani Nagar, Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District.

2. lClCl Lombard General lnsurance 2nd Floor, Shop Nos 1 to 7 and 18 No2, Banja rahi I I s, H yderabad -34. Company Ltd, Rep by its Manager (Legal) to 20, LumbiniJewel Mall Road ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehlcles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.140 ot 2015 dated. 27-08-2021 on the ftle of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XK/l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 arguments of SRI PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI, Advocate for the Appellants and of SRI K AJAY Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent

1. This Court dottt Order and Decree as follows:

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

2. That ttre Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is enhano:d from Rs.12,12,400/- to '15,15,100/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum ftom the date of claim petition till realization;

3. That Hc,wever the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited; 4. That the appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee; 5. That the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount witr 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; 6. That on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without fumishing any security;

7. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. sD/. N SRIHARI OLEtrl:l-il To,

1. The Cl"rairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunat-cum- DO/l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2 . Ttrc CD Copies ADK )W I , HIGH COURT DATED:26106l/2025 DECREE MACMA.lNo.7l1 of 2A21 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA \ b \v