The High Court · 2025

Judgment

The appellants/claimants hled the present Lppeal agarnst the Awarcl and decree passed by the Chairman, Mo, r r Accident Claims Tribun:rl-cum-lX Additional District Judge, at Kar: rrecldy (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No. I ti i of 20 14, dated

31.12.2O 15, r'",hcrein, the claimants / petitioners lr rd illed the claim petitron under Section 166 of M.V. Act seekir:1 compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of Perwala Bhas; .t-'r, the husband of petitioner No. I (herein after referred to as 'the de< r ased') who died in accident occLrred on 04.O9 .2O14.

2. Thc brief facts of the case are that appellzL Lrs/claimants frled M.V.O.P.No. 168 of 2014 under Section 166 of tre M.V.Act, 1988 claiming compensation of amount of Rs.15,00,000/ irr the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to har.e ( aused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry b,: ring No.HR-55-G-

6039. It is stated that on 04.O9.20 14, while lre deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle at 11.30 pm and rvhe n he reached near 2 HST steel compary near Narsapur cross roads, the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR-55-G-6039 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased came under the tyres of the 1orry, his head got crushed arrd died on the spot. On the complarnt, the Police, Balanagar registered a case in Crime No.28 1 of 2Ol4 under Section 3O4-A of IPC as against the driver of the said lorry and also hled Charge Sheet against the sajd driver. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the appellants iost monetary support and also love and affection. Therefore, the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 / - for tte death of the deceased under various heads agajnst the respondents jointly artd severally.

3. The contention of the petitioners was that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years and was working as Weiding Operator in Diligent SCM Solutions Pvt' Ltd, Prashanti Nagar and earning Rs.15,0OO/- per month. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their dependency.

4. Respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and stated that he is the owner and 1 i I ) driver of the crime 'r,ehicle and also holding a valirl driving license and that the said vehicle u'as insured u,ith respondent No.2 and tlie said policy u'as still subsisting, as such, respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation if aly au,arded.

5. Respor-rdent No.2 hled a counter denying 1 -re age, avocation, income of the deceased, manner of the accident a-r,r entitiement of the petitioners to claim compensation. It is also deni,: I that the driver of the crime vehicle had valid driving license and alsc ;tated that there is contributory negligence on the part of both the v:hicles. lt is also denied that respondent No.1 is the registered owne - and as on the date of accident, there was coverage of the insurance F tlicv and as such, prayed this Court to dismiss the petition. 6 . Basing on the pleadings and averments I .ade by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following i sues: i) Whether ttte accident happened due to rash and nell Tent d.riuing of the driuer of the Lorry beaing No.HR-55-G-6039? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation tuhom and lo tuhat amount? tnd if so, from iii) To Luhat re,liel? \ 4 7 . After going into the merits of the case and having considered the submissions made by both the parties and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition arrd came to the conclusion that that the petitioners would be entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000 along with interest @ 7.5 o/o per annum. B. Being unsatisfied ald aggrieved b1' the compensation amount awaLrded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is hled by the appellants contending that the learned Tribuna-l has awarded meager amount and did not consider the salary of Lhe deceased even though the petitioners have filed Ex.A10-Salary Certificate to prove the income of the deceased and also erred by taking the income of the deceased as Rs.a,OOO/- per month. The learned Tribuna-l a-Iso deducted one third /3 in place of one fourth of the income tou,ards personal expenses and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation by setting aside the award gralted by the learned Tribunal

9. None appeared for respondent No. 1 though summons are served. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is set ex parte. On beha,lf of respondent No.2, Sri Kota Sameer Kumar was appearing. However, today, none 5 appeared on behalf of the respondents and proceeclir g slreet sho\4,s that on earlier occasion a1so. the respondents did not I lose to appear. As such, having heard learned counsel for the aplrr 1[2n15, this Court ventures to proceed further in disposing the presr nt appeal as it is pertaining to the _vear 20I6. 1 0. Having heard learned counsel for the app :llalt and having perused the entire material placed on record, the point which arose before this Court for consideration is that: i) Wheth.er the uppellants ore entitled for compensation as prayed for, tf so, to uhat ertenfi) he enhanced 1 1. Admittedly, there is no cross appeai preferred ry the respondents being aggrieved br. the liabiliby imposed upon them z: Ld also quantum of compensation rvhrch rvas awarded by the learned I ribur-ral as against the respondents. In such circumstances, this Cotr - has no other way except to consider the qrounds raised by the appella:r -s herein.

12. The main grievance of the petitioners is non ,) )nsideration of the salary certificate in spite of the evidence of PW-2 r.r I .o is the author of the said salary certificate ald non consideration :' the conventional 6 heads and taking personal expenses at one third instead of one forth ought to be deducted 13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verrna u. Delht Transport Corporation 1, specihcally stated that one fourth amount should be deducted torvards personal expenses of the deceased when the dependents are 4 to 6 in number and the relevant paragraph of the order is extracted for read reference: " 14.'l'hough in some cases the deduction to be mode toluards personol and Liuing expenses is calcuLated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Ctwndra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Houing considered seueral subsequent decisions of this cout1, ue are of the uiew tttat uhere the deceased u-ns man'ted, the deduction touards personal and liuing expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) tr.there the number of dependent familg members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) uthere the number of dependont family members is 4 to 6, and one-ftfth (1/ Sth) ulrcre the number of dependant family members exceed slrr-.

14. In the present case on hand, the claimants are four in number a-nd the Tribuna,l has erred in deducting 1/3.d amount towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 7l4th while calculation the compensation amount. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the ' 2oo9 Ac] 1298 (S9) 7 personal deduction ol the deccased as I f t t ' lor computing co mpensatio n.

15. As far ;rs notional income lor the deceased is :oncerned, learned counsel lor the appellants has argued that the incc I le of the deceased ought to have taken at Rs. 12,000/- which the app: lants said to harre been proved by hling the salan. ccrtihcate-Ex.A 10. I is lurther argned that as per PW2, r.r,'ho is the manager of the c c mpany where the deceased u'as rx,orking, the decease d r*,'as aged abor 1 3 5 Years and rvas u,orking as Welding Operator in Diligent SCM I rlutions Pvt. Ltd, Prashanti Nagar and ear-ning Rs.12,000/- per month.

16. On perusal of the cross examination, though l) V1, the wife of the deceased stated that Lhc deceased u,as earning Rs.1 ; 000/-, hou'ever as per statement of PW.2, the deceased rvas rvorking i:t their company for last six ald half 1'ears and prior to his death, the c: rrpany was paying Rs.12,000/- per month and also admitted that the s: .ary certificate was issued by them.

17. On perusal of thc finding given by the leamed 'ribunal that mere stating in the unnumbered paragraph of Page No.6 cI the Tribunal order that "Thqllgh PV/.2 as a manager of the companA is.; Led Ex.A. 10 salary \ 1 B ( certifrcate, generallA in the case of this nature, the emploger uould exaggerate the income of the deceased to help the petitioruers to get more compensation". Except the said observation, the learned Tribunal has not stated any reasons for non-consideration of the Ex.A10 and also the respondents have not produced any documentary or ora_l rebuttal evidence for not believing and granting compensation basing on the Ex.A10.

18. In view of the observation made in the above paragraph, this Court do not see any reason to disbelieve the Ex.A10, i.e., sa_lary certificate and re-assess the compensation by taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month.

19. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insura.nce Cotnpang Limited. Vs. Pranag Sethi and. others2 and considering the age of the deceased as 35 yea,rs as on the date of the accident, additional 4Oo/o of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 16,800/- (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.4,800/-). The annual income of the deceased would ' zot acJ 2too 'r*7 9 come to Rs.2,O1.600/ (Rs.16,800/ X 12) and, out r,: rvhich, 1/4 has to be deducted tou'ards the personal expenscs of the Ceceased, as there was four dependants on the deceased incomc e s claimed by the petitioners at the time of the accident. Then the ar t -ral annual income would come to Rs.1 ,51,20O1- (Rs.2,01,600i - (-) Rs.5[ ,400/-).

20. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in L re judgment of the Apex Court in Scrla Venna case (cited abooe), anc: :onsidering the age of the deceased as 35 vears, the appropriate multipl t r applicable for the deceased's age is '16'. Thus, the total loss of depenrl ncy would come to Rs.24, 19,20O / - (r ,51 ,2OO l- x 16). 2I. The appelLants/claimants are further entit r d to Rs. 18,15O/- (Rs.15,000/- 'F 107. + 1O'h') tou'ards loss of csta.-, and Rs. 18,150/- (Rs.15,00O/ + 10% + 10%,) towards funeral expens 3s, as per Pranag Setht's Judgment (cited supra)

22. The appellant No.1 being the spouse of the dec: lsed, the appelialt No. 1 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.l l,4OOl- under the 10 ,.1.: ( head of 'loss of spousal consortium', as per Magtna General Insura,nce Compang Llmited Vs.Nanu Rann alis Chuhnt Rams.

23. Appeliant Nos.2 & 3 being the children of the deceased, the appellalt Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,BO0/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of loss of parental consortium' as per Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

24. Appellant No.4 being the .mother of the deceased, the appeilant No.4 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,40O/ under the head of 'loss of frlial consortium' as per Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

25. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'l-rle Supreme Cor.rrt in the aforesaid cited decisions. This Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to enharcement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference

26. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitlJh to as follows: 3 zore (ra) scc r:o ii) iii) iu) v) 11 F e"""rl lncome (of tt:e deceas ed) Rs. 1,44,000/- Rs.12,000/- X 12 : Tota-l Annual Income : Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X 4O7o) = Rs.1,44,OOO/- t Rs.57,600/ = Rs.2,01,60O/ Annual Dependency: Total Annual Income II4 deducLion towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.2,01,600/- (-) Rs.50,a00/ - Rs.1,51,20Ol- Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs. 1,51,200 x 16 Claimants' entitlement torvards conve ntiona-l heads : [,oss of Estate + Funeral E>i?enses + loss of spousal consortium + Parental Consortium + loss of hlal consortium : Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,40ol- + Rs. 96,800/- + Rs.48,4 O0 Total s.24 9 z Rs 2,29,9 o0 t s.26,49,1OOl

27. In this regard, Nagappa Vs. Grtrudagat fit ngh and othersa wherein at paragraph No.7, with respect to the provrs on of M.V.Act, the Hon'lcle Supreme Court has observed that "..there i.s no restriction that compensation coulc )e anDard.ed onlA up to the amount claimed by the cLa.i t ant. In an approprtate case Luhere from the euidence brout.t tt on record. if Tibunal/ court considers that claimant is e:r itled. to get more compensation than claimed, the Tiburu,., maA pass " 2002 n(8) Supreme 497 12 ( suclT auard. Only embargo is that it should be ,Just, compensation, that is to sag, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the euidence. This would, be clear by reference to the releuant prouisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 prouides that an application for compensation aising out of an accident inuoluing the death of, or bodilg injury to, persons arbtng out of the use of motor uehicles, or damages to anA property of a third partA so ari_sing, or both, could be made (a) bg the person uho ltas sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the propertg; or (c) u.there death has resulted from the accident, by all or ang of the legal representcLtiues of the deceased; or (d) bg ang agent duly authonsed bg the person injured or all or any of the legal representatiues of the deceased, as the case may be."

28. In the light of the above judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gur-ud.agal Singh,s case (cited. aboae), the Tribunals/Courts have the authority to award the compensation more than the amount claimed bv the claimants.

29. By considering the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa Vs.Gurudagal Singhs, the compensation can be awarded more than the claimed amount". Therefore, the petitioners/appellalts/claimants s zooz 1z'1 scc zt+ 13 are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.25,49 100/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.10,00,0OO l- by the learnecl Tr buna-1.

30. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allor,r'ec enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs.26,49,1(tt t/- ivith interest at the rate @ 7.5 o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount fron the date of petition tili the date of realization. The respondents are di:', cted to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after living due credit to the arnount already deposited, .if any, within a pe; i from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment rd of three months The compensation amount sha-ll be apportioned arnong the appellar t s/claimants in the sarne manner ald ratio as ordered by the learnec Tribunal. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the Deficit Court F :e on the enhanced arnount within three months from the date of rec, i rt of a copy of this judgment. There sha-lI be no order as to costs.

31. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, sL i Sd d //TRUE COPY// 11 stand closed. /.,1 r. JAWAHAR REDDY SS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, Judge, at Kamareddy.

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal-cum- ) tdditional District 2. One CC to SRl. AKKAM ESHWAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. KOTA SAMEER KUtvlAR Advocate [OF JC] 4- Two CD Copies GE/pr W HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 JUDGIUENT MACMA.No.1415 of 2016 'ar- STATE rJ a i., 1q ttt rrffi z ! h :-, .: i ALLOWNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (^ .N-') \t-- ^n IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1415 OF 2016 Between: 1 PERWALA NANDINI W/o late Perwala Bhasker, Aged 32 years, Occ House Hold,

2. Perwala Abhishek,, S/o late Perwala Bhasker, Aged 15 years, Occ Student,

3. Perwala Pallavi,, D/o late Perwala Bhasker Aged about 12 years, Occ Student, Appellants No. 2 and 3 are minors, u/g of their natural Mother Appellant No. 1

4. Perwala Premila, W/o late Prabhakar, aged 62 years, Occ House wife, All are R/o Padmanagar Phase-ll Colony, Chithal, Hyderabad At present R/o Bhanapoor Village, Lingampet Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...APPE LLANTS/CLAIMANTS AND

1. JOGENDER SINGH, S/o Tirlok Singh, aged mojor, Occ Owner of the Vehicle, Rio Akbar Poor Aamla Post. Kishanpoor, Zajital:ad, Bilnor, UP 246701

2. The Divisional Manager, New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Divisional offi ce' Beside sFC office' opp ZP orftce'.NrttB'oo,tBa*TTTRESpoNDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of lVl.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 31 .12.2015 passed in O.P.No.168 oI 2014 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Judge, at Kamareddy. 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 AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for the Respondent lo 1 and SRI KOTA SAI,4EER KUMAR, advocate appeared for the Respondent I,J ) 2 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 2 That the N,4otor Accident Civil tr.4iscellaneous Aoc: r be and is hereby allowed That the compensation be and is hereby enhancerl f 1r-6 q5 10,00,0001 to Rs.26,49,1001 with interest at the rate @ 1.5 "/, : a on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realizat: I That the respondents be and are hereby directed to c:€ )osit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due creclr ) the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of three months from t re date oI receiot of a copy of th is judgment. 4 .. the. conrpensation pmount shall be app: troned among the That appellants/claima nts in the same manner and ratio as : dercd bv the learned Tribunal.

5. That the petitioners be and are hereby directed to ca, on the enhanced amount within three monlhs from t,rl copy of this judgment lre Deficit Court Fee date of receipt of a

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeei lfirue Copyll To Sd/- lil JAWAHAR REDDY .,aS SJ }TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \.; Judge, at Kamareddy. (with records, if any)

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum | ( Additional 2. Two CD Copies. GE D strict Yk HIGH COURT NNRJ DATED:2010612O25 DECREE MACMA.No.1415 of 2016 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS roY' \[ X..,