The High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TT L,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHA], \PATHI RAO M.A.C. M.A.No.45 6 of 2022 Dr.21.11. 2o2s Between: Smt Akkala Devendra Devi and 2 othcrs And Smt Mekala Ramadevi and two others. JUDG MENT: Appellants Resltondents The present appeal is hlecl by the appellants_,) tirnants assarling the Award passecl b-v the learned Chairman, Motor l<:<:iclents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge II FCT, Wa..r rrgal :rt Jangaon, dated lg-O4-2O22 (herein after relerred to i r .l.nbunalJ M.V.O.P.No.622 of 20 1 4.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as l:t.r, are arrayed bcfore the Tribunal, for bctter understanding of thc cas ,:

3. The claimants have filed the MVOp under SectiorL l(rtr (l ) (c) ol the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg read with Rule 455 of the A.p I I V. Rules, i 989 sceking compcnsation of Rs.10,00,00 O /_ lor the dearrr ,rl Akkala Raja .-4- \ -- 2 seaJ M.A.c.!!4!59 e12922 Kiran, who is the son of claimart No.1 and brothcr of the claimant Nos.2 and 3, in a motor accident on 13.02.2O12

4. The brief facts of the casc are that on thc fateful day i.c., on

13.02.2012, while the deceased was coming from Hyderabad on motorcycle bearing No.AP-11-AG-O2 14 on his official work when he crossed Ghanapur Station stage at about 09:30 am, one DCM van bearing No.AP 36 W 7042 came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle, due to which the dcceascd fell down from the motorcyclc and reccived multiple injuries. Thcreafter, hc u'as shifted to the M.G.M. Hospital, lVarangal, however, he succumberl to inj urics.

5. The police authorities registered a case in Crime No.29 ol 201'2 on the frle of P.S.Ghanpur(Stn) and after complcting tl-rc investigation, laid the charge sheet.

6. It is further contended by Lhe claimernts that the deceased was 23 ycars, hale & trealthy, used to n'ork as Stock Assistant(Auditor) in Reliance Fresh Comparry, Banjarer Hills, Hydcrabad and draw a salary of Rs. 1O,0OO/- p.m. and due to his untimely de.1th, the claimants lost their only earning member and thus prayed Lo grant compensation. 7 - Basing on the contentions on either side' the Tribuna-l has framed the following issues for adjudication: ) M.A.C.M.A 456 SCR.J ol 2922

1. Whether the accident occun'ed on 13.02.2() Il ctt ctbout 09.30 hrs at Bogulaulry at the outskirls of Ghrut. iur (W), WarangaL Distict due to rash and negligent driuing o.'tne diuer of DOM llan beairry Reg. No. AP 36 W 7O42 and so t e,l'petitiottcrs no..l and brother of the petitiorters no.2 & *?, l,,ed due to fataL injuies, injured uthile undergoing treatmen succum.bcd with inlurg ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for cotn': t,tscttlort? If so, tct tuhat amount and from uthom?

3. Whether the petitioners paid proper court fee ) 4. To tuhot relief?

8. The Tribunal after appreciation of facts and r r perusal of the evidence ol PW'sl to 3 and RWl, Ex.Al to A5 and I x-B1 adduced b1,. both parties in the enquiry, partly allowed the : tim by granting compensation of Rs.5,88,160/- to claimant No.1 alone

9. Having beerr not satished with the quantum of < :mpensal ron, thc appellants-claimanls have hled the present appeal fc- srant ol jLLSI and fair compcnsation.

10. Insof:rr as issue Nos. I and 2, Lhe Tribunal has g ven a calt:gorical hnding that thc accident took place due to rash and rr gligent driving of the offending vehicle, and held that the deceased u,zt: .r'orking:rs Stock Assistant (Auditor) in Reliance Fresh Company ancl 1r.cd thc n.ionthly salary of the deceased as Rs.8,030/- by taking I to considcration Ex.A5/salary certificate. The deceased being the age o- 23 vears;tnd was a bachelor, survived by his mother i.e., the first claimar, and trvo sisters, \ -- --- -'-- 4 sc.R,J M.A.C.M.A 456 of 2022 out of whom, the second claimant is a married sister, and following the judgment of Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporationl, has held that l/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenditure, but also deducted SOY. towards personal expenditure at the operative parl twice, erroneously. Thus, has not awarded the just and fair cornpensation arld crred in granting rneagre cornpensation of Rs.5,88,160/-' h is also contended on behalf of the ciaimants that as the deceased was aged about 23 years, the claimants are entitlcd to future prospcc[s Q) 4Oo/o as well as other amounts under conventional heads as per the decision of the Ilon'ble Snpreme Court in National Insurance Company Llmited vs. Pranay Sethi2, and contended that the Tribunal has not taken all the heacls for granting compensation and prayecl to allo"l' the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counscl :rppcaring for respondent No.2- Insurance Conrpaly has submittecl that thc Tribunal has awarded just axd proper compensation, hou,ever, fairly submitted that the Tribunal has dedlrcted amounts towards personal cxpcnditure twicc i.e., I /3rd anci again @ 5O%. I zoog (6) scc 121 ,l 2017(6) r7o (sc) ---, 5 ute.u.nqa-r#ri

12. I have heard the contentions counsel for the appellants_Claimants of Mr. Ch.Ling r Murthy., learned and Sri. K. A j; 1' Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 _lnsurance Co, the material on rt_.cord l)anv ancl perusecl l2 r3.o2.2012, l ()torcycle bearing ,,hen he crossed It is an adrnitted fact that on the fateful dav ir while the deceased u,as coming from Hyderabad on No.AP I I -AG-02 I4 ro attend his official work anrl Ghalapur Station stage at about O9:30 am, one lf C ilT r rn bearing No.Ap 36 W 7042 camc in oppositc dircction and dashed th(. I otorcyclc, due to which he fcll dorvn from thc motorcycle and receivcd . tultiple injuries. Thereafter, he r,vas shifted to the M.G. M. Hospital, \V I .angal, and rvas declared to be dead. The Tribunar on appreciation of rhr :,,,idence or- pw,s I to 3, RW 1 ancl trxs.A 1 to A5 and Ex.Bl, has categorj(i ly held th:rt the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ol.t,re driver of the offending vchiclc and as the said vehicle was dt t,t insurcd u,ith respondent No 2 Insurance company, and the policy u.; r in force as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal has righ,y hxed th: liability on the respondent Nos. I & 3, jointly and severally. 14. In vicw of the above categorical finding, as the ins irnt appcal is filed by the claimalts sceking enhancement of compens:,ron, the only question that arises lor consideration is: 6 SCR.J M.A.C.M.A 4s6 of 2022 - "whether the Tribunal ho,s granted just and fair compensation for the death of the deceased?".

15. On a perusal of Ex.AS, it categorically shorvs that the salary of the deceased was Rs.8,O30/- per month and the Tribunal was justilted in lxing the sa1ary of the deceased @ Rs.8,O30/- per month. However, the Tribunal erred in not considering future prospects in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Prdndg Sethi's case(supra). In vicw of the age of the deceased i.e.,23 ycars, 4Oo/o of the incomc needs to be added towards future prospccts, which comcs to Rs.3,2l2l - (Rs.8,030 X 4Oo/ol. Thus, the total monthly earnings of the deccased comes to Rs. 1 1,2a2 / -(Rs.8,03O/- + 3,212/).

16. Insofar as contention of learned counsel for appellants/ claimants that as per thc lau' laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla varma's case(supra) cven in thc case of a b:rchelor', if there are Iarge number of dependalts, only 1/3"1 should be deducted for personal cxpenditure, as seen from the record, there are l"hree claimanis, out of u,hich, claimant Nos. 1 ald 3 are mother and unmarried sister o[ the dcccased rcspectively and claimant No.2 is married sister ancl is eldcr to the dcceased. As such, the dcduction of 5O%o towards pcrsonai expendilure of the deceased is just and reasona',:le. Thus, the conteniion of the learned counsel for the appellant that l/3rd should be deducted Lorvards personal expenditure is untenable and is rejected. However, the 7 !r-4.a.u,44L6 ;s = Tribunal erred in deducting amounts twice i.e . l /llrd tou,ards personal expenditure and S07o tolvards personal anrl r.in11 expencliture u.lrile calculating the compensation amount. Thus, irrt 'r- deducting 50% or the monthly income towards personal expenses ol t r: <lr:ceased, the actrral loss of earnings of the dcceased would be Rs..; t,2 j /-(11,242/_ - SOkl artd as thc deceased was agcd about 23 yea_rs, tlr,zrppropriatc multiplier as per Sarla Verma,s casc(supra) would be ,1g,. .lhus, the total loss of earnings of the deceased that would be contribr I :l to his family u.ouJd be Rs.12, t4,t,36/_( Rs.5,621l_ X t2 X,18,). 17. Furthcr, undcr the conventional heads of css of estate, loss of consortium a]ld funeral expenses, the Tribunal lrz: ,:rred in not grandnll any amount in heu of the law laid down in pranrtl Sethi,s case(supra). r,vhich is furthcr clarihed by the Hon,ble Apex Colt ln Magma Generq.l frTsurqnce Co. Ltd- u. Nanu R(.m alias Chuhnt Ram q.ndOrs3 that rcasonable ilmount on convcntional heads, such .r; .ss of estatc, loss of consortium and funeral exper_rses should be Rs. 1i,300/-, Rs. 40,OOO/_ and Rs. lS,OO0/- respectively, with an enhanceme I @ lDo/or:very three ycars( i.e., for each. three year block period). 18 In thc instant case, since, thc accident was judgment in pranag Setht,s case(supra), r:r:urred bcfore thc the date cl sraicl judgment i.e., 3 (2orB) 18 scc 130 o - u.n.c.u.a esa orW 31.O7 .2012 , should be taken as base date for ca.lculating the applicable three-year block periods for enhancement. Thus, as on date, approximately eight years and two months have elapsed, constituting tu,o furl brock periocrs of three years each. 'r'hus, craimant No. 1 is entitled for consortium amount of Rs.4g,400/ _ [First block; Rs.4O,Ooo/ - r 1gotr = Rs.44,OoO/ -; Second bloak: RI.44,OO0/ - + 16yo = Rs.48,4oo/ _l.Similarly, for .loss of estate & funeral expenses, the clairnant No.1 is entitled for Rs. 18,150/- (First block: Rs.j5,O00/- + too% =Rs.I6,5OO/_; Second block: Rs.l6,5O0/_ + iO% = Rs.1g,1S0/ _)under. each head. t9.

1.e., mother a] Further, the Tribunal erred in arvarding compensation to claimant one. The Hon,ble High Court of Karnataka tn The Compang Ltd. V, George Menezes and Ors.a held, nq.l Insurance No. 1 Ndti as under: the maried stster's are "The contention of the insr, residing in their matimorl,"' 'no' betreatec,"o.o.noo,Jr""J1',:::::*:::^:i_,";rff our social context, it is not for daughters and srsrers, euen afier ^r-:::^:"" retationship Luith their o"i.li", jl^,ii",",",in ".,::; member of the farnily often confibutes towards their tuelfare and soclal needs. their right to cr..inl compensarion cannot be ou,'nt'*", t'tied tnerelg on the ground .f rcir maital statues. Misceltaneous First Appeal No.3886 of 2020(MV-D), dt 17 .10.2025 9 SC.R.J [.e.c.M..t tsjs@fi In this cctse it appears that pare t,t; Luere no more. Deceased u,cts sa[cl t,.t t membe.r of the, familu arul it is 7;,lso st.,u,(t takin.g t:are of the cLaunar,is and f.nctncially r : There are no contra euidence to d.isbelieoe ;t of thc said euidence. Hence, there u.tas no Lt.r that clainants taere dcpendants on the (,t decectsed. " <tf claimants an eaning ttiat he wos ,;isting then. ::cept deniaL Le to belieue tings of the 20 . In the instan t ca se also, the father of the d(t(.( a sed explred long back and the deceased is the only ear.ning member .1 tlte family. That being so, the deceased being the only earning membr:r r. the family must be taking care of thc craimants rvhenever the need ar s:s and financially assisting them_ In vieu, of thc above, the claimants being the mother and sistcrs of thc deceascd are dcpcnda,ts of thc r )(rcased, and the findings of the Trit)unal to that extent is modifie,l. ll e cla.imant No. 1, being mother is entitled to 50% o[ the compensation a:. I claimant Nos.2 and 3 being sisters, are entitled Lo 25o/o each out ol. t t,l compensation (i.e., in the ratio o[ SO,lt : 2So/o : 25o/o).

27. In view of the above hndings, for clarit1., rte recal:ulated compensation is shown as under Sl.No. 1 2 Head lncome Fu ture prospects Amouni Rs.8,O3O/- per mor.r h. Rs.3,212l- (40% of Rs.8 ,o3o / -) 10 -- SCR.J M.A.C.M.A 455 of 2022 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 Total monthly income Rs.LL,242l- (Rs.8,030/ + Rs.3,212l ) Dcductions towards perso-nal expenses. Net Monthly Income Rs.5,621l- (Rs.11,2a2l-xso%) Rs.5,621l- (Rs.11,242 Rs.5,621) Annual Income Multiplier Loss of dependency Consortium Loss of Estate Rs.67,4521- (Rs.5,62 1/- x 12) ,19, Rs.L2,l4,136l- ( Rs.67,452 x 18) Rs.48,4OOl- Rs. 18,150/- Funeral expenses Rs.18,15O/- Total Compensation Rs.12,98,836/-

22. Coming to the rate ol interest @ 7 .5o/o granted by the Tribunal, it is just and reasonable in view of the la'"v laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranag Sethi's case (supral, a;rcl needs no interference.

23. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed modifying the Arvard of the Tribunal by enhancir-rg the compensation from Rs.5,88,160/- lo Rs. 12,98,836/- with intcrcst @ 7 .5% from the date of petition till the date of rcalization, subjccl to paymcnt of deftcit court fee. 11 M.A.c.M.A 4s6 ofw22

24. The 2"a respondent-Insurarce Compaly is rl r:cted to deposit the total compensation amounl along with accrued in.r rest, rvithin a period of two (02) months from the date of rcceipt of the r: p-y of the order. On such deposit, appellants/claimants are permittecl t ) u,ithdraw the said arnount in the proportion of 50%:25 ok..2'o/o, respect vely. There shall be no order as to costs stand closed As a sequel, miscellaleous petitions and appli, e.tions, if aly, shall SD/- I\ JAWAHAR REDDY ASSiI JTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA ( HALAPATHI RAO (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) To, '1 . The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V I lditional District Judge, ll FTC, Warangal at Jangaon

2. One CC to Sri Choudavarapu Linga Murthy, Advocate [': -'UC] 3. One CC to Sri K Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. '1 l LRCopies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia tvlinistry of Law, Jus i,:e and Company Affairs, New Delhi

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Libra' , High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabac .

7. Two CD Copies ABK I 1 HIGH COURT DATED: 2111112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.456 ol 2022 -a : ,\Ir n, 1g rlE 2028 G)l. (f O ]}-:*,, ' r'. .,. ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS @9 .) tx a,L [ 3485 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDOALA CHALAPATHI RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 456 OF 2022 Between:

1. Smt. Akkala Devendra @ Devi, W/o. Late Sudhakar, Aged 48 years, Occ Coolie.

2. Akkala Kaplana, D/o. late Sudhakar, aged 32 years, Occ: Household. 3. Akkala Rajani, D/o. Late Sudhakar, aged 28 years, Occ. Student. (All are residents of Thallagadda, Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, now at Peddamadur Village, Devaruppula Mandal, Warangal District). ...Appellants/Petitioners/Claim Petitioners AND

1. Smt- Mekala Ramadevi, Wo. Parasharamulu, Aged Major, Occ: Owner of Vehicle bearrng No. AP-36-W-7042, Rlo. H. No. 7-40, Main Road, Bhoopalpally, Warangal District.

2. M/s. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, tvl.G. Road, Warangal, Warangal District.

3. Sri lt/ekala Parashuramulu, Sio. Komuraiah, aged Major, Occ: DCIVI Driver, R/o. Bhoopalpally Village, Bhoopalpally Ir4andal, Jayashankar Bhoopalpally District. ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Decree and Award made in M.V.O.P.No.622 of 2014 dated 19-04-2022 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, ll FTC, Warangal at Jangaon. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Decree and Award of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Choudavarapu Linga Murthy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri K Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACI\i'IA be and hereby is allowed modifying Tribunal by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,BE with interest @ 75% from the date of petition till the d: to payment of deficit Court fee; 2. That the 2nd Responden! lnsurance Company is direc compensation amount along with accrued interest with months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Ordr 3 That on such deposit, the appellanUclaimant are permr _ said amount in proportion to 50% : 25% . 25% respect 4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunat sha 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. all other respects; and I ; 1 i ) t I er award of the 691 to Rs 12,98,836^ : of realization subject cl to deposit the total a period of two (2) :d to withdraw the :ly; ;tands confirmed in SD/. ,I JAWAHAR REDDY ASS STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 The chairman fi/otor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-V r crditionar District Judge, ll FTC, Warangal at Jangaon Two CD Copies ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 2111112025 DECREE MACMA.No.456 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Ll