High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P'RADHIVE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No'1: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No'2: SMT I'MAAMU VANI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ./" THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.c. M.A.No.2664 of 20,09 JUDGMENT: O.P.No. t3Ii cf 1999 passed This ap'peal is filed against the order dated 03.09.2003 in by the Iearned Chairman, Motor (Additional District Judge), ar Accident Cletims Tribunal Nizamabad.

2. The petition uide O.p.No. 135 of 1999 was filed by the appcllant/petitroner claiming compensation of Rs.3,OO,O OO/_ for thc dearh o[ rhe deceased Tammala Shankar, who died in the nrolor vchi<.le accidcnt occurred on 20.O2.lggg. Appcllant/pe t.rioner got examined herself as p.W. 1 and also got cxamined p.W.2 on her behalf and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on tht, bt:[ra]l ,rf rhc :r ppcllan t/ petitioner and no evidence was ardrlur.ccl on bctt.rlf ol- the respondents. The trial Court after considcriDg tr-r,-. 1;1r1 and documentary evidence on record, granted comJ)r nsarion of Rs.2,l2,0OO/_ along with interest (.rl (.)(',, per annUrrL from the date of petition till realization. Agerievccl bv tlrc said Order, petitioner therein preferred the prcscnL app<:al sceking enhancement of the compensation irmllLlnt gri lt,.(l JV IhC trial CoUrt. // 2

3. Parties hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed before the trial Court for the sakc of convenlence

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 20 O2 1999' the deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing No'AP 16 W 11 1O' as a labour from Adloor to Yellareddy towards Nizamabad' along with sorne others. When the lorry reached near Gannaram village and Rooplanaik Thanda, the driver of another lorry bearing No.UP 42 B 6329, drove it with high speed in a rastr and negligent manner and dashed the deceased in opposite direction. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot' When he was shifted to thc hospital the medical officer declared him as dead duc to se\'cr(l rnJurles 5 Heard arguments of both sides and perused thc cntlre evidence on record.

6. As the present appeal is preferred only against thc quantum of compensation granted by the trial Court' thc issue regarding rash and negligence driving of the clriver of the vehicle necd not be gone into. i I l i ! I I i ! ! ! I I i l I I ! J

7. The l:arnecl Counsel for the petitioners contended that the age of the deceased was about 20 years at the time of accident, doing labour and agricurtural works and earning Rs.6,0OO/- !)cr month, but the trial Court has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,0O O /- per month and a.lso contended that verv mea*er amount was granted by the trial court under all other L'cacrs- Thererore, requested the court to enhance the compensalron amount granted by the trial Court. 8 In vicr,.,of the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in the of Rqtnachandrappa Vs. Mdlnoger, Rogal Sundaram Alliqnce Insurance Conq)ang Limited,r considering age and occupatron ol thc dcccased, this Courts hnds that it is just and reasonable to consrcier the income of the deceased as Rs.4,SOO/- p.i. monLh and thus the annua-l income of the deceased r\ oul:i corncs to Rs..54,000/ r Rs 54,O0O/- (Rs.4,5O0/_ x r2 9 As pcr rhc guidelines of the Hon,ble Apex Court in dictum o[ Sarla Vernta Vs. Delhi Transpot t Corporationr2 if the deccascd rrars r.trnrarric<i, hall.of his tncome has to be deducted '(2otttl; st( Ir,, (2004)oS(( [l i / I I 4 towards his personal expenses' Thus' the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would comcs to Rs.27,OOO/- per annum (Rs'54'OO0 - Rs'27'OO0= Rs'27'OOO/-) and the Hon'lcle Apex Court in the dictum of Nqtional Insurance Comltang Limtted Vs' Pranag Sethi3 ' held that the luture prospects of income of the self-employed shall also bc included in determination of ttre compensation Thus' consideringtheageofthedeceasedi.e',2oyears,4o7oofthe income i.e., Rs'1o,8oo/- has to be added towards futurc thus the amount would become Rs 37'8O0/ - prospects and + Rs.1o,8oo/- = Rs'37'8OO/-) This sum if multiptied with the multiplier 18 applicable to the age of thc deceased i.e., 20 years' it would come to Rs 6'80'400i (Rs.37,8OO x 18 = Rs'6,80'4OO/-)' Thus' petitioners are enlitled to Rs.6,8O,4Oo/ - under the head 'Loss of Dependency'' (Rs.27,0oo/-

10. Besides, appellant/petitioner is also entitlcd for compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum ol National lfts'u..ornce Compang Limited Vs' Pranag Sethi, i.e,, Rs.15,OOO/- towards loss of Estate and Rs l5'000/ towardsfutreralcharges.Therefore,sheisr:nlitlcdfor Rs.30,0OO / - under'Conventional heads'' 't:otr) te scc oto 5 1 I . Further., comprehensivr: the Honble Supreme Court, by reiterating the intcrpretation of ,consortium, g.iven in the authority of Magma Gener.al Insurance Comtrtang Limited, vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & other#,and in the authority between United India Insurance Compang Llmited. vs. Satinder Kau.r @ Sdtwinder Kaur and. otherss, fortifred that the amounts lor loss of consortium shall be awarded to t.I.e chiidren who l.ose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consortium, ancl ro the parents as, .hlial lor the loss ol' their gr.r,i,n_up children, to compensate their agony, love anrl affcction, care and companionship of deceased children. Acco:dingl1,, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.40,OOO/- ro -he petirioner under,Irilial Consortium,. consortium,

12. Therefore, petitioncr/claimant Compensation in r ht. [,,lln1 irrB l(.r.n]s: rs entitled for the 1 a 3 Lo;s of clcpc nclencr,, C C,llven tional hcad s Fii ial Consortium TOTAL R s.6,8O,4OO /- Rs.3o,OO0/- Rs.40,00O/- Rs.7,5o,+ool_ I I t I ' 1zo r s.1 rs scc I ;o ' (2020) I SCC 64r l I l l 6

13. In the result, the present appeal is allowed by enhancrng the compensation amount from Rs'2'12'OOO/- to Rs'7'5O'4O0/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand Four l{undred onty) with interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the date of {iling the petition till the date of realization' Though' Respondents No l and. 2 are jointly and severaily liable to pay compensation' respondent No 2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment' On such deposit, appellant/petitioner permitted 1S withdrawthcsaidamountalongwithinterestaccruedon it. Appellant/ petitioner is also directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount' Ttrere sha1l be no order as to costs- pending, if anY, shall stand Misccllaneous Pctitions closed. SD'- s M.OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER itional District Judge' //TRUE COPYI/ To, Nizamabad.

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribuna z i:i1]'ddt" sri P Radhive Reddv, Advocatg-{9ly.cl 'Advocate toPrcI 5. 6;; 6d i6 5.t l.Maamu Vani, 4. Two CD CoPies Spare KVR,NVB HIGH COURT DATED:lg tOStZOZs JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.2664 of 2009 .., L] :.1. ALLOWNG THE MACMA 6 II Fv( 'r l-iij ..''--t- r ..,;'_:i\ \) rr;; r.- -..i! 1t 0ti 2U6 - r.r.'' ' . '.:; 'i,--:, .':. i 'i [ 3208 ] rN rHE Hrc-hr "ouTf3$otl*=ot"tsE oF TELANGANA WEDNESDAY, THENINETEENTH DAY OF YIARC+I "'"'';;J-d iiousnno AND rwENrY FlvE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P'SREE SUDHA MOTOR AcclDENTClvlL MISCE LLANE OUS A PPEAL NO:26640F 2009 BETWEEN: Tammal Sayamma, Wo' Tarnmala Gangaram Household Rl/o Tadem Village' i"lii'iiiv ufidl, Niizamabad District' ...ApPellan(Petitioner) AND ,$Jl;ig'ft 3l059i:s1.%('J""$1fr s;Y,[#lli,fl :[3:[%"f theLof ry (Amended as per the orders pass in l'A 421612002) 2 National lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep. by its Branch Manager Branch office, - Lawa'nlr noad, Nizamabad' ...Res pondents (ResPondents) Aooeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act aoainst the Order and on the rr-le of the court of the District Judge' decree in M.V.o.P.No'2664;i"ibd;AJ'oCloslzoos chairman Motor Rccioeni'il"#;-iffinal-cum-Additional Nizamabad. This appear coming on {or hearing and upon.perusing the grounds of appeal, Court'and tne material papers in the case the Judgment and Decree ;ffi;fft Reddv Advocate for the appellant and uoon hearing the "'g#;[f-;;ii'n"Jn'" and smt r.Maamu vani, noJlclt"e, i"l trc n rp"ndent'No.2 none appeared for the Respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed l#H:;ils;{fiffi "5';hli,l33'i.,:,.&!1ffl ii'% $6ffiUffiil1il ii; iffi;;iiHng'tn" p.t,tion tiliihe date of realization ",il,"#t1t[[iT#effi 2.ThattherespondentNo.land2beandherebyarejointlyandseverally'liabb to PaY comPensation ' 7/

3. That the respondent N( 1""g,;tl"[:ilffi #JJi,Hgir8",ff ?"0"".i1ilH",i#",fJ?i?sl? " Illf,!;l,,'rii:"L"ffi.Jl,ff,B:,J"flr,,fl:lg%J"B,.i:5"X",,,:0, is permitted to 5. That the appeilate/petiti( be and hereby is directed to pay the deficit court ree on the enhance the decree of the Lower court sharr stands confirmed :in:", ?:$t:J[:aid, "r"r,ll:: 6' Thal

7. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Nizamabad. Two CD Copies KVR/NVB M.OSMAN ALI BAIG s TANT REGIS TRAR \ $ecrrox oFFrcER itional District Judge, i ! I l I l i I l I I l HIGH COURT DATED:19t03tZO2S DECREE MACMA.No.2664 of 2009 ALLOWING THE MACMA \\ \q\?{