Sri A v. K. S. Prasad

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri A. V. K. S. Prasad Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri B. Narayana Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE WSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MACMA.No.665 of 20lr JUDGMENT:

1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV ActJ assailing the judgment passed in OP.No.1838 of 2007, dated 2A.O4 -2OOg by the XXII Additional Chief Judge - cum - Motor Acciclents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short,'the Tribunal').

2. Appellant No.1 is the petitioner and respondent Nos'1 and 2 are the respondents before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeat appellant No.1 died, thereby appellant Nos'2 and 3 were brought on record as legal rcprescntatives of appellant No 1'

3.1 Appellanr No. I has filed a petition under Section 163-A of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,O0O I - for the death of the deceased [A.Yadamma] in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on O3.09.2007 at about 07.30 a.m.

3.2 On 03.O9.2O07 A.Yadamma was travelling in a Matadoor van No.AP-9W-5936 from Hyderabad to Basara and when it reached near Muppireddipally village limits, a lorry bearing No.AP-1T-2555 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the van -- BRMR, J MACMA.No.665 of 201I from opposite direction. As a result, A.Yadamma sustained grievous injures and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, but she succumbed to injuries w'hile undergoing treatment. The deceased was rendering her hetp in domestic works and was contributing her services to the family, used [o earn Rs.3,000/- per month and was aged about 6O years as on the date of accident. Due to sudden death of the deceased, appellant No.l - petitioner has lost her services and hence prayed to award compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 remaincd ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.2 has filed its counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred, also denied the driving licence of the driver and the insurance coverage for the crime vehicle. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver o[ the lorry bearing No. AP-iT-2555'

6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: i) ii) Whether the Petitioner sustained injuries on 03.09.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 9 1T 2555. Whether the Petitioner rs entitled to any compensation. If so, from whom. iii) To rvhat relief.

7. Appellant No. 1 is examined as PWl, examined PW2 - Smt. G.Saritha and also examined PW3 - A.Prabhaker and got marked Exs.Al to A6. Respondent No.2 did not led anv evidence. 3 []RMR, J I\,IACMA No.665 of 20l1 The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence adduced by the 8. appellant No.l - petitioner coupled with Exs'Al to A6, has partiy allowed the o'P and awarded Rs.6o,o0o/- with interest at the rate of 7ok per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs holding respondent Nos' 1 and 2 jointly and severally 1iab1e to pay the compensation' g. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and probabilities of the case, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the O'P as prayed for instead of granting Rs.60,OOO/-, failed to see Exs-Al to A6, the evidence adduced by appellant No.1 and also failed to consider the nominal income of the deceased as Rs 3,OO0/- per month' In support of his contentions, he relied on the decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Urmila Halderl'

10. Learned counsel for respondent No'2 submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case, no interference is calied for and prayed to dismiss the appeal'

11. The present appeal is hled questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal'

12. It is stated in the claim petition thal the deceased (A.Yadamma) used to earn Rs.3,OOO I - per month The learned 1

202.1 Lat suit (SC) 1oo2 4/s BRMR, J MACMA.No.665 of 2011 Tribunal came to a conclusion that appellant No. 1 - petitioner did not file any document to prove the age of the deceased but the post mortem report under trx.A4 shou.s the age of the deceased as 80 years and has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month and the notional income arrived is at Rs. 12,000/- per annum and applied multiplier at'5', the compensation arrived is at Rs.60,00O/-.

13. In Urmiia Haldert, the Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.10 which reads as under: "10. .... We may, honever, add that a beneltcial legislation *'ould necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specihc bar to the same. [n the present case, the liability of the appellant-Insurance Cornpany has not been interfered $rith. Only the computational mode and the modality have been further clarified, which rightly has been noted by the High Court and accordingly, the claim has been enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs). As 507. of the compensation amount was stayed by this Court, the same be paid to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment within eight weeks."

14. As the Motor Vehicles Act is a benehcial legislation, just compensation has to be awarded to the claimants. In vrew of the judgment of the Supreme Court stated supra, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,OO,O00/- in total taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstanclq of the case. z,tl I i x I I f,Y, 7 BRMR, J IUACMA.No.665 of 2011

15. In view of the above, MACMA.No.665 of 201 1 is allowed as under: a) The impugnecl award dated 28 'O4 '2O09, passed in O.P.No.1838 ot 2007, stands modifled' bl The compensation au'arded by the Tribunal i e', Rs.60,0OO/- is enhanced to Rs.5,00,OOO/ . c) Appellant Nos-2 and 3 shall pay Court fee on the enhanced comPensation. d) The respondents are hereby directed lo deposit the au.arded amount jointly and severally less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment' e) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.2,50,OOO/- each and they are permitted to withdravv their share amount without furnishing securiry. Interim orders if any stands vacated' Miscellaneous apphcatlon/ s stands closs:d. Sd/- M. JAWARHAR REDDY S ]STANT REG ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 TheChairman,MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-Cum-XXllChiefJudge,City Criminal Courts. HYderabad. One CC to Sri A. V. K. S. p1asad, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to Sri B. Narayana Reddy' Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies &* HIGH COURT BRMR, J DATED: 2411112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.665 of 2011 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 --f t -^ L_l ri 5 6l.l.- , laje '{r-lE,5 TA t o u 1 I lqAfl 202[ z o -lr t oFsPr.-{. i * IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 665 OF 2011 Between:

1. Sri A. Suresh S/o.late A.Ambaiah (DIED PER LRS 2 and 3) 2. A. Padmavathi, Wo. Late A. Suresh, 3. A. Srikar, S/o. Late A. Suresh, ...APPELLANTS/PETR AND

1. Sri Kamaluddin Rajani S/o. Noormond Rajane, 2. The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd, rep by its Dy Manager,2nd Floor, Madan IVlohan Building, R.P.Road, Secunderabad, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in It/.V.O.P.No. 1838 of 2007 dated 281412009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-XXll Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, Advocate for the appellant and Sri B. Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2- This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the impugned award dt 28l4l2oog passed in O.P.No. 1B3B/2007 stands modified;

3. That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs. 60,000i- is enhanced to Rs. 5,00,0001;

4. That the Appellant Nos 2 & 3 shall pay Court fee on the enhanced compensation;

5. That the respondents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amourit jointly and severally less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment;

6. That the Appellant Nos 2 & 3 are be and hereby entitled for an amount of Rs.2,50,0001 each and they are permitted to withdraw their share amount without furnishing security; 7- That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other aspects; and

8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M. JAWARHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Chairman, N4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-XXll Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT BRMR, J DATED: 2411112025 lHE S 6 1 I 14AR 2026 .P \ * FTTC ') t i DECREE MACMA.No.665 of 2011 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS l(5 re.lzl>_e ,