The High Court · 2025

Sri Goli Viplav Reddy n THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.171 I of 2O18 AND CROSS-OBJFCTIONS No.27 of 2o24 COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated i3.1 1.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.245 of 2OL2, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), M.A.C.M.A. 1711 of 2Ol8 is hled by the Respondent No.3/lnsurance Company seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal. Also, dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, the Petitioners in the said O.P. hled Cross Objcctions No.27 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the wife, minor children and mother ol Late Kandukuri (Baindla) Narender, (hereinafter be referred as 'the deceasedJ fiied a petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.5,OO,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on O5.O5.201 1 at 1 1.30 a.m. It 2 M(iP.J |I{A(:MA 171 I ol 2018 dhd X-oht )7 of202r is stated b1' the petitioners that on 05.05.2011 .at 1 1.30 a.m., when the deceased along with petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 wt:re proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP-24 W-1618 from Yacharanr to Mall and when they reachcd near Mall Village i.e. near Andhra Bank, the driver of the said Auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the Auto turned turtle and the petitioners fell down. The deceased-K. Narender received severe bleeding injury to his Head and other 1:arts ol the body and the petitioners I to 3 sustained minor injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifterl to ()smania General Hospital for treat.n(:nt and he died u'hile undergoing treatment.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Yacharam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2O 1 1 under Section 337 IPC, conducted investigation and laid charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver o1'the subject Auto. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.3OO /- to Rs.400/- per day, approximately Rs. 1O,0OO/- per month by working as Agricultural labour and also Drum beating. On account ol sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their sourcr: of income, suffered mental agony a.nd hardship and hence filed c laim petition seeking compensation ol Rs'5,0O,000/- against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly ad severalll'. ?- n 3 M(;P-J ]tu(:MA tTll ol20l8 ohd X-obj.27 of 202.1

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.l & 2 remained ex-

6. Respondent No.3/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and further contended that there is no negligence on pat of driver of Auto and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it. It also filed additional counter stating that the driver of the crime Auto do not possess valid driving license to drive the said vehicle.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal.had framed the following issues:- i. Wlether the deceased -K.Narender died. in a Motor Vehicle accident on 0S.OS.2OL 1 due to rash and. negligent diuing of the diuer of Auto beaing No.AP-24-W-1618 by its driuer? ii. What utas the age and income of the deceased? iii. Whether the petttioners are entitled to claim compensation and if so, how much amount and. from which of the respondents? iu. To u.that relieJ?

8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner No. 1 /wife of the deceased examined herself as PW 1, got examined pW2 and got marked Exs.Al to A5 on their behalf. 4 MOP"I tlA(VA 1111a[20l8Dnlt X-oht 27 of)02r g. On bchalf of respondent No.3/lnsurance Oompany, RWI was examined and ExsBl to 89 were marked. 1O. After considering the entire evidence and rlocuments marked by both sides, the learned Tribunal had partly- allowed the claim petition ol the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.4,89,000/- along with future interest @ 9o/o tr)er annum payable by Respondent Nos.l & 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved with the said hnding, the respondent No.3 in the O.P./hsurance Company filed M.A.C].M.A.No.1711 of 2018 and the clairn petitioners filed Cross Objections petition No.27 of 2024. 1 1. Heard arguments submitted by Sri A-Rarnakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Appellant-lnsurance Company I MACMA.No. 171 1 of 2018 as well as Sri Goli Viplav Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents / Cross-objectors.

12. The contentions of learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company are that lhe learned Tribunal failed to consider t hat the driver of the crime vehicle lo not have valid driving license and permit to drive the crime Auto and the owner of the said Auto had witlfully and knowingly handt:d over the crime vehicle to rr:spondent No. 1/driver and violatecl the terms and conditions of Insurance policy. It also contended that the Tribunal had wronglt- taken the income of the deceased (l Rs.4,500/- per i l 5 M(;P,J M,4CMA l7llof20l8and .Yaht 27 of )UJ month and wrongly applied the multiplier and also awarded excess interest @ 9o/o per annum Hence, prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ cross- objectors contended that though the claim petitioners had established their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon documents marked under Exs.A1 to A5, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had awarded meager amount towards the income of the deceased, failed to award future prospects to the income ol the deceased and hence requested to allow the cross-objection petition by enhancing the compensation amount.

14. Now the points that emerge for consideration are, (i) Whether tle order passed bg the leamed Tribunal requires interfe rence of this Court? (i) Whether the cross-objector is entitled for enhancement of compensation? Polnts- i5. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident and death of the deceased as evident from the documentary evidence filed under Exs.Al to A5. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that Police of Yacharam Police Station registered a 6 M(il'.J MAt L{A llllol20lEdhd X-obJ 27 of 2ua case in Crime No.65/20I 1, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under EX.A2 against the driver rlf the crime Auto. Ex.A3 is thc Post Mortem Examination report. Ex.A4 is the Death Certificate of the deceased and Ex.AS is thrl scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Henr:e, from the above documentary evidence, it is proved that the death ol the deceased u.as due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Auto which finding of the learned Tribunal attains linality and do not require any lurther interference by this Court. i 6. The main contention of the learnecl "or.r".l for appellant/ ilrsurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.N,r.17l 1 of 2018 is that the learned Tribunal failed to see that the ,lriver of the crime vehicle do not have valid driving license and permit to drive the crime Auto iit the time of accident and the ownt:r of the said Auto had willfullr and knowingly handed over the crime vehicle to respondent No. 1/driver and commiited brear:h of the policy conditions. 'lherefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

17. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cor-rrt in the case between S. Iggapan a/s M/s tlnited India Insurance Compang and Another wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Insurance t)ompany is liable 7 MGP,J MA( lv{A l7II ol20lEohd .Y4bJ )7 of20)1 to pay the victim even if the driver was unlicensed so that the victim should not be deprived of the money due to him. Hence Insurance Company has full rights to recover their money from the owner of the vehicle. Further, the owner can make the unlicensed driver to pay the compensation.

18. Further, RWl- Manager (Legal) examined on behalf of Insurance Company stated in his evidence that the Motor Vehicle Inspector, RTA, Ibrahimpatnam inspected the crime vehicle and mentioned in his report that the driver of the crime vehicle dd not have valid Driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident and respondent No. l/owner of the vehicle, knowingly handed over the crime vehicle to driver and violated the terms and conditions of Insurance policy. He also deposed that though the l Insurance Company issued notices to the driver and owner requesting to furnish the details of driving li""rr". and permit particulars, but they failed to give any reply and thus, they can be held vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In support of his evidence he got marked Exs.Bl to 89 on behalf of Insurance Company. A perusal of Ex.B1- copy of Insurance policy shows that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Ex.B2 is the MVI report which discloses that the occurrence of accident was not due to any mechanical delects in the vehicle I-on*. I 8 MGP.J U{( LlA l71l o1)018 ond X-obJ 27 of 2DJ Ex.B3 is thc statement of owner of vehicle. Ex.B4 are the postal receipts. trx.B5 is the legal notice issued to driver of vehicle. Ex.B6 is the acknowledgment card. Ex.B7 is the notice issued to owner of Auto. Ex.B8 is the returned registerr:d cover. Ex.B9 is the Authorization letter.

19. Thcrefore, from the evidence of RW1, Exs.R3 to 89 and by relying upon the above referred decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Insuralce Cor:rpany cannot be exonerated lrom its liability to pay the compertsation amount. It shall pay thc compensation at hrst and then recover the same from the ou,ncr, rvho in turn can add the unlicensec driver to pay the compensatio n.

20. So far as cross-objection petition filed by the petitioners is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that the learned Tribunal, had awardt:d meager amount torvards the income of the deceased. In this regard, it is pertinent to state thal though the petitioners contended that the deceased used to carn Rs. I 0,000/ - per month as Agricultural labour and also drum beating, they did not file any dc,cumentary proof evidencing the same. Hence, the Tribur,al, taking into consideration the income of an unskilled lab,rur x'ho is able bodied, fixecl tbe income of the deceased as Rs.4,SOO/- which this 9 MI;I'-J MALMA l7l I ol20l8 otu! X-obJ 27 of)02a Court finds reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same. Since the Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the established income of the deceased, this Court, by relying upon t}re judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insttrance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethl and others, is inclined to add 4Ooh towards future prospects to the income of the deceased. Hence the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-. lf ll4t\, amount is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as the number of dependents being four, then the net monthly income comes to Rs.4,725/- and'the annual income comes to Rs.56,700/-. Since the deceased was 30 years old at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17'as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarta Verrna u. Delhi Transport Corporotiont. Therefore, the total loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased comes to Rs.9,63,9OO/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.25,00O/- towards funeral charges and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges which this Court linds to be meager and is inclined to interfere with the same by awarding a sum of Rs.77,O00/- under Conventional Heads as per Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (cited supra) . Considering the fact that the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 being minor children of the ' 2oo9 ecJ 1298 (sc) l F l0 MoP.J MA|:LU l7l I ol2018 ond X-obJ 27 of20)1 deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,00O/- each to them under the head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Mdgrna Cteneral Insurance Cotrytang Limited o. Nanu Ra'rr. Car Chuhrtt f.o:m and othersz. Thus, in all, the claim petr tioners / Cross objectors are ent.Ltled for a total compensa tion as r ndicated under: - S. No 1

2. 3 I I 4 5 l Name of the Ilead Monthty l ncome Addition of 4Oo/o towards future prospects as the deceased self- employed and below 40 ears lncome arrived Deducting I I 4tt towards personal & living expenses of the deceased as there are 4 de endants Total loss of dependency calculated after application of relevant multiplier i.e., -l 7 Conven tional Heads Anrount awarded Rs 4,5O0/- Rs.6,30O/- Rs.1,725 /- Rs.!),63,900/ - Rs.7 7,000/ - \ ^.'. '1:ol8y 18 scc r io 11 M(,t,..1 M,4( i1,1 l1l1 oJ 2All ond x-obJ.27 of202J

6. Parental consortium to minor child (2 in no.) TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.80,0OO/ - Rs.11,2O,9OO/-

21. As far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal granted interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit which this Court considers to be excess and hereby inclined to interfere with the same by reducing the same to 7.5o/o per annum by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others3.

22. Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim amount, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and othersa wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "...under the prouisions oJ Motor Vehtctes Act 1988, (hereinafter refered to as "the MV Act") .restiction ttEre that compensation could be auarded onlg up to the amount clatmed bg the claimanL In an appropriate case u.there from the eutdence brought on record if Tibunal/ court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation thon claimed, Tibunal mag pass such quard. Onlg 3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 o AIR 2oo3 sc 674 t2 t{(;t'-J MAt.ttA l7 t I ol )016 ond )'obt )7 o12021 embargo is i, shoutd be 'Just' compensat'on' thot is to saA, it should be neither arbitrory' fanciful rnr unlustifiable from the euidence ' With thc above {inding of the Hon'ttle Supreme Court' 23. it is clear that thc: compensation can be granted more than the claim macle based on cogent and convincing evidence'

24.Invieu,oftheabovediscussionandkeepir|ginviewthesettled principlt: of lau'laid down by the Hon'ble Apcx Court' this Court deems fit and proper to allow the Appeal' In the result, M'A'C'M'A'No' 1711 of 2018 is partly- 25. allowed bv reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal frorr 9ol, to 7.5"1, per annum and the Cross-objections petition No.27 of 2024 fited bv the ctaim petition':rs is allowed by enhancinq thc compensation amount awarde d by the Tribunal from Rs.4,89,OOO/- to Rs. 11,20,900/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. lrom the date of petition till the date of realization payable by re spondent No. 3 in O'P'/Insuran<:e Company in the first insta nce within a period of two months' from the date of receipt o[ r,t copv of this order and later reco'/er the same from the resporclent No.1/owner of subject Auto, wro in turn can add the unliccnsecl clriver to pay the compensalion' Upon such ts po.it, the claim petitioners are entitled to v/ithdraw the same * i I l3 MGP,J MACLU.lTtl of20t8and XabJ 27 ol202l as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by foregoing interest for a period of,159O,days as per orders dated 13.09.2024 passed in I.A.No. t of 2024 and by paying deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs. 26 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SdA V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, ECTION OFFICER

1. The Motor Vehicle Accident rribunal-cum-XlV Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar (with records, if anyl- 2. One CC to Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Goti Viplav Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies VA/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 COMMON JUDGMENT + COMMON DECREE MACMA.N0.1711 of 2018 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.27 ot 2024 ( 2 DRAFTS ) o?.-it.lh;t"4 J o 21 ilAn I[i 6t' ', C) *.. \{'.s- , \r-:j . l' .:{ * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA & ALLOWING THE CROSS.OBJECTIONS /L IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1711 OF 2018 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS NO:27 oF 2024 M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1711 OF 2018 Betvveen: United lndia lnsurance Co Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Ltd., Regional Office, Basheerbagh, UIT Building, AND 1. 9mt. Kandukuri (Baindla) Laxmamma, Wo. Late K. Narender, Aged 20 years, Occ. Housewife ,.Appellant / Respondent No 3

2. Baby Spandana, D/o. Late K. Narender, Aged 03 years, Occ, Nil 3. Baby Pallavi, D/o. Late K. Narender, Aged 1 y, years 4. Smt Kandukuri Balamma, Wo. Late Pentaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ. Housewife Respondents 2 and 3 being minors represented by natural mother and guardian Smt. K. Laxmamma Respondent No. 'l h-erein All are R/o. Nandivanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R. District ...Respondents / Petitioners 5. A. Peddaiah, S/o. Not known to Respondent, Aged major, Occ. Owner of the Auto, R/o. H.No. 1-28, Kurmed, Chintapally, Nalgonda-District 6 Bandi Venkatesh, S/o. Kondaiah, Aged 25 years, Occ, Driver of Auto, R/o. Medipally village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R. Distrlct ...Respondents / Respondent Nos 1 & 2 CROSS-OBJEGTIONS NO:27 OF 2o24 Between: 1 Smt. Kandukuri (Baindla) Laxmamma, Wo. Late K. Narender, Aged about 32 years, Occ. House Hold l l I t_ .. ana, D/o. Late K. Narender,

3. Baby pallavi Ased about 1s vears' occ student I c,.o" ooi""'?'-: 'f"*'- """;;;;;' s,,:#:[,3l1x*"tn*qiffi !ffi *'#;il",,:#$,^ ri Balamma, wo. Late pent aiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ.

4. Smt Kanduku nouse Hord All are R/o. Nandivanaparthy Vllage, yacl "'cross raram Mandal' R'R Diskict )bjectors / Respondents No 1 to 4 H]lt"s",;:,;^ii:;;il:s# ,.,0 , lI?",", ornce, Basheerbash, Urr Buirdins, Appeal under section i7. ^, .. objections ,n0", gr6"-"tlo-n dated '13-11-2oll lVrotor Vehicre o.",d"n, l',M ' o o t",i, oirll"'ntt 173 of Motor Vehicle o, " '"'"rs n, * r r -i ir" ;::,;,rT. :[ R a n sa Redd y o -^o!4

1. Ruie u,", " rX X' "'Respondent / Appefiant Act and Mem':randum of cross the Judgment and necree r, ir:: :: : ;: J. ^ ",' This appeat and C "nJo^tt oo'""'ions coming on oo,I*""^ ,n"'r.n tn"'"t,u ror the Appelln, the grounds of appear court and the materiar ,"1-t'ott Ramakrishna oolllt.i' in cross objections "no orTtT to 4 in MAGMA& cross oo,l1,:"'1',o'';;J;;,,1l',,tn ,ectors in a.." oo*,,ol"ocate This Court doth Order and decree as follows:- ""nr'r;n'""t ^uoor, 1, That the MACMA.NT reducing the rate *i^l"t annum; 2. Thatcross_objections petition No'27 of 2024 fitec nFri,i^^ and hereby is alowed rhe rribunar from Rs 4 ll ::1,n''* ;J '#r @7 so/o p a rrom the .'l No 3 in o l"ll "t 'o"'"' '*','n""vuur- D /lnsurance ;': respondent ^.- "_ oo'- ," ;" ,;;;.;;;""t'on ";;;; for hearing ano upon perusing and Decree of the Lower n""'nn the arguments of sri A ,\4ACMA and Respondent for the Respondent No 1 bv the craim petitioners amount ar,rarded bv which shall carry i'te'est or reatization pavabre by ihe first instance within a or 2018 be and l interest awarded by the ,rlu'"b' is partly allowed by " uv tne I ribunal from go/o ro 7.syo per =e. I I , 2 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and rater recover the same from the respondent No.1/owner of sub.iect Auto, who in turn can add the unlicensed driver lo pay the compensation;

3. That upon such deposit, the claim petitioners be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned rribunal by foregoing interest for a period of 'r5g0' days as per orders dated 13.0g.2024 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2024 and by paying deficit Court fee; and

4. Thalthere shall be no order as to costs !n this appeal; //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, E TION OFFICER 1 The Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Dlstrict and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar 2 Two CD Copies +c- i HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.1711 of 2018 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.27 of 2024 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA & ALLOWING THE CROSS.OBJECTIONS