The High Court · 2025

2. For he sake of convenience, the parties hcreinafter be referred as th€r1' were arrayed before the Tribunal

3. Tht: l;rief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as und,)r: a) Tht: pe titioners have filed claim petition c aiming compensat on of Rs.35,00,000/- from the respondent Nor;. 1 and 2 for ttre death of deceased by name "Pravccn [(umar" (hereinafl.e' u, 1l be referred as 'deceasedJ. Petitioner No. L is the wife and p:titkrner Nos.2 and 3 are the children ar-rd petitioner Nos. 4 anl 5, are old aged parents of deceased. The reason assigned b 7 tlur petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on i 1.01.201'' at about 06:O0 hours while the husban<: of the 2 MCPJ petitioner No. 1 was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. TS.05.EA2310 from Nalgonda Town to his house at Munugode village, the driver of the Ashok Leyland trolley bearing No. TS'05'uB.o8s9 (LGV), (for brevity hereinafter cared as "crime vehicle") drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from backside. Due to the accident, the deceased fell in the road side ditch and sustained head injury and other multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Suraksha Multi Specialty Hospital, Nalgonda but, as his condition was serious, he was shifted to yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad where he was treated as impatient tllt 2Z.Ol.2Ol7. For further treatments he was shifted to Osmania general Hospital, Hyderabad ald while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. b) Based on the complaint police, Nalgonda Town_I registered FIR No.33/2017 under Section 337 of Indian penal Code, 1806 against driver of the crime vehicle and. later altered the Section of law to Section 304_4, of Indian penal Code, 1806after investigation filed charge sheet. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and working as Collection Executive in Hinduja Leyland Finalce, Nalgonda and used to earn Rs.l6,O2O/_per month. The Jrctitioners were solely depended on the inr:ome of the decezrsed and due to his sudden demise in the said i.rccident the family su:fe red a lot and lost love and affection of the deceased. Therrefore, the petitioners as dependents of the deceased fi1,:,1 claim petition seeking compensal ion of Rs.35,00,C0O / - (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) against respondents jointly and se'r,:rally.

4. Thr: -es:ondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are owncr and r river of the trollet rr:l;pectively were set ex parte and rvher-e,ls, the responden: No 3/ Insurance Company filed counter denving the averment.s of tetition apart from denying its liabilit\._ It also contended theLt the complaint was given to police on 28.(.t1.2017 i.e., after k.ps,: of 17 days of the alleged accident and it is clearly a concoctr'd story created by petitioners colluding with the owner of clim: vehicle and police ofhcials to have '"1,r'onglul gain which raises serious questions as to fair investigation in the matter. Or r t.re above grounds prayed to dismiss tht: claim application .

5. Basel crL the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the follou'ir.g three issues i) Wtether the deceased died occutreC on 11.01.2O17 at about in road accict'ent O6:OO hours near MACMA No. r 166 0r 202J Raghauendra B.Ed college at the outskirts of Nalgonda Town on Munugode road due to rash and negligent diuing of the Ashok Legland Trottey bearing No.TS.05.UB.O859 bg its diuer? i, Whether the petitioners ore entitled to claim compensotion? If so, from whom and to u.thot amount? To uhat relieJ?

6. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked trxs.Pl to P12. On behalf of respondent No.3, its representative was examined as RWl and got marked Exs.R1 Copy of Insurance policy. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions dismissed the claim petition with costs to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants/petitioners preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order and grant just and reasonable compensation. 7 . The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants/ petitioners is that though appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs. P- 1 to P-12, tLle learned Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously discarded the evidence on record ald dismissed the claim application and on the above grounds prayed to allow the application and grant compensation

8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel fcu- rcspondent No.3/InsurarL<:e Company has contended thal the learned Tribunai lras rightly dismissed the claim petition and the same needs no jnterference by this court. 9 Nor.i th': points for consideration are that: 1) Whe ther the Tibunal is ight in its finding that the death of th<z ,Teceased tuas not caused by the cime uehicle and the imptLgned Order and Decree passed bg the leorned Tib,ttto.l calls for interference bA this court? 2) Wluther the appellants/ petitioners are entitled for ang compen: ation? 1 0. Heald 5oth sides and perused the record inclu< ling the grounds ol Apl)eal

11. Poin.t No.1: It is pertinent to note that the PW-1 :.c., wife of the decea s,: l reiterated the contents ol the claim app,hca tion and thc nranrrer in which the accident occurred in h er chief examinal-ir,n bg relying on Exs.P1 (FIR), P2 (inquesr, rr:port), P5 (Charge-sheet) and that the accident occurred due to riLsh and negiigent rlrir, ing of the trolley bearing No.TS.05.UBO859 and that the d:ceased succumbed to the injuries sustzriner, in the said accident. Further, PW-2, who is an eyewitness to the incident d:posed the manner in which the accident o:curred f i i l I I I ! 6 and the injuries sustained by the deceased and he informed the matter to the family members of the deceased ald nothing much was elicited in his cross-examination to discard his testimony. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the insurance policy under Ex.R1 was subsisting as on the date of accident. There is also no dispute with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the appellants/claimants.

12. The learned Tribunal drawn an inference based on Ex.P-4 Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report that as there is no damage to the alleged crime vehicle wh'ich per se a crucial evidence to establish that the alleged crime vehicle is not involved in the accident. In common parlance it is quite clear view that the alleged crime vehicle is a Ashok Layland Trolley made which dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from back. Thus, in all certainty, the vehicle which rammed the motorcycle is a heavy vehicle and there are very remote chances of it being damaged due to accident. Therefore, merely because there are no damages caused to the crime vehicle, it cannot be construed that accident has not occurred.

13. It is well settJed principle of law that standards of proof Iike in a criminal trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident C1aims cases and stzr:-ldards to be followed in such claims is one based on preporLderlnce of probability rather than establishing the case beyo:rd r:asonable doubt, as the Motor Vehicles A:t, 1988 itself is ,e ben,:ficial legislation which has been framecl ,vith the prime olrjr:ctive of providing relief to the family mcmbr:rs, who lost their arrLily member in a vehicular accident. Unforrunately in the preserrl. case the learned Tribunal erred in ad-judicating the matte r I ike a criminal trial, discarding the evidt:nce on record anrl tlrr: version of eyewitness to the incident. Moreover, until and un ess there is primo facie material to establish that the crime rehi:le was involved in the alleged accident, tl.e police would not have laid charge sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle. On r lre other hand, the owner of the crime vehicle appeared belt re the learned Tribunal but did not :1le any counter arrd i1. so he has not frled any proceedings to quash FIR against 51' ecl Siiraj, driver of the crime vehicle. It has al;o come on record tha- ou,ner of the crime vehicle has not m;rde any complain t in lespect of false implication of his vehick. or the driver. 14 . It is p,e rtinent to place reliance on the deci sion of Honorable Ape x Court in Anita Shc:rma and others o. New 'i a Indio Ass'urance Conqrsng Limited qnd anotherl, wherein it was held at Para 16 that standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident Claims cases and the relevant para is extracted hereunder: "The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than begond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining euideftce in qccident claim cases ought not be to find fault wtth non examination of some best ege rritnesseg a"s mag happen in a criminal trail; but, instead should be onlg to analAze the material placed on record bg the parties to ascerTdin u.thether the claimant's uersion is more liketg than not true."

15. Further reference can be made to another decision of Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others2, wherein it was observed as under: "h is thus uell setlled that in motor accldent claim cases, once the Joundational fact, namelA, the actual occwrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tibunal's role would be to calanlate tlrc quantum of just compensation if the accident had tqken place bg reason of negligence oJ the diuer of a motor uehicle and, uthile doing so, the Tibunql u.)ould tat be strictlg bound bg ttrc pleailings of the parties. Notablg, tuhile deciding cases arising out oJ motor uehicle accid.ents, the standord of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance oJ probabilitg and not the strict standard of proof begond all reasonable doubt uhich is folloued in ciminal cases-" t 28t21 (tl SCC 171 /2020 (13) SCC 486

16. Sim larl.r, in the case of Kusum Lata & others v. Satbir & otherss the Honourable Supreme Court observed as r-rnder: "'t is uell knoutn that in a case relating to motor accrtTent clair s, thz cLeimo'nts are not required to proue the ca-se as i, is requr.ed tt Lte done in a ciminal trial. The Court must keep this distit .ctlch in tnind."

17. The ccrrtention of learned Stalding Counsel for the respondcnt Nc.3/Insurance Company that the First Information Report rvrs ilven to Police after lapse of 17 davs from the alleged rle tc of accident and the same is fatal to th e claim petition, is unsustainable. It is signihcant to bear in mind that aftermath the accident happens and intimation abouL the accident i s received by the appellant No. 1 and other family members .he trimary concern of them was to take car: of the injured in his r:ritrcal condition. The health and well-being of her husbancl rgas her prioriff rather than to lodge an FIFI and it cannot l( expected that close relatives of the injrrred or deceased rers rn would rush to police station imrnedi ttely to lodge corn rlaint rather than taking steps to provide im rrediate treatment. Thus, delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt clailaan -'s case or fatal to the claim petition. r 2o11 (3) SC(t ( 46 { I 10

18. It is pertinent to reproduce the observation of Honourable Apex Court in Raui a. Badrinaragan and Others,a wherein the court held at para 17 as follows: "17. It is taell-settled tLwt detag in lodgittg FIR cannot be ct ground to d.oubt the claimant's case. Knouing the Indiqn conditions as theg are, u)e cannot expect q common man to first rush to the police Station immedtatelg afier on accidett. Human nature and family responsibilities occupg the mind of kith <tnd kin to such an extent thdt theg giue more importance to get tle uictim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. [.Inder such circum.stqnces, they are not expected to act mechanicatlg utith promptitude in lodging the FIR with the poltce. Delag tn lodqtng the FIR Uuts, cannot be the ground to deng justice to tlrc uictim."

19. In view of the above discussion and the decision of Honourable Apex Court, the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements of appellant No. l/PWl and PW-2 i.e., eye witness to the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence ied before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial and the entire approach of the learned Tribunal is clearly not sustainable. Therefore, this court is of *th6 considered opinion that the accident happened due to rash a 201 I 141 Supreme Court Cases 693 and negliljent driving of the crime vehicle that rcsulte I in the death of tht: deceased. Hence, the point No.1 is ansu,ered according y in favour of the appellants/petitioners.

20. PoirLt No.2: Now comtng to quantum of compensation, according to the appellants/petitioners, the deceased v,as aged about 3 2 yczu's at the time of accident as evident fronr Ex. P 2 Inquest rrporl and trx.P-3 Post Mortem report. This asoect has not been,iisp.rted by the respondents. As per the principle laid down in Siarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporations, the approprla.e rrLultrplier for the persons aged between 3,1 to 35 years is '15'.

21. Acc,>rding to the appellants / petitioners the deceased was working rLs ()ollection Executive in Hinduja Finance Private Limited a rci used to earn Rs. i6,02O/- per month. In order to prove the sane the appellants/petitioners relied upon E r. P-6 to Ex.P- 10 Iive r:onsecutive monthly pay slips before the <leceased met with the e ccident. A perusal of Exs.P6 to P10 disclr:,ses that the decear;ed rva.s earning net salary of Rs. 14,92O/-

22. It ir; sir3nilicant to note that pay slips issued by the employer is srrfhcient to establish the monthly earnings of the ' tzooe; e sct : t I I I t2 . MCPiJ injured/deceased. In a recent decision of Honourable Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indiro Devi & Ots6 the court observed at Para 9 as follows: "It u.tas not necessary for th.e claimants to exPlain tlle contradtction between the figures of the salary certiftcate and the income qs mentioned in the income tax records/ assessment. It utas lwld that tllere is nothing in the laut uhich requires th.e Tibunat lo cssess the income of tLrc d.eceased onlg on tlrc basis of a salary certilcate for arriuing ot a just and fatr compensation to be patd to the claimants for the loss of life."

23. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in a case of Rajwati and others v. United India Insurance ComPany limitedT along with Seema and others v. United India Insurance Compaay, answered this question as to whether pay slips issued by the employer can be taken into consideration while assessing the income of the deceased at Para 29, which is reproduced below: "....u.te are of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctlg detemined the deceased's montruA income as Rs. I 1,225/ - tuhile placing reliance on documentary euidence qdduced in this regard, uiz, the salary certifr.cate (Exhibit- 17) c.nd paA stip lExhibit l8), as uell as the statements of the deceased's wife and his co raorkers. We do not agree uith th.e uiew taken bg the High Court uhile loldiftg thdt since the person issuing the tuo aforementioned documents u)as not examied before the Tibunal the iname of the deceqsed u.ras cssessed at Rs-4,836/ - per month in uieu of the minimum wages fixed bg th.e State at the releuant time. 6 2Or8 (3) AC.J 20s1 1 2022 ACJ 2754 L3 Rest ltan'.tLg, ue aff.nn the rtndings of the Tribunal so.far os theA relol? to .'ssessing the deceased's income is concerned.'.

24. In t re lase on hand apart from Exs.P6 to P10, tl-re r.r.ife of the decca sed , rvho was examined PW 1 , categoricall5. deposed about the salary of the deceased as mentioncd in the above exhibits. Thrr5, in view of the principle laid down in tILe above said decis ons coupled with the oral and documentarl. ovidence adduced rn behalf of the claimants, this Court is of the considererl oplnion that the claimants could establish rhe sa1ary of the deccast:rl as Rs. 14,92O / per month.

25. Sin;e the claimants are hve in number, L/4tr of the monthly s ar,r of the deceased (Rs.3,730/-) shall be d educted towards l,ersonal expenses of the deceased, as such, the contribuli()n :rf the deceased towards his family memhers will arrive to l:s.l t,190/ Since the deceased was aged b:low 4O years and Joing private job, he is entitled for future prospects of 4O%o as per the decision laid down in National Insurance Company Lirnited v. Pranay Sethi and otherss. T.hus, the month11. ir corr.e of the deceased with future prospects c()mes to Rs. 15,666' rer annum (Rs. 11,19O/- + Rs.4,4Z6l-) a_nd the \ 3 2017 ACJ 270 ) T l : L4 annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. I ,87,992 / (15,6661 - x 12 months). As stated above, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '16'. When the annual salary of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs.3O,O7,872/- (Rs.l,87,9921- x 16). Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is Rs.3O,O7,a72l

26. As per the principle laid down in l[ational Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and otherse the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,OOO/- under the conventional heads (Rs.7O,000/- + 1O%o enhancement thereon). In addition thereof, petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the minor children of the deceased and petitioner No.1 are entitled for Rs.4O,OOO l- each under the head of 'parental consortium' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Comgtang Limited a. Nrr;tu Rd.m @ Chuhnt Ram and. otherslo. Thus, in a1l, petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.31,57,a72/- (Rs. 30,07,8721- + Rs.77,OOOl- + Rs.8O,00O/-). e 2017 ACJ 2700 ,o (2018) 18 SCC 130 l5 MCPJ 27 . In r ien of the above facts and circumstanccs, th is Court is of tht: :or-. sridered view that impugned order passecl by the learned Tlibr-rnal is required to be set aside ancl tl-re claimants are award,td tire compensation as stated supra.

28. In t-re r:sult, the Appeal is allowed by setting ar;ide the ^16 impugned orrlgl decree dated O2.OT.2O22 passed by the Motor Ac:idcnts Claims Tribunal- cum -principal District Judge, Na lgor-rda in M.V.O.p.No.3O3 of 2OlT. Accordingly, the I / claim perilion lled by the petitioners in M.V.O.p.No.303 of 20l7 is allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.ll1,J-i.,g72/_, which sha I carry intere st (@ 7 .So/o per annum from the date of hling the claun application till the date of realizatior.L. The responden. Nos,1 and 3 are jointly and severaliy 1itble to deposit tht: co--npensation amount within one month fi-om the date of rer:eipt of copy of this order. Out of the abose said compensat.on, the petitioner No. 1 is awarded an amount of Rs.5,57,87 2/- and the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are au.arded an amount of Rs.1,O0,00O l- each and they are entitled to \r,ithdraw the entire arrLount awarded to them without furnishi ng any securit5z. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are a,,varded Rs. 12,00,0t)0/- each. Since the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minors, thr cornpensation awarded to them shail bc dcltosited r ! I 16 in any nationalized bank until they attain the age of majority. The petitioner No. 1 being the natural guardian (mother) of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the deposited amount once in six months to meet the day to day expenses of the minors. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if ar-ry, pending shall stand closed \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY T REGISTRAR ASSIST ECTION OFFICER '1 The chairman' Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-principar District Judge, ^ at Nalgonda( With records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri C Mohan prat.asf,, hOuocate [OpUC] 3. Two CD Copies ADI(gh % HIGH COUIIT DATED:21 10112025 I I ./i. ' io" ; i.l € S T4 14: [1APR 2!6 ) .J ,l) \\i ). (J( L) J UDGMEN.I.+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.1186 of 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \\ ! ! I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 1 186 0F 2023 Between: 't. Tirumala Annapoorna, 35 yrs, Occ: Household, 2. firumala Sri Sai Kumar, 6 Yrs 3. Tirumala Yagna sri, 2 Yrs 4. Tirumala Lingaiah, 65 Yrs 5. Tirumala Jayamma, 60 yrs, All re R/o Munigude village,Nalgonda- ... Petitioners/Appellants/claimants AND 1 Z Ivlukkamula Ramu, Nalgonda. Sayyed Siraj, Nalgonda Cholamandalam MS General lnsurance Company Limited' Nalgonda ...Respondents/ResPondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,',l98B against the order and deciee in M.V.O.P.No.3O3 of 2017 dated. 02-09-2022 on the file of the Court of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at Nalgonda. Thisappealcomingonforhearinganduponperusingthegroundsofappeal, the Judgmeni and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and up6n hearing the arguments of Sri C Mohan Prakash, Advocate for the nipeLflnts and of"M/s. Hainath Reddy Soma, Advocate for the Rgspondent No.3 and none appeared for the respondent No' 1 & 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l.ThattheMotorAccidentCivilMiscellaneousAppealbeandherebyisallowed bysettingasidetheimpugnedorderanddecreedatedo2.0T.2022passedby the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum -Principal District Judge, Nalgonda in M.V.O.P.No.303 of 2017; 2 fhat the c arm petition filed by the petitioners in IVI.V.O. p. Nc.303 of 2O17 is' allowed rn larl ry awarding compensation of Rs.31,57,972l- vuhich shall carry interest @ 7.5)h pq annum from the date of filing the craim application till the date of rea izatirtn,

3. That the r.spondent Nos.1 and 3 be and hereby are joinfly and severally liable to deposil the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of c tpy of this order;

4. That out of the above said compensation, the petitioner No.1 is awarded an amount of Rs {i,57,872l- and the petitioner Nos.4.and 5 a.e awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and they are entifled to withriraw the entire amount awirrderj to them without furnishing any security;

5. That the petiticrer Nos.2 and 3 are awarded Rs. 12,00,000/, <;ach. Since the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minors, the compensation awarderj to them shall be depositec in any nationalized bank until they attain the age of majority. The petitioner N o. 1 treing the natural guardian (mother) of petitionr:r Nos.2 and 3 is entitled t. w trdraw the interest accrued on the deposited zLmount once in six months 1o moet the day to day expenses of the minors;

6. That there shalr te no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The chainnirn, \lotor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-principal District Judge, at Nalgonda Two CD Ccp ies AD o /I HIGH COU]IT DATED:21 lt)112025 DECREE MACMA.No.I 186 of 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS yD