The High Court · 2025

This appeal is Iiled by the claimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 3L.O8.2O21 in O.P.No.1578 of 2014 passed by the MACT-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 06.O1.2014, deceased A.Venkata Ramarao started from Sarathi Studios and rvas going towards Ameerpet by walk. At about 15.30 hours, aut.o bearing No.AP-O9-TB-1544 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed to the deceased, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous head injury and serious injuries all over the body and was shifted Axon Hospital, S.R.Nagar for treatment. Deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The case of the petitioners is that at the time of accident, deceased was hale and healthy and was aged zl9 years and earning Rs.2O,OOO/- per month by working as a Manager in Classic Construction. They made a claim of Rs-25,O0,0OO/ - before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal- 2 ETD,J MACMA No.745_2021

5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the issuance of policy and validity as on the date of the alleged accident and further denied all the averments in the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased but not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the deceased A.Venkata Ramarao S/o Late AVL Narasimha Rao died on 06.01.2OL4 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No-AP- 09-TB-L544? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3) To what relieP

7. During the course of trial, petitioner No.l herself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W. i was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. B. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.9,3O,OOO/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. :- - '-- l ; l t. l: i I iII 6 I I ! ! I ? t I I i : i i : i j i ! i i . i t i 3 ETD,J MACMA No.746 2021

9. He:rrd the submission of Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel f,:r the petitioners and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for tl.e respondent No.2-Insurarlce Company.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has awarded meager compensation to the petitioners. He further argued th.at the Tribunal has taken the earnings of the deceased as Rs.6,OO0,/- per month which is very low, that the deceased was working ,a.s a Manager in a construction company and earning Rs.2O,000/- per month. He further submitted that the consortium needs to be awarded to a1l the petitioners which the Tribunal has not awarcted and therefore prayed to set aside the order and decree passed bl,the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has subnlitted that there is no error in the orders passed by the Tribunal ;and also contended ttrat the petitioners are not entitled to any other amounts and further prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relieP !' ETD,J MACMA No.746 2021 4

13. POINT NO.1: a) Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. It is their case that the deceased was aged 49 years and was earning Rs.2O,O00/- per month by working as Manager in a construction company. P.W' 1 asserted the same in her evidence but no other evidence was placed on record with regard to the earnings of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in umaheshuari and Ors. u. Ranno:cho;ndran and Ors.nL. In the said case, the deceased used to run a vegetable shop and had also been selling beverages and he was 44 years old, when he, unfortunately, met with an accident in the year 2015, the Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.8,OOO/- per month but the Hon'ble Apex Court having regard to the nature of business and the fact that he was supporting a family of four members, has held that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.15,O00/- per month. In the present case, the deceased was supporting his family b) of three members and he is stated to have been working as Manager in a construction company, aged 44 years but in Ex.A.2l certihed copy of inquest report, it is mentioned ttrat the deceased was doing real estate. considering the said facts and on a ' zoz: (ncl) tzlo It. t I I :, ! ! I t, ! t. j: l,lit i: :: :, i: ! . : i1 :j 5 ETD,J MACMA No.746_2021 reasonable hypothesis an amount of Rs.8,000/- can be safely taken as rnonthly income of the deceased. c) As per the dicta laid down in Nationo,l Insurance Compang Litnited Vs. Pranag Sef,hi & Others2, 25oh of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the de<:t:ased is aged 44 years as per P.M.E report, adding 25o/o towards fttture prospects would give Rs. 1 0,0O0/ - (Rs.8,OOO/ -x 251 IOO = 2,OOO / -) per month, u'hich comes to Rs.1O,OOO/- x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, Ll3,a deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.80,000/- (Rs.1,2O,OO0/- (-) Rs.4O,O00/-). e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A.3 reveals the age of the deceased as 44 years. The multiplier should be choserr with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in "Sarta Vertna a. Delhi Tlanspott Corporatiott3." The deceased being aged 44 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '14'. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes uPl:o Rs.11,20,OOO/- (Rs.8O,O0O/- X 14 = Rs. Ll,2O,OOO/-l,. 2 AIR 2017 SCC 5157 s 2009 (6) scc 121 ,] l I I :{ I ,l I l 1,],1 i i ]ii i.l I' t, t; lil: II i:l i.i !l ,l l (-- 6 ETD,J MACMA No.746-2021 In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs-4O,000/- towards loss 0 of consortium, Rs.15,0OO/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,OOO/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It wis further held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by 1O% for every three years. g) In Magma. Gr;nera.l Insl.trance Compa;ng Llmlted. a. Nanu Rorm @chuht-u Rom and othersa, the Apex court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Setht's case and has further held that the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,4OO I - each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.a8,4OO/- X 3 = Rs.1,45,200/-). Claimants are also entitled for compensation under tonventional heads'as laid down in Noltiono;l Insuro;nce company Limited. vs. Pranag Sethi, i.e., Rs.18,150/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral charges. Hence, they are entitled to Rs.36,3OO/- under the 'Conventional heads'. Therefore, claimants are entitled for tl.e compensation in the following terms: ) ) 1 2 3 Loss of dependency Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Rs. 1L,2O,OOOl- Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 1 8 t 1 50I ' (zo ttt) I 8 scc I 30 7 ETD,J MACMA No.746_2021 4 Loss of Consortium TOTAL Rs. I,45,2OO l- Rs. 13,O1,5OO/- h) Thert:fore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunar is enhanced i.rom Rs.9,3O'OOO/- to that of Rs.I.3,O1,SOO/- which would be justified in the present case. Point Nr>.l is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2: I T 'I I In view of the finding arrived at point No.1. it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified and accordingly compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.9,3O,O00/- is enhanced to Rs.l3,O1,50O/-.

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the MACMA filed by the petitioners is partly allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 31.08.2o21 in o.P.No.1578 of 2ol4 passed by the MACT-cum-XXV Additional chief Judge, city civil courts, at Hyderabarl, enhancing the compensatirtn from Rs.9,30,0OOl- to Rs.13,01,5O0/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ T.s o/o per annum froni the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.2 is dire,:ted to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a 8 ETD,J MACMA No.746 2OZl copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securit5r, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- AVS.PRASAD, REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPY/ OFFIGER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge City Civil Courts at Hyderabad(With records, if any) 2. One CC to SRIT VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K AJAY KUtvlAR, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK W ;\ \ HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2425 r-) lJ- "t =&s Cr \ * ti 0!r,-l 2D JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.746 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS f@