The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.J.SUNIL KUMAR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.3324 OF 2OO9 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the Award and decibe dated 16.09.2005 (hereinafter will be referred as tmpugned Award,) passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum XVIII Addilional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as "TribunalJ in O.P.No. 1724 of 2OO3, the appellants, who are the petitioners/claimants before the learned Tribunal, preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. .

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

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from t-lle record are that the petitioners, who are the husband and children of Shanthamma (hereinafter will be referred as deceasedJ, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos. I and 2 for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 25.O5.2003 the deceased along with her husband i.e., petitioner No. I was going in an Auto bearing registration No. AP 2a V 22 from Lingampally towards 2 Mehdipatnam and when they reached near HCU depot, a lorry bearing registration No.AAT 1789 (hereinafter will be referred as trime vehicleJ being driven by its driver in 4 rash and negligent manner at high speed came in rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed the auto in which the deceased ald her husband were proceeding. As a result, the deceased died on the spot and whereas the petitioner No. 1 and other inmates of the auto sustained severe injuries- In this regard, a case in Crime No.2Ol /2OO3 of Chandnagar police Station was registered. b) The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.4,O0,OO0/- from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition averments, the respondent No.l remain ed exporte and whereas respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments including the age, income of the deceased; the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license and that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 3 MCPJ

5. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, the sole petitioner examined himelf as pwl and Exs.A I io A5 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the. respondents, however, Ex.Bl copy of the insurance policy was marked.

6. The learned Tribunal after considering tJ:e oral and documentarv evidence on record, passed the impugned Award awarding Rs.3,67,0OO/- as compensation to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record including the grounds of Appeal. I

8. It is to be seen that the respondent No"2/Insurance Company did not prefer any Appeal to set aside the impugned Award. There is no dispute with regard to the subsistence of Ex.B I insurance policy at the time of accident.

9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Tribunar considered the MOP'J age of the deceased at higher side and multiplier on the lesser side.

10. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the petitioners claimed the age ofthe deceased as 4O years and even the learned Tribunal by relying on the age mentioned in the postmortem examinalion report arrived to the conclusion that the age of the deceased as 40 years as on the date of the accident, more particularly, when the petitioners did not file any authenticated document to establish the age of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has chosen multiplier as '15' as per the second schedule- The appropriate multiplie,r for the persons, who are aged between 35 to 40 years, would be "15", even as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Venru a. Delhi TYansport. Corporationt- Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has chosen age of the deceased at higher side and multiplier on the lesser side. I 1 . A perusal of the impugned Award discloses that since the petitioners did not lile any authenticated document to establish the income of the deceased as claimed by them, t1.e learned Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at r 2oo9 ACJ 1298 (SC) I I 5 Rs.36,OO0/- per annum i.e., Rs.3,O00/- per month. Since the claimants are three in number, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the annual income after deducting personal expenses of ttie deceased would come to Rs.2a,0O0/- (Rs.36,000/_ Rs.12,00O/-). After multiplying the annual income of the deceased with appropriate multiplier ,15,, the loss of dependency arrived by the learned Tribunal was Rs.3,60,00O/_ fis.2 ,OOO/- x 15 months). Thus, this court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal f^. "o ^" amount awarded towards loss of dependency.

12. The other contention of the learned counsel for ttre petitioners is that the learned Tribunal awarded less compensation under the head .loss of consortium, and .funeral expenses'. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to award aly compensation under the head .loss of estate'. Apart from awarding an amount of Rs.3,6O,OO O I _, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,OOO/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,O00/ - towards loss of estate. However, as per the principle laid down in National Iasurance Company Limlted !-\ \ v' Pranay sethi and others2, the craimants are entitled to Rs.77,OOO/- under the convenrional heads (Rs.70, OOO/_ + 1go/o enhancement thereon) towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeial expenses. Thus, the petitioners/claimants are awarded an amount of Rs.77,o00/- under conventional heads. Tirerefore, in all, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,37,000/- (Rs.3,60,OO0/- + Rs.77,0OO/-) towards compensation. Though the petitioners have craimed for compensation of Rs.4,0O,OO0/ _ it is settled law that the claimants are entitled for more than the compensation claimed, only when it is just and fair

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Tribunal wrongly granted less of rate of interest. By considering the principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others3, this Court is of the view that the rate of interest @ Z.So/o as awarded by.the learned Tribunal is just and appropriate in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. , 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2013 ACJ 14c'3 = 2Ol3 {41 ALT 35 7 r,icPJ

14. In view of the above facts and circumstances' this Court is of the l-trm opinion that ttre impugned award passed by the learned Tribunat is liable to be modified to the extent of above observations.

15. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs'3,67,00O/ - to Rs'a'37'OO0/ -' which shall carry interest at 7 '5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization' The enhanced compensation amount is apportioned to the petitioner No' 1' who is . husbandofthedeceased.TherespondentNos'1and2'whoare owner and insurer respectively, shall deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount awarded to them of deficit court. fee on the enhanced subject to Payment . There shall be no order as to costs' compensation amount Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed ,TTRUE COPY// SdI. P.CH. D NAGABHU RE EPU SHAMBA GISTRAR / SEC OFFTCER To I rir###ffifl.ffi it![gr''"'*t|"1i'3i;rvr';tr':r':r \* 1 w \, HIGH COURT DATED:17rcY2025 \ \ JUDGMENT' MACMA.No.3324 of 2009 ( e) ') \ 1 Y\6 STAre 17 Jl,lN ?m z o t I) EcE,/. ie * .,'1 APPFAL rs ALLOWED G*da X*" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE . PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M:G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3324 OF 2009 Between: 1 . R. Govinda Raju, S/o.Ramaswamy, aged 42 years, Occ: Business 2. G. Kavitha, D/o. Govindu Raju, aged 22 years, Occ: Nil 3. G. Suresh, S/o. Govindu Raju, Aged 20 years, Occ: Nil All are R/o. MIG-I , APHB Colony, Gachibowli, Hyderabad presently r/o.H.No. 1 -B-31 9/D/32, Vidyanagar Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND

1. Syed Ghouse S/o. Syed Rasool, aged. Major, Occ: Business R/o. 1 8-8-2231 1 021 1, Riyasathnagar, Madan napet, Hyderabad.

2. The National lnsurance Company Limited rep., by, its Divisional D.O.2, lV Floor, Swapnalok Complex, S.D.Road, Secunderabad. 500 003. (R1- dismissed for default vide C.O. as 05.08.2009) ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made-in O.P.NO.1724 of 2003 dated. 16.09.2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lV Additional Metropolitan and Sessions Judge-cum- XVlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This app-eal 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. P RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the appellant and of SRl. J. SUNIL KUMAR, Counsel 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 by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,67,000/- to Rs.4,37,0001 which shall carry interest al7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

2. That the enhanced compensation amount be and hereby is apportioned to the petitioner No.1 , who is the husband of the deceased;

3. That the respondent No.1 & 2, who are owner and insurer respectively shall deposit the c-mpensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment;

4. That on such deposit, the claimants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount awarded to them subject to payment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount.

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be.no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,\\1 sEt-TloN oFFtcER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XVlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies pr E- I I I l I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 1710312025 DECREE MACMA.No.3324 of 2009 &pPeoL- rs ALLOWED t\rfa rQ- --q-utPu