Company relied upon the judgment passed by Honble Supreme Court in Ramqchandrappa v. Manager' Rogal Sundrrrann Alliance Insurance Compang Limitedl, wherein the Apex C

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay theexecutionofthedecreeandjudgmentdated.,t6.0g.202lpassedinMVo-P. No.ST2of2olTonthefileofMotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-lAdditional District Judge at Khammam' Counsel for the Appellant : SRI' KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI SRINIVASA RAO VEERAMACHANENI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT - ,/ I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.757 0F 2021 JUDGMENTI This appeal is hled by the Insurance Compan5,, aggrieved by the Order rind Decree dated 16.09.2O2 1 in M.V.O.P.No.872 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, at Khammam (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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

25.O3.2077, the deceased-Hetchu Rama Rao went to attend the coolie work at Khammam and after completion of the work he was returning to Kotha Linganna in an auto bearing No. TS-04- UA-O572 and when he reached Manchukonda outskirts, the driver of the Auto drove the same at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrians Gundeti Sitaramulu, Karumanchi Pullaiah and that he lost control arrd dashed against a tree, as a result the deceased who was sitting in the auto sr"rstained grievous injuries to head, hands, Iegs arrd other parts of the body and the other occupants of the auto also sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the Govern-ment Hospital, Khammam and after giving lirst aid, as 2 ETD,I MACMA No.757 2021 the condition of the deceased was serious, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and that on 26.03.2017 at 2.3O p.m the deceased died while undergoing treatment. The parents and children of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.15,OO,0O0/-.

4. Owner of the auto remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. The Insurance Company has fi1ed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition regarding occurrence of the accident, the age, income and avocation of the deceased and further contended that the auto driver did not have valid driving license at the tirne of accident and tiat the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1 2 3 wlLetler the deceased-Hetchu R.7ma Rao died due to th.e injuies sustained in the Motor Vehicle accid.ent on 25.O3.2O17 due to ro.sh and negligent drtuing of the diver of the auta bearing No.Ts-o4-UA' 0572? Whether the petitioners are entitl.ed to cldim cofiTpensqtion amount rDith subsequent interest ds cktined for fron the respondent Nos- 1 and 2? To uh.at relief ?

7. To prove their case, claimants got examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A. 1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced I 3 ETO,] MACMA No.757 2021

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 15,93,O00/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order and decree dated 16.O9.2021, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurarrce Company and Sri Srinivasa Rao. V and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for ttte respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount and has grarrted more compensation than that claimed by the petitiorrers. He further submitted that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 1O,000/- in the absence of any evidence and also taken wrong multiplier and thus awarded huge amount towards compensation and prayed to reduce the cornpensation which is granted by the Tribunal. 1 1 . karned counsel for the respondents-clairnants submitted that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be very low as Rs.10,000/- per month and that claimants are entifled for more compensation, though they have not filed any cross objections and thus prayed to enhance the quantum of compensation granted by tJle Tribunal. / 4 ETD,J MACMA No.757 2021

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

1. Wl@ther the quantum oJ ampensation granted bV the Tribural is ju-st and reasonable?

2. wlether the Order and Decree passed bg the Tibunal need ang interference? 3. To uhat relieJ? i3. Point No.1:- a) It is asserted by P.W. 1 that the deceased used to work as Hamali and that he used to earn Rs.500/- per day but no proof was submitted in this regard. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment passed by Honble Supreme Court in Ramqchandrappa Vs. Manager' Rogal Sundrrrann Alliance Insurance Compang Limitedl, wherein the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken. b) Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants relied upon the judgment of Hon'lcle Supreme Court in nKunta Deui & Ors u. Bhura Ra:m & Anr.4 wherein it was held as follows: "The MACT, at the first instance, while considering the claim, has reckoned the income of the deceased at Rs.4,OOO/- per month in the absence of evidence to establish the same. Ttre High Court has reckoned it at Rs.6,000/- per month. In a matter where there can be no serious dispu[e with regard to the avocation of ttre tlzott; rz scc zlo '?z0Z3 raw Suit iSC; tZtS I I ETD,] MACMA No.757-2021 deceased being a carpenter, who was undertaking tht: carpentry work in another State, we deem it appropriate that even in the year 2O09, when the accident had taken place, it would be reasonable to reckon the daily income of the deceased at Rs.4OO/-. If the same is done, the monthly it.r<:ome of the deceased could be .taken at Rs.12,OO0/-. 4Oo/o of the said amount i.e. Rs.4.8O0/- is to be added towards future prospects.,, c) In the present case, the deceased is stated to be a Hamali. No proof can be expected in this regard. But it is borne out by record that the deceased was an able bodied person aged 4T years and was running a family of four (04) members. Thus on a reasonable hypothesis a.rld in view of the judgment placed by learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, this Court is of the opinion that income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal as Rs.1O,0O0 l- per month appears to be justified. The post_ mortem report under Ex.A.3 discloses the age of the deceased as 47 years and thus the appropriate multiplier is ,13 as per ..Sarla Verma u. Delhi Transport Corporation3.,, The Tribunal has considered the principles iaid down il ..Nationa I Insurance Compang Limited Vs, Pranag Setht & Othersa, assessed the compensation under various heads and has awarded an amount of Rs.15,93,000/- and hence this Court is of th'e considered r zooo 1oi scc tz I ' atn 20 t7 scc 5 1s7 , I 6 ETD,J MACMA No,757_2021 opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the amount granted by the Tribunal as the same is found to be just and reasonable. Hence Point No. 1 is answered accordingly. L4. Point No.2:- In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal do not need any interference and therefore, the same is upheld.

15. Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed uphoiding the Order and Decree dated 16.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.B72 of 2Ol7 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, at Khammam. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, 1n this appeal, sha-l1 stand closed. /ITRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR D ECTION OFFICER Judge at Khammam (With Records) '1 . The Chairman' Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- um-l Additional District 2. One CC to Sri Kondadi Vijay ivasa Rao 3. One CC to Sri S nn 4. Two CD CoPies Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) Veeramachineni , Advocate (oPUC) Ks/gh f* \ To, HIGH COURT DATED:28103'12025 JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.757 of 2O21 IHE S ( 6 rJ 2 0 JUN 2025 .P ::7 * :1 *: I I I L Dismissing the M.A.C.M'A Without costs. (u ffi>:-- { I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.No. 757 OF 2021 Between: IFFICO-TOKIO General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch ftilanager, Branch Office 8-3- 20111, lst Floor, Veeraiah Chowdary Complex, Wyra Road, Khammam. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

1. Hetchu Bhadraiah S/o Gopaiah, 2. Hetchu It/uthamma, Wo Bhadraiah, 3. Hetchu Sai Kumar, S/o Rama Rao, 4. Hetchu Kavya, D/o Rama Rao, All are R/o Kotha Lingala Village, Kamepally Mandal, Khammam District ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 5 Siripangi NAgamani, Wo Srinu, Age. [/ajor, Occ. Owner Auto bearing No. TS-O4-UA- OSiZRlo H.No. 1-152lA, Barlagudem, Kamepally lvlandal, Khammam District. _ ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.l Appeal U/s 173 of M.V.Act against the Judgment and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.872 ot 2017 dated 16.09.2021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge at Khammam. ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Srinivasa Rao Veeramachineni, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That the Order and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cuml Additional District Judge, at Khammam passed in M.V.O.P.No.872 ot 20'17 dated 16.09.2021 is upheld. 3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge at Khammam. 2. Two CD Copies \w HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 DECREE MACMA.No.T'57 ot 2021 Dismissing the M.A.C.M.A Without cosl,s. ?A- rffiL"'