The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is liled by the lnsurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated L3.O5.2O21 in M.V.O.P.No.3l of 2OL6 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal") .

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

07.10.2015 at about 3:4O p.ffi., the deceased along with her mother boarded TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-292-2270 in order to go to Nalgonda for her mother's medical checkup and when the bus was proceeding on the left side of the road, one Lorry bearing No.HR-38S-6833, coming from Ramannapet, proceeding towards Bhongir, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-292-227O in the opposite direction, as a result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.8,00,OOOl-.

4. The respondent Nos.l and 3 remained ex-parte. 2 ETD,J MACMA No.742_2021 i '..l

5. Respondent No.3-lnsurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver, owner and insurer of the TSRTC bearing No.AP-292-2270 are also necessary parties to the proceedings and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the said parties. It is further contended that the lorry driver does not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. Thus, rheir company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1 Whether Sged Sadiga Begum D/o Syed Khader,.2o gears old, died in the matar uehicle arcident occurred on 07.1O.2O15 at about 3:45 a.m., at the outskirts of 'fhummalagudem uillage of Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda Di-strict due to rash and. negligent driuing of the driuer of the Lorry beartng No.HR-385-6822?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, frorn uhom?

3. To what relief and costs?

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined pws I and, 2 and got marked Exs.Pl to P8. on behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has aw,arded a compensation of Rs.6,15,ooo/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. .1;' .1 _). - 3 ETD,J MACMA No.742_2027

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Purushotham Rao, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri A. Narender Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the bus driver also contributed to the accident as he was rash and negligent in his driving. He further argued that the driver of the offending lorry was charged under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per Ex.PS and that he was under the influence of alcohol, as such, the accident occurred due to the impact of alcohol and not due to the rash and negligence. He lurther argued that since the terms and conditions of the policy are violated, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further argued that the deceased was a bachelor and there was no proof of income filed before the Tribunal and that the deceased is not entitled for 25o/o of. addition with regard to the future prospects and that the Tribunal has granted huge amounts under various heads towards compensation'. He further argued that the calculation done by the Tribunal is wrong and that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very high @ l2%. Thus, prayed to reduce the compensation and also the rate of interest. 5b J,"tt- 4 ETD,J MACMA No.742_202I ! ! 1 1. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that there is no contributory negligence on part of the bus driver as it was going at a very low speed and the same is deposed by Pw2 in his evidence. He further argued that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,o oo /- per month, which is very low and thus, cannot be reduced any further. He further argued that the deceased was aged 23 years and hence, 4ooh addition towards future prospects has to be taken, but the Tribunal has awarded only 2soh. He therefore, prayed to enhance the same and further has argued that even in the absence of any appeal filed by them, they are entitled to enhancement of compensation by virtue of the principles laid down by this High Court and the Apex Court.

12. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

4. whether there utas ang contributory negligence on part of the diuer of tLrc ISRTC bus bearing wi.ip-Zgz-227o in the occulTence of the accident? whether the compensation granted bg *rc Tibunat is yust and req.sonable? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need. any interference ? To what relief ? 5 ETD,J MACMA No 742_2021

13. Point No.L: a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that there is contributory negligence on part of the driver of the TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-292-227 O. b) On behalf of the respondents RWl was examined, but admittedly he is not an eye witness to the accident. However, the crime record i.e., charge sheet under Ex.AS reveals that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the lorry driver, and that the lorry driver under intoxication has not taken any precautions under Section 304 Part-ll, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. There is no whisper about the negligence of the driver of the RTC Bus. c) PW2 is examined as an eye witness in this case. He was a passenger in the bus. She stated that since she was the passenger in the bus, she has witnessed the accident and that it occurred due to the rash and negligence of the lorry driver. d) In her cross examination nothing material was elicited to dislodge her evidence. Therefore, as per the evidence of PW2 coupled with charge sheet under Ex.AS, it is held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the lorry driver and that there was no contributory negligence of the bus driver. 6 ETD,J MACMA No.742_2O2L .l Point No.1 is answered accordingly. L4. Point No.2:- a) PWl is the father of the deceased. His contention is that his daughter was pursuing her education and at the same time she used to take tuitions and earn Rs.8,00o/- per month. In support of his contention he has liled Ex.A6 and A7. Ex.A6/ssc certificate and Ex.A7/Study certificate, Ex.A8/Transfer certificate. Ex.A6 is the ssc Memo showing that the deceased passed ssc compartmentally and the Study certificate of the deceased under Ex.A7 shows that she studied vIII to xth in zilra parishad High school and Ex.A8 is the Transfer certificate issued by the School Authorities. Therefore, it is elicited that the deieased studied up to x class. Though, PWl stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.8,0oo/- per month from tuition, considering her certificates under Ex.A6 and A7, on a reasonable hypothesis, the Tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.4,0oo/- and the same appears to be justified. b) As per the dicta laid down in Nationar rnsurance cornpang Limited vs. Pranag sethi & othersl,4oyo of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 23 ' ntR 2017 scc 5is7 7 ETD,J MACMA No.742_202t years, adding 4oo/o towards future prospects i.e., 40oo+1600 would give Rs.56OOl- per month, which comes to Rs.5,6O0/- x !2 = Rs.67,2OO /- per annum. c) The number of claimants herein are two and therefore, r/3.d deduction need to be made to her income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.44,8OO/- (Rs.67,2OO/- (-l Rs.22,4OO l-1. e) The Post Mortem Examination Report filed under Ex.p3 reveals the age of the deceased as '23 years. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the deceased being aged '23' years, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.8,O6,4o,0 l - (Rs.44,8O0 x 18). In the light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs.15OO0/- towards loss 0 of estate and Rs.15,0O0/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,00O/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by lOYo every three years. r 2otq(6) scc t2l \:i 8 ETD,J MACMA No.742_2027 g) In Magma General Insurance Compang Limited a. Nanu Ram @ Chuhnt Ram and otherss, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranag sethi's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,800/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. h) Thus the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,39,5OOl- as compensation while tribunal has granted Rs.6,1S,00O/-. i) The present appeal is preferred by the Insurance company and there is no appeal or cross objection fited by the claimants. i) Now the question is whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of any cross appeal by the claimants. k) In sanobanu Nazirbho,i Mirza and ors. vs. Ahmedabad. Municipal rransport sentic/, the claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased liled a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,51,3oo/- along with interest Q=etowards compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment the l izors; 18 scc lio '1zor:; 16 scc 7te 9 ETD,J MACMA No.742_2021 respondents has Iiled an Appeal before the High Court and the High Court has partly allowed the Appeal of the respondent and reduced the compensation to Rs.2,51,80O/-. Being aggrieved by this Judgment, the legal representatives of the deceased liled Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has awarded the compensation more than that claimed by the petitioners and further has held that, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony. It has further held that without a claimants appeal also, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation. l) Similarly, in Surekha qnd Ors. Vs. Santosh cnd Orss, the claimants case was allowed by the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.40,17,6021-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has filed an appeal' before the High Court wherein, the High Court has held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.49,15,3761-, but has held that the High Court cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal and cannot enhance the compensation more than that awarded by the Tribunal, in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. However, the appeal preferred by the \-- Insurance Company claiming reduction of compensation was t lzozt) r66 scc 467 10 ETD,J MACMA No.742_2OZL ! dismissed. when the matter reached Apex court, it has held that in the matters of Motor Accident claims, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the claimants. By holding So, the Apex court has modified the order passed by the High court to the effect that the compensation amount payable to the appellants is determined as Rs.49,85,3761- with interest thereon as awarded by the High Court. m) rn Andhra Pradesh state Road Transport vs. rhtsari Pramila and Anothef , the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,0o,0oo/- and aggrieved by the same, the Insurance company has preferred an appeal before this High court. It was held that even in the absence of cross Appeal or cross objection filed by the respondents, it is pertinent to consider the jurisdiction of this court to grant just compensation and has enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,OO,OOO/- to Rs.lS,g2,600l- with an interest of 60/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. n) Applying the above cited decisions, compensation is enhanced in the present case, though the claimants have not Iiled any appeal or cross objections. u MACMA.No.g8 of 2ol4 11 ETD,J MACMA No.742_2021 o) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compenqation amounts: -

1. 2-

4. Compensation under the head ofloss ofdependency Compensation towards loss of consortium to the pet!t!oner Compensation towards loss of estate Compensation towards funeral expenses Total Rs.8,06,4OOl- Rs.96,8OO/- Rs.18,15O/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.9,39,5OO/- p) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.9,39,5OOl- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,15,000/-. Thus, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly. i5. POINT NO.3: In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 ar.d 2, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,39,5OOl- from that of Rs.6,15,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of L2%o on the quantum of compensation and the contention of the appellant counsel is that it is too high. b) In Jadau Saroja Bo;i Versus Ghule Nqga Rao and AnotherT; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted ' 2o2z SCC online TS 606 L2 ETD,J MACMA No.742_2021 interest @ 7.5o/o per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. c) ln Bandaoath Mangla and Another versus Bandauath suresh and otherss and Nationo,l Insurance compang Limited. Versus. M. Venkateswatttlu and Otherse; also interest @ 7.So/o per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation. d) In united rnsurance compang Limited versus. Bollam Lingaiahror' when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9%o per annum, the High court has modified the rate of interest to

7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. e) A Division Bench of this High court in No:tional rnsurance compang Limited versus Jagadish prajapathilt; has granted

7.5 o/o per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this court 0 has been consistently granting interest @ z.so/o on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. g) Hence the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of T.5o/o. t z0z: scc ontine TS 1095 ' zoz: scc Online TS I l70 'o 2024 SCC online TS 915 l"2oz+ SCC online TS 2050 ;, It T x t : . 13 ETD,J MACMA No.742_2027 Point No.3 is answered accordingly

16. POINT 4: In the result, the appeal is disposed off, modifying the order and Decree dated 13.os.2o21 in M.v.o.p.No.3 I of 2016 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, by reducing the rate of interest from t2%o to z.so/o per annum from the date of claim petition tirL realization. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.6,1s,000/- to g,3g,soo l- However, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The respondents-claimants shall pay the delicit court fee. The appellant-lnsurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. on such deposit, the respondents-claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. /TRUE CoPYil 'r ASS|STANT R9FISTRAR I G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, MACT-cum-principar District Judge, Nargonda 2. ONE CC tO SRI G PURUSHOTHAM RAO AdVOCAIC [OPUC] 3. one cc to sRr ANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate [opUC] 4 rwo cD copies f,), Z GR/PSL i I I I t HIGH COURT DATED i0410712025 JUDGMENT MAGMA.No.742 of 2021 HE \ t () t'i uLt, 'tt[: * -{- DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS V IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Between: ttl/s United lndia lnsurance Company Manager, Divisional Office (TP HUB) Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad - 500 Limited, Represented by the Divisional Posnet Bliavan, 2nd Floor, P.8.No.144, 007 ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND

1. Syed Khadar, s/o sahaida Janu, Aged about 40 years, occ Business 2. Syed Julekha Begum, Wo Khadar, Aged about 39 years, Occ House-hold (Both are R/o Thummalagudem Village, Ramqllapet Mandal, Nalgonda District, presently residing at Manyamchalka, Nalgonda Town) ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT No. 1 & 2

3. Laluram Sharma, S/o Karanlal, Aged about 35 years, Occ Driver of Lorry bearing No.HR-38-S-6833 R/o Kandela, Bhandra Taluk, Mathura Uttar Pradesh -281 001 ... ..RESPONDENT/DRIVER OF THE LORRY/R3

4. Mr. Vinay Kumar Tomar, S/o S.H.Satyavir ]omaL Ag5:d^Not known, o.cc Owner oi Lorry bearing No.HR-38-S-6883 R/o 1/C, 37, Chandanvan, lVlathura, Uttar Pradesh - 281 001 ...RESPONDENT'OWNER OF THE LORRY/R4 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act a.gainst the Judgment-and Oecr66 in M.V.O.p. No. 31 of 2016 dated 13.05.2021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Prl. District Judge at Nalgonda. The appeal coming on hearing and upon perusing the grounds of 1Op9^a! the Judgmeni'and Decred of the Court below and the materlql pgge5 in the MVOP and updn hearing the arguments of SRI G PURUSHOTHAM RAO, Advocate for the A[pellant and- of SUiRNNAPURNA SREERAM, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1&2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows' 1. rhat the l\I.otor Accident civil tr/l':::'!18:'r'#Xi3i?:"'Ulr8i:'q, :f l;i;3?3 ;x;sillrr'','ry".:',::'f&iq..............?!"{:f;g# Ilpa,.fllrit"B':T,[',,',rf:"il [r"foonO"'by'reducing the..rate t to Rs e'3e'500/- tt:[:'1,' 2 it:','l'Lnx;:'lu,.,i"11'i3^xi!:l.ed from B'. 9:15'e00/- 5 r h at h owe,",' ii' "l ^i"'"'ito' d: ffi [t i: i{^t"Hr J,i:l,li v e,+n:iH:'"",:{r1*ill'{1,:'ft:^^T"",Tsiii[i$il;i*z"g.ti":1"+*S"8iililq b ad ro u rl F"#,r t"3,l::"1$: 1ll, H]8.ffi i;;i#'"s6i; "i months trom ine date of ,"""ipiit'r-.op,-ot the il;g"mJi atier deducting the are entitred to withdraw the flS'o:T,i:'t;i,n" rribunal shall stands confirmed . +Ul*i:*X *"r:11,:i,q?l!Sondents-craimants ,r,o-*ornt *il[5'ifurnishins 7. That save as aforementioned' t in all other resPects; and 8. That there snait oe no order as to costs in this appeal' tl rz'i'# n i n vo e : " . Sd,. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ndsiSraNr REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER /TRUE COPY,/ To, GR 1 TheChairman,[t/IACT-cum-PrincipalDistrictJudge,Nalgonda,

2. Two CD CoPies ! HIGH COURT DATED t041A712025 DECREE MACMA.No.742 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ u..-