The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This appeal arises out of an award passec. by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal Distri<:t and Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy, in MVOP.No. 416 r,f 2017 dated

25.O8.202t.

2. Appellants are the petitioners-claimants and tLe respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. For the sake of

convenience, the parties will be hereinafter refeled to as the petitioners and the respondents.

3. Petitioners have filed MVOP under Section 15 i ol the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4O,C0,000/- under different heacls along with interest at the rate of lt:"/o per annum against the respondents jointly and severally.

4. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, petitioner N c s.2 and 3 are ttre children of the Sapna Dhamane. On 07.O8.2O1'Z the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 along with Sapna Dhamane were cominl; from Nanded to Narayankhed on motor cycle bearing No.MH-26- i-7692 on the eve of Raksha Bandhan, which was driven by petitioner No.1 on a moderate\qeed. The deceased Sapna Dhamane rnd petitioner 2la BRMR, J MACMA.No.4l of 2022 Nos.2 and 3 were pillion riders. When they reached near the bus stop Naigav on Nanded-Hyderabad road at about 12.15 p.m., a truck bearing No.HR-55-T-9485 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit their motor cycle from behind, as a result, Sapna Dhamane fell down on the road and the wheel of the truck ran over her head, she received severe head injury, died on lhe spot. The deceased was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident (O7 .O8.2O171, hale and healthy, earning Rs.20,00O/- per month by doing househoid work and tailoring work and contributed her entire earnings for the welfare of her family. The petitioner No.1 has lost his companion and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lost their mother. A case in Crime No. i 3O of 2Ol7 rs registered at Naigav Police Station against the driver of the crime vehicle and prayed to grant compensation of Rs.4O,00,O0O/-.

5. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 was taken through paper publication and they were set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6. Respondent No.3-insurance Company filed counter and denied the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased and that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. As per section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is mandatory on the, part of I i 1 I I I I I 318 BRMR, J M ACMA.N,r.41 of 2022 respondent No.2 owner of the truck to furnish pa l iculars of the insurance policy and prayed to dismiss the sarne. 7 . The Tribunal based on the pleadings of t:r : parties has framed the folloq,ing issues: 1) Whether the death of deceased occurred in the mc or accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver rf the crime vehicle? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for comllt nsation as prayed for? If so, at what amount ald frorn whom? 3) To what result?

8. Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, examin' rd PW2 (Laxmi Raju Padalwar), got marked Exs.Al to A4. On behall of respondent No.3, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1-insurance poli:'' was marked. g. The Tribunal after considering the evidencc alduced by the petitioners and respondent No.3, has awarded i tn i:.mount of Rs. 12,12,400/- to the petitioners along with costs irnd interest at the rate of 7 .SYo per annum from the date of hlinli of the petition (22.O9 .2017\ till the date of realization.

10. Respondent Nos.l and 2 are not necessaF' parties to the appeal since they were set ex-parte before the Tribu rrzrl. 1 1. karned counsel for the appellants submits t:r lt the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was earning Rs.2O,OOO/- per ../ BRMR, J MACMA.No.4I of 2022 month being self employed as a tailor and was also looking after the entire family but has wrongly taken the income as Rs.6,0OO/- per month. Since the deceased was working as a tailor, the Tribunal should have granted atleast the minimum wages, prayed to set aside the impugned order and enhance the compensation.

12. karned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of deceased at Rs.6,0OO/- and passed justifiable ar.r,ard, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

13. Heard learned counsel and perused the record.

14. Now the point for consideration is: u.hether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of cornpensation, if so, to what amount?

15. There is no dispute with regard to the accident and the appeal is hled by the appellants-petitioners with regard to the quantum of compensation.

16. The age of the deceased is 28 years as per Ex.A3-inquest Panchanama. PWI who is the husband of the deceased deposed that his wife was haie and healthy and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing tailoring work apart from looking after the family and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle on O7.O8.2O17 and his wife died ,\ .lcsF ;l:rE Er.a1+E ,/ --4 s/8 BRMR, .J i 1{CMA f;o.41 of 2022 I I I on the spot, PW1 has lost his companion and hcr children havc Iost their mother 17 . The Tribunal has taken the income of r l u decr:ased as Rs.6,000/- per month as a house wife and part tirn3 tailc,r, added 4Oolo towards lL ture prospects which is arrived at Rs.S,4OO/ - [6,000 + 2,4OO], deducted 1/3.d towards personal c <penses which is arrived at Rs.5,600/- [8,400-2,800]. The annrri Ll income was arrived at Rs.67,200/, 15,600 x t2l and applied rr rltipli,:r at ,17' which has arrived at Rs.1 1,42,4OO/- and awarclc'l Rs.l5,OOO/- towards loss ol estate, Rs. 15,0OO/- tou,ards h r I rral ( xpensesr Rs.40,0OO/- torvards consortium of appellant No. I - retitioner No.l and arrived at a total compensation of Rs. 12,12,40(),

18. The income taken by the Tribunal at the rir r of Rs;.6,OOO/ per month oI the deceased is on lower side, as t r: acr:iclent has occurred on 07.O8.2017, this Court feels that if t}-e incorne of the deceased is taken at Rs. 1O,O00/- per month whir:Ir rvill nreet ends of justice. Further, the Tribunal has failed to ar rvard parental consortium to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. ln Natronal Insurance Company Limited V s praray Sethi 19 . case 1 the Supreme Court held that reasona b ic figures on conventional heads, namely, ioss of estate, loss o[ crnsortium and ' zorz 1ro1 scc sso BRMR, J MACMA.No.4l of 2022 ,'- ,ij}' El funera.l expenses should be enhanced at the rate of lOo/o in every three years. Accordingly, the craimants are entitled for Rs. rg,1s0/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1g,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.48,a00/ - each towards consortium. Compensation awarded by this Court Rs. 1O,OO0/- Rs. 1,20,000/ (I0,000 x 12) Rs. 1 ,68,0O0/ - |40% of 1,20,Oo0 48,000) + 1,20,000I Rs. 1,12,000/ - [ 1,68,00o- s6,000( 1 /3.d)] Rs.19,04,000/- (1, 12,000 x 17) Rs.18,150/ Rs.18,150/-

20. The computation is as under: Sl.No Name of the Head 1 2 Income (per month) Annual income Add 4OYo future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi,s caser) 4 5 6 7 8 9 torvards 1/3,a Ded personal expenses (as per Smt. Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 Multiplier'17' (as per Sarla Varma,s case, ) Loss of estate Funeral expenses Consortium to husband Parental Rs.48,4O0l- consortium to Rs.96,8O0/ - children Total compensation (Rs.48,4O0l- each) Rs.20,85,500/- ' lzoos; s scc tzt .;.f3P 718 I]RMR, J \4 \CMA.Nr) 4i of 2022 2l . Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9o/o per z llnun) as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali an1 C)thcrs vs Lokendra Rathod and others3.

22. In the result, MACMA.No.41 of 2022 is allou e-C in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanc:d as under a) b) The impugned award dated 25.O8.2O1) passed in MVOP.No. 416 ol 2017 , stands modified. The compensation awarded by the '-riburral i.e., Rs.i2,12,400/- is enhanced to Rs.20,85:o0/- logether with cosls and interest at the rate of 9o/o p'< r annum from the datc ol filing of the petition till pa1'menL. c) Appellant No.1 is entitled for Rs.6,25,65O7 - with cost and interest thereon and he is permitted Lo rvithclraw the entire tLmount. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 r-e er-rr-itled for Rs.7,2c),925/- each with cost and intercs-, as they are minors, their share amount shall be kept i'r hxerl deposiL in an1, Nationalized Bank till they t t -ain rnajority. Appellant No.1 is entitled to withdraw inle r :st part for the welfare of the children. d) The respondents are hereby directed t r deposit the awarded amount jointly and severaliy rv.t r intt rest ald 3 2022 scc online sc 1683 BRMR, J MACMA.No.4l of 2022 11 ::$ costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a sequel miscellaneous application/ applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// E TION OFFICER To, Medak At Sangareddy.

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl District and Sessions judge 2. One CC to SRl. R VINOD REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies GE Y4.. \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812025 J1a1(t:,.-:, 815 ,\ t tt1 JUDGMENT h MACMA.No.41 ot 2O22 .i\ -^ i-*,.,- '-l:-(I ' .: 'q...: -..-i-._. _ - I i i i i I PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

6.{d w raSEr IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD [3448]' FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:. 41 OF 2022 Between:

1. Dileep Maroti Dhamane S/o Maroti Dhamane, R/o H.No. 176, Gopal Chowdi, Nanded, now Narayankhed Mandal, Sangareddy District. Ag R ed 33 Years, Occ Business /o H.No.1-'lzi, Jukal village,

2. Kum. Vaishnavi Dileep Dhamane, D/o Dileep Dhamane, Aged about 4 1/2 Years. R/o H.No. '176, Gopal Chowdi, Nanded, now R/o H.No.1-14,Jukat village, Narayankhed Mandal, Sangareddy District.

3. Kum. Viabhavi Dileep Rao Dhamane, D/o Dileep Dhamane, aged about'1 1/2 years. R/o H.No. 176, Gopal Chowdi, Nanded, now R/o H.No.1-'14,Jukal village, Narayankhed Mandal, Sangareddy District. (Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are minors under guardianship of their natural father Dileep Maroti Dhamane Claimant No. 1) ...APPELLANTS/PETITTONERS AND

1. lrfan Sio Esha Mohd Aged Major, Occ Driver, R/o H. No.8, Delhi-Jaipur Road near Sabzi mandi, N.S.G.Camp, Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana State - 122 050.

2. SPX Logistics, Owner of truck bearing No HR 55 T 9485/ R/o H.No.B,Delhi- Jaipur Road near Sabzi mandi, N.S.G.Camp, Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana State-'l22 050.

3. M/s IFFCO TOKIO General lnsurance Company Limited, through its Manager 608 and 609, 6th Floor, Block 2, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section '173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 25-08-2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 416 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl District and Sessions judge Medak At Sangareddy. 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 case and upon hearing the argument of SRl. R. VINOD ItEDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent l,lo 1 & 2 and SRI A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate appeared for Responde,rt No.3 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby partly Allowed.

2. That the compensation awarded be and is h€,r,lby enhanced from Rs.12,12,4001- to Rs.20,85,5001 together with costs : rd interest at the rate of 9olo per annum from the date of filing of the petition til payment.

3. That the Appellant No.1 be and is hereby entitled for Fs.6,25,650/- with cost and interest thereon and he is permitted to withdraw tf e entrre amount.

4. That the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are hereby €ntitled frrr Rs ,2,29,9251 each with cost and interest, as they are minors, their share a'nount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till they attain na jority.

5. That the Appellant No.1 be and is hereby entitled to witrdraw interest part for the welfare of the children.

6. That the respondents are hereby directed to depost the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the € mounl already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of rec:ipt of a copy of this judgment.

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal lfirue Copyll SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL OEPUTY REGISTRAR t', \ \f ri\ \ SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - ll Additional District Judge, 2. Two CD Copies. Karimnagar at Jagtia. GE/psl w HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.41 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COS 'S urt*tb Yv.o ^^B',